freedom/constraint as reflection of reality

7 downloads 0 Views 858KB Size Report
simultaneity, paradox, such as: matter-idea, physical-metaphysical, or transcendental-non transcendental. Things are not at all complicated, especially if you ...
UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

Tudor Păroiu

FREEDOM/CONSTRAINT AS REFLECTION OF REALITY

From the cycle: Reality and its conventional reflection

1

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

My dear readers, this book is and will continue to remain forever the effect of our existence beyond our self – existence.

2

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

Proofreading belongs to the author.

© 2011, The author. All rights reserved. This book is protected by copyright. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including photocopying or utilised any information storage and retrieval system without written permision from the copyright owner.

3

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

INTRODUCTION INTO THE UNCONVENTIONAL OR THINKING EXERCISE The theist: In the beginning was the Word. The atheist: At the beginning, there was the convention. The theist: God created everything. The atheist: everything is a paradox for us, whereas for the universe, the paradox is a normality. The thinking exercise is a primary wish to introduce you, by means of several pages into a new philosophy (a new philosophical system), that starts from classical notions, such as matter, idea, metaphysics, transcendental, to turn afterwards into simultaneity, paradox, such as: matter-idea, physical-metaphysical, or transcendental-non transcendental. Things are not at all complicated, especially if you consider this theory from the very beginning as a general case, while man and mankind remain particular cases, that are defined by general notions. You must not be tempted to believe that we or mankind are the only philosophy generators, (that we are the only ones that reflect reality and that the atoms reflect the reality of the universe), or that the notion of individual only refers to people; in this philosphy, any form of existence (entity) is both an individual and a group. As we are not able to assimilate the notion of (group 4

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

individual), we conventionalize it sometimes as individual, other times as group, to make ourselves understood by one another and because our language is limited by our own form of existence to the notion of convention. Let us redefine convention: convention represents an entity of effect, whose elements, such as limits, elements of equilibrium, elements of comparison, the domain of definition, are limited (finite), on the transformation/space/time simultaneity. In actual terms, nothing is limited, or more precisely, it is both limited and unlimited at the same time, limited as conventional unit and unlimited as reality. To be more specific, any sign, idea, entity (both as entity and sum of universal constituent entities), any image or feeling, or dream transposed into ideas, words, etc., are conventions. They result from the reflection of reality by means of something (feeling, sense, intuition, thinking, etc.), something that belongs to the spirit of the entity (man, in particular). At the same time, nonconvention is an entity of effect, whose elements such as limits, elements of equilibrium, elements of comparison, domain of definition are infinitely unlimited on the space/time simultaneity. Any paradox is unconventional. Any reality is unconventional. Any reality is a finite/infinite or conventional/unconventional. The trees, flowers, or plants do have their 5

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

language. If we cannot understand it, it is not their fault. Our limit is to be held responsible for this. You have your own philosophy, the primitive man had his own philosophy in his turn. If they do not understand you, or if I myself do not understand you, then the primitive, I myself, or you have one or several limits of human comprehension, or spiritual limits (sensitive, intuitive, sentimental, etc.). This philosophy tries to offer an answer to the conventional, simple, human questions, even to the so-called unanswerable questions, such as: should I ask myself if I exist when I do not exist, what is it that lies beyond God, what lies beyond Kant’s transcendental, or which is more important, the matter or the idea, etc.? Neither man, nor the plants, or the universe could formulate a conventional answer to these questions. This is similar to the search of the absolute freedom, or of the absolute, universal truth. According to a simple saying, if you cannot find something, search for it right beside you, or if you get into a tangle, you just start afresh. We would add with respect to this answers: “search for God inside you, as well, not only outside you,” because you are also part of it. Just think for a second that the primitive man discovered “God” in order to determine his limits, while the primitive atheist generated a convention, “the infinite”(the unlimited). They have both conventionalized a limit that cannot be surpassed, 6

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

one within the atheism and the other in the atheistic human thinking. Going beyond these limits brings about two different things: the theist is associated with “a man without God,” and the atheist with a universe without limits, a boundless universe, which would lead to a state of madness, or as we will explain later, to the transition into another form of organization. Let us try to understand together which are the incomprehensible things and why, as well as the fact that both the question and the answer are simultaneous. We cannot reflect their simultaneity, we can only conventionalize separately the answer from the question. We sometimes reflect the answer first, (as we can sometimes notice in Heidegger’s works). Other times, we reflect over the question first, some other times we cannot ask the question, when we want to ask ourselves if we exist, when we do not exist. There are cases when there is no answer, however, the answer and the question are simultaneous. An example when the answer precedes the question is the reflection of the so-called reality, or of the universe around us. We are first brought into the world and afterwards we ask questions. The question does exist, but we cannot ask anymore, when we stop to exist, as both the questions and the answers are related to the system of coordinates, where we can ask questions or not and where there are answers or not. We would ask you, our readers, 7

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

do you think there is matter in the absence of the idea and an idea in the absence of the matter? This would mean to ask nothingness to emit ideas, which would be a joke, or to ask somebody if he or she liked the food, after they passed away. There is nothing beyond God or beyond the infinite. However, could we form a true notion of what there is? This philosophical system can be applied to any form of existence (entity) or nonexistence (entity). The more exceptions you find, the more complete the system will become, just like a paradox. We will try throughout the book to make things clear by particular examples, examples that are part of us, or of the philosophy of each of us, (all the philosophical systems, including the individual ones, are particular cases that integrated into the general sphere of this philosophy tend towards an unconventional philosophy, (more precisely, conventional/unconventional), similar to the most important philosophies of our human universe, all of them being a constituent part of this conventional/unconventional. We hope you will easily notice throughout the book your own relations to the universality, to your own universal existence, (which is also a philosophy, a particular case of the conventional/unconventional one) or of the other entities around, towards whom we cancel now the superiority assumed in the course of time by the strictly human philosophies. You will also 8

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

notice a total overlapping of one’s own system of philosophy into the conventional/unconventional system, where all the individual elements that you suspected to be superior or inferior to other elements, are related to the new philosophy. An example in both the conventional/unconventional and within the conventional, according to the new philosophy “freedom/constraint is the right of the form of existence (entity) to the conventional/unconventional (reality),” a formula valid in the case of each individual, (no matter whether we have to do with a human being, plant, animal, or atom, etc.) or group, (planet, human being, mankind, atom, etc.). It is one’s own right to be conventional/unconventional (the conventional is the opposite of the unconventional and the unconventional of the unconventional), one’s own right not to obey or, on the contary obey the conventions, more precisely, “man’s right to the conventional/unconventional.” This cannot be compared to the classical notion of freedom, (that makes strict reference to the notion of freedom, neglecting the constraint, in the absence of which the notion of freedom cannot exist), that stands for “man’s right to do something in accordance with his consciousness,” or “the right to do anything we want, without bothering the other people around us.” These formulae adhere to the conventional/unconventional right, but they refer strictly to the man (to a certain man) and disregard 9

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

the constraint or the concentrationary space of Steinhardt, being then conditioned by the others. There are also exceptions, which means that the freedom without constraint is meaningless. We would ask you in these cases how your freedom is like in a concentrationary space of any type, how it feels like to be free in the conditions inposed by the others or by a system, or even by your lack of will? How does the freedom of a criminal, pedophile, or homosexual look like? Don’t you find logical the right to nonconvention, in which case, if we take into account the individual and the group, things become clear? In other words, both your freedom as individual and your freedom as element of a group or of a system, moreover, your right to the conventional/nonconventional must be related to the constraint, more exactly, to the freedom/constraint. It is your right to the conventional/unconventional, as for some of us, freedom is a disaster, whereas for some others, constraint is happiness, for the same entity at different moments. We have made things clear as far as the simplicity of the freedom/constraint as a general formula is concerned. The details represent the most particular of all the particular notions and they depend on each form of organization, (entity, as this does not include only the human being). It has been only an example, not completely elucidated, but let us have one more example 10

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

related to the following question: can you ask yourself if you still exist when you actually do not exist anymore? In our language and our power of comprehension, the question becomes absurd, in the conventional, because the question is asked by your existing spirit, but we want an answer of the spirit belonging to the form of existence, that is the answer of another spirit. It is as if you asked me what I ate, but you want the flowers and the dog to answer you. This is not correct, as, if you ask me if I am going to exist and you want me to answer, whatever the answer, it exists, but do not ask me what another spirit will answer. Matter in the absence of spirit cannot ask itself questions or give answers, as both the spirit and the existence are simultaneous. If matter is characterized by continuity, persistency, then the spirit has steadiness. In other terms, existence has regularity, turning from one form into another and reflecting our anterior existence. The spirit transforms, but it cannot reflect our anterior existence. From the conventional point of view, there is no identity in the universe. There is only the unconventional universe itself, but without the possibility to reflect this property. In the context of this theory, existence must not be understood as matter, (particular case), it represents everything there is and it does not exist at the same time. The void also exists as long as it has effects, similar to God. It would be a big mistake 11

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

not to take into consideration the effects of their existence. Where should we include the transcendental, or Kant’s metaphysics? This would be a big mistake, both for the existence and the spirit. The spirit must not be understood as a separate entity of the spirit and existence. They are simultaneous and inseparable, similar to yourself and your spirit. It is an entity of the existence of each entity rendered by the simultaneity thinking/memory/instinct/sentiment/intuition/feelin g, with the mention that the spirit in the case of an entity is both conscious and unconscious at the same time. All these elements are infinite in size, (a small infinite, limited by the existence of the respective entity) from the negative to the positive. As you can notice, none of these elements represents something material. They are just properties that define the spirit. In order to get closer to this philosophy and understand it, let us imagine the six elements as six qualities and flaws at the same time, (simultaneity quality/defect), that each of us perceives sometimes as qualities, some other times as defects, (we cannot perceive them simultaneously), according to the circumstances, to the interior or exterior conditions. Although we do not notice them, they do exist in everybody and everything. Their conventional emphasis is different from man to man or from one existence to another, from one entity to another. As Brâncuşi himself sustained, he 12

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

does not create the beautiful, he just removes the material, in order to emphasize the beautiful. This is similar to philosophy, we do not invent, we are not creators, we are just the ones that transform and reflect existence, we are discoverers, we are not creators. Only God is a creator, in His diverse forms for the theists, whereas the unconventional universe is a creator for the atheists. Not even the conventional universe or the intuitive/conventional is a creator. This conventional universe belongs to some forms of existence, (particular cases: man, nature, animals, planets, etc.), both conventional and intuitive/conventional. We are not going to get into details. We would just like to obtain a closeness to ourselves, as individual and group at the same time, closer to each of us. These represent particular cases, so particular that we are unique in the universe (uniqueness being only the possibility of the universe, that, paradoxically, is unique and multiple simultaneously, similar to us). We are made up of unique forms of existence. There are not two identical atoms in the universe, at least their space and time, as well as their form are different. Moreover, they are not to be found in a perfect void. The parameters between and around them are different from one atom to the other. Two iron atoms come from two different human beings, from different organs, trees, flowers, or planets). We are 13

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

the atom that constitutes the molecule, the organs, that forms man and mankind, the initial atom a system is part of. We must adapt this theory to your own theory, to find out the fundamental or less fundamental differences and similitudes of your own existence (convention) and the ones described by ourselves throughout the paper, as well as others, in order to realize that we are on the same wavelength, except that your particularity is certainly unique, similar to that of any entity in the universe. We must pay attention to the transformations if we associate man’s transformation to something else, (another form of existence, entity) to the paradox, (birth or death), to the transition of the atom into the molecule, of the molecules into the human being, or of the matter into the field and vice versa. The conventional reflection of our spirit according to our own existence is a paradox. Does this mean that the human spirit is selfish, while the unconventional spirit is not? Generosity and selfishness are simultaneous. However, do the trees and flowers also have a selfish spirit? The fact that we cannot notice it does not mean that it does not exist. Any house is invaded by grass and all kind of beings, even when man lives in it. Isn’t this the instinct of grass and beings? Why do we think that the harvest, the seed, going to the moon, the art of any kind, or each second of your life are not a paradox, as long 14

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

as we know that the numberless diseases, viruses, human enemies or of another universal type surround us all the time? The Romanian language has formed over 2000 years and although it has infinite versions (as form, as spirit, as existence), it will disappear together with us. Any word, rule and anyone contains a simultaneity that is not only conventional. We are talking about that simultaneity between the entity, (conventional) and the infinitely small particles, (unconventional, that lie at the basis of the universe), the simultaneity between the individual and the group in the universe. Such as there is nothing less paradoxical than us or the atom within us, or than Kant’s transcendental, so there is nothing less paradoxical than our uniqueness in the universe (infinitely infinite), or of any entity, as good, bad, ugly or beautiful. We are the only ones that conventionally make an evaluation of these things, each in his or her specific way, establishing points of equilibrium (zero, or relative beginnings, we leave from and come back to, elements of comparison, (one, the second, money, etc.), which are also relative. All these allow us to measure the convention itself, (the measurement of such notions as the good, the bad, the beautiful, the ugly, the normal, the paranormal, etc.), but also for a domain of definition, which is also relative, varying from the negative to the positive on an infinite, that we call small infinite, because, 15

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

although it is infinite, it is limited by the existence of the respective entity, the physical existence of the form or its spirit. The effects of God or those of the void are limited according to the entity. They cannot reflect anything beyond these limits, although the unlimited itself lies beyond these limits, (a paradox of the limit), that we sometimes describe as infinitely infinite. If you eliminate the limits for any word, you will come to the conclusion that there are infinite possibilities, but, if you place the limit to the infinitely infinite, you will go beyond the human sphere, running the risk of experiencing a nervous breakdown, which would not be a good thing, although reality is fortunately the one beyond us and unfortunately, because our spirit contains only conventions and not realities, fortunately because because this is how we have been able to discover the infinite and God, or the science with its limis, but unfortunately because we have also dicovered that we exist and do not exist at the same time, more precisely we have discovered self-existence and the existence of effect. Selfexistence is related to the stability of our universe, the human universe, which is simultaneous with many other universes and entities, (void, God, grass, animals, plants, etc.), whereas the existence of effect is related to the paradox of self-existence, (its conventional/unconventional) and at the same time our infinitely infinite finite. Everything is a paradox 16

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

for the man, while for the unconventional paradox, everything is a normality. By the notion of conventional, we must understand, “something accepted by one or several beings,” as well as “something accepted by one or several individuals or groups.” We must understand that up to a point, both flowers and animals accept us or not. The individual primarily stands for a convention with himself, both as individual and group, but also at the level of mankind or human universe, that is forced or not to accept its coexistence with the communities or individuals that constitute it. As to the unconventional philosophy, we must understand that any exception, that we will find represents a gateaway from the anterior convention and consequently, it helps its unconventional. Any exception consolidates the rule of the unconventional philosophy. We have not written these lines for you, our readers, as writing has been our only way to exist at a certain moment. However, if you consider that we have written this paper for you, I greatly appreciate it. Do you think that we have been wrong holding with an idea and at the same time disapproving it? We have certainly not been wrong. However, we have voluntarily forgotten to tell you about the reasons why we have not written these lines for you and at the same time why we have written them only for you. We have written them for both you 17

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

and ourselves. It all depends on your choice or ours in terms of interpretation. Do you think philosophy is a complicated thing? Apparently only, as philosophy also means what you think about existence and not only what the others think about it, more exactly, you are also interested in philosophy and you exist due to your own philosophy (your own principles, conventions), and not to what we consider philosophy is. What many people do not understand is the simultaneity of your philosophy with that described by Kant, or Hegel, or what you are reading now, that is individual and group philosophy as a simultaneous thing. To make our discussion meaningful, what is, in your opinion, more important? Is it your philosophy or the philosophy of the groups you are part of? There are no one-answer questions. The relative aspect exists even in Mathematics, whereas the answers are interpretable, from the negative to the positive, on an infinite scale. Exercise: = Do you exist? = Under what circumstances the answer ’yes, I exist,’ is the correct answer? =Do you exist? = No, I do not. Under what circumstances is the answer correct? = Does God exist? = Yes, He does exist. Under what circumstances? = Does God exist? = No, under what circumstances? These questions and answers are similar to a chaos, a game. This is philosophy, pretending to be serious, unless we mention the conditions according 18

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

to which we should ask the question, or those according to which we can answer. It is as if we liked to ask ourselves if we exist, after we will have stopped to exist. If we do want to avoid “using the inappropriate method” or, in academic terms, to throw daylight upon the dialogue, we must establish the system of coordinates that comprehends the philosophy of each of us or of the group we analyze, or that can define, more or less correctly the theme established. Moreover, let us not forget an important aspect, namely that the spirit of each of us is a simultaneity thinking/memory/instinct/intuition/sentiment/feel ing, where all the elements enumerated are variable from the negative to the positive on finite/infinite individuals/groups. What is, in your opinion, this unconventional universe? Things are simple, have you ever asked yourself what is beyond God? It is the unconventional universe, that is another God for theists, whereas for the atheists, beyond their infinite limits, there is another infinite, or the unlimited, that we have described as infinitely infinite. We must understand for both groups that beyond this infinitely infinite universe that is beyond our power of comprehension, there lies the unconventional itself. More precisely, if we imagined life to be an infinite journey in each second, after our death, the journey continues, but we cannot reflect it with our spirit. Beyond God, there is the 19

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

unconventional universe, or the infinitely infinte. That is the unconventional universe for us, as conventional as ours, that cannot be reflected by us, (paradox) and we live now the paradox of those that are dead. Extrapolating the idea, the unconventional cannot even reflect itself, although it is infinitely infinite and all its limits are inside and not outside it, as in our case. Let us try several definitions in order to get used to these notions, but not before underlining the fact that everything you will read from now on is under the sign of the paradox. First of all, let us redefine philosophy. It becomes in our new interpretations the axiom of the entity as form, existence and spirit, a cornerstone. There is no spirit without its spirit, such as there is no spirit without existence. Philosophy is characterized (for the human being) by two lines of orientation, namely the theistic and atheistic philosophy, but we should not believe that they are separated, they are simultaneous, as any paradox. You will never find a person that is 100% godless or 100% theist (believer). There is no perfect convention, such as there is no perfect truth, lie, or relative, or the perfectly conventional absolute. Philosophy has been and will remain the mother of all sciences, as it is primarily the reflection of reality and it is only afterwards that it turns into a science, that the science as science, as well as the philosophy of 20

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

science and religion are shaped. People are wrong when they make decisions, if they do not take into consideration the opinions enunciated by the philosophers. The science without philosophy turns into a catastrophe. Fortunately, philosophy is inside each of us, and it is evidently inside the scholars that do research as well. This is the reason why we do not destroy ourselves yet, in our scientific or religious evolution of any kind. Philosophy reflects reality in its ensemble and unidirectionally in the direction of the scientific research, whereas science becomes more and more unidirectional, losing sight of reality. In the unconventional, everything is perfect, even inside us, except that our spirit cannot reflect the unconventional. Let us now explain several terms: = form/existence/spirit, we will not try to offer now a detailed explanation of the terms, as there would be a lot to say, but only a comprehension of their formula, more exactly the fact that in this form, they must be understood as simultaneous and indivisible within the conventional/unconventional. However, in the conventional, they can be separated for analysis or comprehension. Think about a permanent magnet. It has a polarity, but to separate physically this polarity would be absurd. However much we divided it, it will remain a polarized magnet. It is only theoretically that the poles exist. In actual 21

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

terms, it is only a magnet. These terms are simultaneous in any existence, no matter whether we are talking about a human, planetary or microscopic existence, etc. We must however state from the very beginning that everything we are going to discuss comprehends a defining guiding mark, there is no term that describes an individual or group separately. It describes simultaneity. = individual/group, a formula of simultaneity that Noica analyzed under the form of “one” or “more,” intuiting their simultaneity, yet being unable to define it completely. These formulae are: = paradoxes, we define the paradox as a reality/illusion or conventional/unconventional, or as a convention whose limits are (relatively) finite/infinite, or as a relative/absolute simultaneity. = axiom at the same time, except that according to the dictionary, the axiom is “a fundamental truth admitted without demonstration.” Is this a contradictory and at the same time provable statement?” There is a difference not mentioned by the dictionary, namely that not any paradox can lie at the basis of a demonstration, more exactly any axiom is a starting point of a demonstrated, but relative convention, whereas the paradox exists in everything and everywhere, even in a mathematical demonstration. Reality is an illusion because on the one hand it is relative and on the other hand because it starts 22

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

precisely from the axiom that is not demonstration, but intuition, feeling or instinct, but not science or demonstration. An intuited reality is not reality itself, but only an intuition of reality. = the illusion/reality represents the reality we have all searched for, whereas reality itself exists inside ourselves. We turn reality into convetions, by means of our spirit. By its spirit, any entity transforms reality into a reality/illusion or into a reality specific to each of us, or to the groups that make us up or we are part of. Even a camera or a computer turns reality into a reality/illusion, by its spirit, conventionalizing it according to the limit of its parameters. As a conclusion, our reality and the reality of any entity is an illusion/reality. = Transformation/space/time were used separately. However, there is no time without space, that fail to define transformations and vice versa, atemporal, or space independent transformations. The terms are going to be expanded upon in an unconventional dictionary. Their elaboration cannot be achieved in a few words, we will minutely describe them later in our paper. This philosophy pretends to be a recreation of thinking, (of the spirit), similar to a relaxing massage offered to the existence of any entity, especially us, massage made by a specialist in the domain. This massage must be adapted to that particular entity, to its state, time and space. We will 23

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

try to offer throughout this paper a relaxing massage of thinking and spirit, that each of us can adapt according to his or her own philosophy. This is similar to the image or the sound of a work of art in the eyes of the thousands and millions of people, or why not plants or animals, that reflect differently the same reality. The same thing contains the simultaneity of all the interpretations, from abject to splendid, from useful to futile, from form to existence, from spirit to spirit and why not from the human to formless matter. Each entity is associated with a different philosophy, but we must take into account the fact that existence does not stand only for existence itself, but also for non-existence, or the existence of effect, such as the void, God, Kant’s metaphysics, Hegel’s concept of idealism, or the infinite. Similar to their negative aspect, whatever the choice you make, it is certainly a unique choice, specific to your spirit, that nobody and nothing can reflect as reality. In Philosophy, it is said that what is white can be considered black and vice versa. Do you think this is a joke? No, it is not. Our intuition, spirit or instinct reveal us things difficult, but logical, similar to light and darkness, (light/darkness simultaneously). They become one and the same thing simultaneously. Let us think about a dark, or on the contrary bright world. Both light and darkness are simultaneous, light cannot exist in the absence of darkness and vice versa. If we 24

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

died, life would end and vice versa, but we should not understand light and darkness as deprived of colour and nuances, from the positive to the negative, on a finite/infinite scale, as time, transformation and space. In any science, art, religion, or philosophy, we can make use of these nuances. You just try to tell an absolute truth and you will still find certain nuances, or try to deny a truth of yours, (if you cannot find any arguments to sustain your negation, it means that you have found perfection, which cannot be true). Let us continue with the lecture of the book, which we hope is logical, although less conventional according to the dictionary, as in reality everything is convention for us, more exactly the simultaneous form/spirit/existence superposed on another simultaneity transformation/time/space for any spirit (memory/thinking/feeling/ instinct/intuition/sentiment). The fact that we have discovered a rule (convention), whatever its nature, does not mean that we have discovered a conventionalunconventional truth or the conventionalunconventional beautiful. If we discover “the God Particle” does not mean that we have discovered God Himself. We have discovered only a beginning and an end, a convention and another entity. We have not shaped anything, we have eliminated the futile, in order to easier reflect our illusion/reality. 25

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

We will discuss over a certain philosophical notion in our book, namely the“freedom/constraint,” whose particular case is represented by the human freedom, or its constraint, from a whole future philosophical system.

The relative cannot recognize its absolute and vice versa. They are simultaneous.

26

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

FREEDOM/CONSTRAINT AS UNCONVENTIONAL SIMULTANEITY Ecah time we feel free, we remember we are human beings. It is not only that, we must not forget that we are not alone on this planet, that the animals the plants, the planets, or the universe live with ourselves and they also experience their own freedom. If up to the present moment philosophies have analyzed things in strictly human or moral terms, instinctively or intuitively, freedom as it has been interpreted up to now, (as an image of man’s superiority in front of nature), represented a selfish, individualistic point of view. This is a relative opinion. Why should we think that the freedom of the simple man is inferior or superior, or that plants or animals fail to experience their own freedom? So what if their freedom is different from our freedom? How does our dog feel the fredom when he enjoys our company or feels the chain that prevents him from running? We wonder what happens if the human philosophy spreads to any entity in the universe. Why not identify man as a simple entity, as any atom, molecule, plant, planet, animal, or as a non-entity, such as the void or God, or the spirit of any entity, without negating their existence? We will discuss about them with another occasion. We often feel, experience the sensation that we are a grain of sand in the desert, an atom, that we are or 27

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

that we will turn into other beings or things. Other times, we feel like we are the giants of the universe. This is not a simple sensation. This is the intuition of our spirit that we are not totally different from the other entities, that infinitely small, elementary particles lie at the basis of any entity, particles which are the same for every entity. Both we and those particles are part of the unlimited universe, as any entity. We can only conventionally say that a part of the whole is less important than the whole itself. Why has not anybody tried up to the present moment to generalize the notion of freedom beyond us? Philosophy has always been considered man’s property, at the human level. Many people have tried to offer human interpretations, more immoral than moral, more or less general. They all make reference only to the freedom as human, and not universal orientation, its universality. According to the previous philosophies, it is specific to the human universe, which means that it is limited. People have searched for the universal freedom, with reference to man. You also have a notion of freedom, selfish, of course, that is yours and about yourself, although you feel that it depends on those around you, but also on the nature, plants, animals, on the planet, etc. There are so many people that talk about philosophy as if they talked about something scientific, or beyond their power of expression or comprehension, although they all 28

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

admit that we deal with an empirical philosophy, a philosophy of nature or of the common sense. What does a simple man understand, in your opinion, about freedom, about moral things, ethics, freedom, or constraint? Although he is not interested in philosophy, he feels every day that, from among all his constraints, freedom appears more as a hope, as a dream, or as an illusion. Freedom is an experience, a feeling and an ordinary man feels more free due to this experience than to its interpretation. Although scientifically speaking, we cannot demonstrate the superior or the inferior element in this sense, the simple man interprets philosophy as a mystery, whereas the scholar calls it axiom, reflection, convention, etc. The dog also makes the difference between illusion and reality, as well as between freedom and constraint, in its own way of course. Inorganic matter itself (the rocks or the metals) have their own degrees of freedom and man limits their freedom consciously or unconsciously, while the matter answers in one way or another, (silence is also an answer). As you can notice, ecologism is an ever more powerful answer to nature’s reactions. It seems a paradox and it is a paradox. As in the case of man, both freedom and constraint are paradoxes at the human level, but also at the level of any entity. We have started our discussion from the notions of paradox and simple man. Both ourselves and the simple man represent a paradox, more 29

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

precisely something unique and at the same time multiple, or both finite and infinte, similar to any entity. Why should we believe that the paradox is excluded in the case of freedom, (no matter whether we talk about our freedm or the freedom of the other entities), that there are no common universal elements, (whatever the entity), without any kind of discrimination? Why should you think that democracy is a favour, without thinking that your democracy is a dictatorship for the others, that the democracy of a majority is a dictatorship for the minority, or that the dictatorship of a group stands for the democracy of the group and for the dictatorship of the others? This is similar to your freedom, that represents a constraint for the others around you, or to the freedom of a group, that represents a constraint for the others, or maybe your constraint is the other’s freedom. It all depends on the interpretation and the interpreter, as well as on the context of freedom or of the reflected constraint. You have certainly often felt freedom, immediately followed by the constraints around you. Do you think there is prefect freedom or perfect constraint? This is a paradox. Everything is a paradox. If we are able to notice it or not is another thing. The fact that, in order to understand it, we conventionalize it, (classify, separate, systematize, reduce to absurd, or limit, etc.), does not mean that the paradox specific to any entity disappears. Let us 30

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

start from several conventional interpretations and then reach a general, less conventional context, sensitive at the most, or unconventional. What do you think freedom is? Is it the “the property of acting according to our own will or wish,” the “possibility of acting consciuosly, provided we are familiar with the laws concerned with the evolution of nature and society,” “man’s right to do anything, without disturbing the others,” “the comprehension of necessity” (Baruch Spinoza)? According to Immanuel Kant, “freedom is nothing more but the relation between an intelligible, coherent cause and its phenomenal effect.” In Tudor Musatescu’s opinion, “the chains have drawn the definition of freedom.” Edward Young sustains that “it is only the one that does not expect anything that can be free.” These definitions are accepted, but at the same time contested by our spirit and you agree with them, just that they do not represent you entirely, especially if you were a tree, flower, animal. However, we have the tendency to accept them, as in reality, they speak about common and apparently true things, just that their truth is limited, although nobody up to now determined their limitations. Absolutely everything is defined in relation to the constraints, that are present in each definition. Each definition is specific to a certain group or individual, it is not general. Moreover, it makes reference strictely to man and not only, it refers to 31

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

the moral versions of man’s freedom (what we do with the freedom of a homosexual, criminal, theist, or atheist and what we do with the freedom inside Soljenitin’s gulag, and last but not least, what we do with the freedom of a dictator, or of a dictatorial majority). You will say that these are exceptions, (as everybody says). There are so many exceptions. Don’t you find the explanations offered by the dictionary too simplistic, materialistic, full of exceptions, although they belong to Kant, Noica, Hegel, or Marx etc.? We would like to mention the fact that these theories make reference only to man and his own will or power of comprehension, which offers us the possibility to bring to your attention, many exceptions, among which the idea according to which these definitions deal with man as an individual, and not as an ensemble of individualities or groups, (groups defined in another context, physically, chemically, existentially, spiritually, transcendentally independent groups). These groups refer more to man as the element of a group or another groups, he is part of and less to man’s interior freedoms. Let us discuss upon these aspects and about the fact that man is not so important in front of nature, or in front of the galaxy, or the universe. We have drawn our own philosophical model on freedom, that we promote. The paper is an attempt, (successful or not, this is for you to decide), to include any entity, 32

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

(man, plant, animal, planet or universe) within a system where we can find our place and general and particular characteristics). Let us start from the idea that both you and us, as well as everything that exists are just particular cases, part of a general system, searched for by the entire universe, but that we will never recognize. It is infinitely infinite, (unlimited), unconventional, whereas everything that belongs to us is conventional, (that is limited, even if infinite, it is a limited small infinite, that exists due to the convention that establishes its limit, elements of equilibrium and the elements of comparison and form) and that only the intuition, the instinct, thinking, feelings and sentiments can perceive, as they are part of this system and it belongs to them at the same time. What we have discussed until now decisively influences the following notions as well and consequently, we come to the conclusion that everything starts from the individual or the group, comprehending at the same time the fact that the individual and the group are simultaneous. Noica sustains that “one”and more and the individual mean more, whereas anybody and however many represent the individual. An example could be the Brownian movement or the chaos that mean several, while the notions have individual, specific rules. Let us not forget that we are not talking only about man and his consciousness or 33

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

unconsciousness, we deal with any entity, (this notion is analyzed in another context). As a conclusion, we can make an analysis of any type of individual or group, being at the same time able to explore this anything and about anything as being part of another individual (individuals), or of another group, (groups). You may have misunderstood us, but the apparent disorientation is just a paradox, the paradox of the simultaneity individual/group (a notion discussed separately). This paradox must be taken as it is, similar to the simultaneity life/death (transformation), that however much we tried to separate, they remain simultaneous and inseparable. Death lies within us ever since our birth, doesn’t it? Don’t you feel things like this in your illusion/reality, numberless times each day? Everything produces certain effects on our spirit and consequently on the freedom of each of us. It is not life that accompanies us all the time, but death. To separate them would be absurd. It would be a simple convention. In the previous paragraph, we have used new words with a well defined aim, (life/death, individual/group). We have used them like that in order to render the simultaneity of the terms, as it happens in reality, just that in reality, no entity can conventionalize them simultaneously. It feels, intuits their simultaneity, it perceives it rationally, it 34

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

reflects it in thinking and spirit, but it cannot conventionalize it simultaneously. This is the reason why convention makes use of a trick, as in the field of art, (usually 24 frames per second, as that is the minimum the human eye needs to see to successfully create the illusion of movement; in literature, we use separate images, descriptions, that are assembled or disassembled at the beginning or at the end; in painting, we use the black colour in order to render light. We ourselves, as any entity, we separate the freedom from the constraint, although they are simultaneous, although the notions of intuition and thinking make us conclude that the freedom in the absence of constraint has no meaning and vice versa. This is why we have introduced a new term, namely the notion of freedom/constraint, in order to render by means of a trick unconventional reality within the conventional. The infinite represents the unlimited without rendering its reality, reality that we can guess, feel, translate rationally, but that is not reality itself. We must imagine now the freedom/constraint as an infinite sum of versions, (small infinite, limited by the existence of the entity), distributed into entities, (that is ourselves and the other entities), that represents each in its turn an individual or group existence, (in particular to man, each atom, molecule or organ, including the brain, etc.). Each entity has its own existence, its spirit and right to 35

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

freedom. Each is part of other planetary or universal groups, as well, inside or outside the chosen individual or group, each atom has its own degrees of freedom/constraint. Moreover, these versions are characterized by variations of freedom/constraint in relation to the relation transformation/space/time simultaneously. Each point on these versions represents a concentrationary space similar to Steinhardt’s intuition. We must not understand that if our space, time and transformation as entity, (constraint or freedom as time, space or transformation, or all of them) are limited, means that we enjoy only freedom, or only constraint. This is not true. As in the case of a permanent magnet, irrespective of the number of times we divided it, it maintains its polarity. We should not think that there is no freedom during a dictatorship, or in a desert, or in any other concentrationary space or time. It depends on our convention of freedom, on the convention of those under the dictatorship, of those that practice the dictatorship and many other things. It depends on the space, time and restricted transformation, on the individual or the group of analysis, because if we restrict the space of an individual, does not mean that we have restricted the group’s space it is part of. The group may be more important in this case, and consequently, by the constraint imposed, we have better defined the freedom of the group and the individual turns into 36

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

a hero. It is true that nobody wants to be a hero, (some people become heroes involuntarily) and sometimes they cannot turn into heroes, even if they liked to. There are infinitely small versions here as well. Dictatorship prevails in the Communism, but it is also present in the Capitalism. For example, if during the Communism, there was a dictatorship of minority, in the Capitalism, we deal with a dictatorship of the majority. You may tell us we are wrong, but you should not hurry to do that. Do you think the freedom of an ascet is smaller than the freedom of a voluptuous being? They have both freedom and constraint, just that while the ascet feels the constraint as freedom, the voluptuous being feels the freedom as a constraint. In both conventional and unconventional reality, freedom and constraint are simultaneous and vary from the negative to the positive, for each of them in a small infinite, (limited by the existence of the individual or of the group). In Capitalism, the dictatorship of money is obvious, and not only for the poor, but also for the spirit. The revolutions against the dictatorship have not been generated by poverty, but by the discrepancy between the spirits, such as in Capitalism the ever bigger discrepancies bring about revolutions. Consequently, a strong aversion takes shape between the producers and the financial trusts. The financial dictatorship is obvious. I have often thought that I do not need 37

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

money and even if I owned a big sum, I would give it to my children immediately. I would allow them to take as much money as they needed and at any moment, but I would definitely keep the sum in my own bank account. Do you know why? Because to deposit the sum into their account, would mean to dodge my responsibilities, placing this responsibility on them. Thus, I would restraint their freedom. This does not mean that they feel or understand this freedom. They may understand freedom, by choosing the constraint of this responsibility. There are intermediary versions related to time, space or transformation. There is no identity in the universe. It is obvious that any degree of freedom that we ourselves accept as existent may be received by the other existences, (whatever their nature) as a smaller or bigger freedom or constraint, up to the level of the unconventional universe, where there is a perfect simultaneity, that it cannot recognize. As in the case of our death, we cannot believe that there is no freedom after death, just that we ourselves are not able to reflect it. It is conventionally recognized by the other existences, in finite/infinite versions, except that in the unconventional universe, there is the perfect version. Paradoxically, it cannot recognize it. Imagine some infinitely small massless particles, without volume, density, colour, etc., that compose and decompose simultaneously and that 38

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

can combine in any form of existence and vice versa. What could be more free, but constrained that exists, but cannot recognize its existence? It is something similar to darkness, that lies stress on the light. If everything were surrounded by absolute darkness, we could not recognize it. Many painters have tried to give life to their paintings by using a single colour, or create wordless books. As a result, the artist’s creation has no identity. Identity breaks through only when at least a sign is written down, when at least a point of a different colour is put down. It is only then that the identity of a creation or of the author himself appears in different proportions. It is only then that the spectator can offer identity to both the work and its author. God could not have been recognized if He had not created at least the word, (the convention), or the sea or the human being. As a conclusion, God exists and will continue to exist, as long as the universe and man will continue to exist. Each existence has its own God and its own freedom/constraint. The universe itself has its own God and its own freedom/constraint. The difference is that man carries God and the freedom/constraint inside and outside of himself, (as any entity) and he can recognize them both inside and outside of himself, whereas the unconventional universe identifies itself with its God and its freedom/constraint, but it cannot recognize them. 39

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

Any degree or degrees of freedom obtained in a group or individual democracy generates one or more degrees of constraint. As a proof, the communists, the socialists, the anarchists, the terrorists have not disappeared, they just transform. Why? An individual or group cannot identify themselves with another individual or group. The unconventional universe is always the equivalent of several both within and outside itself, as neither inside nor outside it exists a perfect acceptance of association, as existence, spirit, or transformation. Otherwise, it would turn into a perfect convention of spirit, existence or transformation and the unconventional universe would do away with the association, if identity existed. You just take a look inside yourself and try to find perfection. At that moment, the paradox intervenes. You will come to the conclusion that if you want something, you will face with certain incertitudes, with the reactions generated by the subconscious, as Freud mentions. He limited to the sexual subconscious. Anything is connected to anything, even if the connection is absurd. The absurd also represents a connection, similar to the paradox. As Freud states, it often happens that you head somewhere and forget the place you were heading to, or want to call a friend and forget his or her number, although you knew it very well. In this context, where the subconscious intervenes, how do you perceive freedom? Isn’t it 40

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

constrained by the unconsciousness? And if it is, this means that freedom must also be defined in relation to this parameter and other parameters. For example, isn’t freedom influenced by our conscious or unconscious spirit, our existence? How could we formulate a definition with so many indiscutable parameters? There are two ways we can do that, on the one hand by reducing the number of parameters and establish a convention for us as individual or group and on the other by letting the spirit define this freedom, without rationally interfering in the infinity of intermediary versions. We have always thought that our ancestors were more free, that they, nature, or the animals were freer in those times than they are nowadays. We did not manage to find a reasonable point of comparison. Now, we have found a basis for discussion, as then, as now, the freedom/constraint existed, as well as a small infinite of versions related to this subject. Then, as now, the notion of freedom/constraint depended on the form/existence/spirit (that is simply translated as entity). It must obey the rules of both conventional and unconventional universe, as well as the dependency on the simultaneity transformation/space/time (that is simply translated as universe). There is no identity in the universe, (as we have already mentioned). This is the reason why, however much we searched and whatever the 41

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

number of similarities that we may find, we will never find the identity, (identity as it is defined by us), because two types of form/existence/spirit cannot be part of the same space at the same time and within the same transformation. This thing is possible in the unconventional, except that it cannot reflect it. Think of an universal, unlimited black hole, that can reflect things as reality, although it comprehends an infinite number of conventional universes. Our sensation of freedom is given by the spirit of our existence, that can reflect the moment that does not exist, a moment with a determining role in the comparison of values and in their creation. It is the one that allows us to assemble and disassemble simultaneity, although it does not exist. Each spirit can conventionalize a point of equilibrium, an element of comparison and limits, (the limits of any individual, group, universe, whatever its dimension). The moment is also an existence that lives by means of its effects, and not by its selfexistence, similar to the void or God). The moment, in our whole system, must be understood as an elementary, conventional or unconventional sequence. These elements that we have brought to your attention represent an introduction into the unconventional paradox, that you must definitely avoid, or analyze carefully. It is not only at the limit of the human, of our universe, but also at the limit of the limit, that is beyond God. Although it is 42

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

something absurd, the paradox is the only reality perceptible as reality/illusion, it is absurd for us and for any entity (form/existence/spirit), as individual or group. Life/death as simultaneity is absurd for us. While for you as individual, it is a paradox, for your inner being, it is only a transformation, as it is for any other form of existence, (entity). Try to relate these theories to the classical notion of freedom. Where is freedom, in this case, or death? Does freedom belong only to life? Does it consist in the exceptions that you can recognize every second, every day? In democracy or dictatorship, the freedom/constraint exists in its forms interpreted by the spirit of each of us, as freedom or constraint. As you well know, at present, minorities ask for additional rights, they experience the majority as a dictatorship, as in the commercial societies, where the shareholder is perceived as a dictator, although the majority represents 99%. The conviction of this majority is bigger or smaller according to time, space and transformation, acording to the form, existence, spirit, interests, etc. Have you ever totally agreed with someone or at least with yourself? Haven’t you always had better or less appropriate versions? To totally agree with somebody or something is something perfect, which does not exist, either in the conventional, or in our universe, or other universes. However, perfection exists, (it 43

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

represents us and any entity), it is our unconventional universe, except that perfection cannot recognize itself. This is certainly another paradox, or an axiom, as the axiom is a paradox, as well, (an acknowledged, but not demonstrated truth is a paradox). Any entity that has limits, but that cannot reach these limits represents an entity, such as any entity that has no limits, but that reaches them represents the unlimited universe, God, etc.). Any entity is an axiom or a paradox, taking into account the fact that the limits that it does not reach are limits for its existence, its spirit and certainly for its freedom or constraint, truth or reality, love or hate, etc. The notion of paradox is also valid for the other existences, flowers, animals, planets, galaxies, etc.). We can talk about the notion of freedom/contraint ad infinitum, about the individual or group freedom/constraint, interior or exterior. Each entity (form/existence/spirit) has its own model of freedom/constraint. In order to analyze the notion in all its complexity and avoid a boring philosophy, let us formulate a definition that apparently seems impossible: The freedom/constraint represents the right of each entity (form/existence/spirit) to be conventionally unconventional. It is its right to be part of the unconventional, its right as existence, form, spirit, form, conventional/unconventional entity. 44

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

In the case of man, freedom is his right to be conventional/unconventional (to live in the woods or in town, to sleep or watch, to be a hero or not, to be good or not, etc.). Constraint is man’s right to be conventional/unconventional (loyal, good, theist or atheist, anarchist, masochist, criminal, terrorist, dictator, etc.). The examples can be switched from freedom to constraint and vice versa, in relation to the choices made by each of us, our system of values, but the definition “man’s freedom/constraint is his right to the conventional/unconventional” is much more appropriate than the separate definition of freedom or constraint. You just try to search for as many examples as you like to, in order to find the exception. It does not exist, any exception is part of the conventional/unconventional. The exception is convention itself, (convention is non convention for the unconventional), just that it is relative and consequently it exists only as a hypothesis. Where God exists, He does not exist as existence, similar to the void. Planet “Earth” also has its right to the conventional/unconventional, it has its own freedom/constraint, it does have a word to say in the matter. The fact that we are not able to understand it is not its fault, or it may be its fault, but it is definitely our fault as well. It is as if we blamed the child for the fact that he does not know 45

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

what we know, as if we knew what he knows. The planet has a unique, specific spirit in the universe, beautiful and ugly, free and constrained at the same time. In a desert where you are free to die existentially or spiritually, your freedom/constraint is your right to the conventional/unconventional. It is your right to choose, to choose freedom or constraint, life or death; it is the right of each entity to choose the freedom of will. The group has another type of unconventional, in comparison with the individual. It obeys convention or not. It is your right to your own reality. We hope that the definition above as well as the two examples have explained the fact that the classical exceptions of freedom, the one where the slave sees freedom as the wish to wash his master’s feet, or the interpretation of Steinhardt’s happiness within the concentrationary space become part of man’s wish to be conventional/unconventional in his form, existence and spirit. This spirit is synthesized by another paradox, another simultaneity that comprehends the feeling, the sentiment, the intuition, the thinking, the memory and its instinct, both conscious and unconscious. It is essential to establish (conventionalize) first the individual or the group we have chosen for analysis, as you yourselves deal with your own analysis, own philosophy, no matter whether it is a theistic or atheistic philosophy. No matter whether 46

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

you believe in this philosophy or not, it stands for the basis of your own entity (form/existence/spirit) and there is only one possibility to replace this philosophy, namely to kill yourself, turn into another entity, although you will never find identity with the previous one, either as existence, spirit, form, or philosophy within another entity. The philosophy of any entity represents the reflected image of reality as illusion/reality and consequently the philosophy of the entity is an illusion/reality and not a philosophy of reality, as you may be tempted to think. More exactly, the reflection of real existence is our philosophy, as entities, that is the reflection created by our spirit on real existence. It is the image of this reality that we analyze, (reality/illusion) and not reality itself by our spirit, that is instinct, intuition, thinking, memory, sentiments and feelings simultaneously, consciuos and unconscious at the same time. We can go forward by discussing upon the notion of freedom/constraint, separating it, according to the elements of the spirit belonging to the unconventional universe into its conventional form, (entity) given by the simultaneity: feeling, intuition, sentiments, thinking, memory and instinct. It implicitly results from here a freedom/constraint of the feeling, of the sentiments, instincts, intuition, memory and thinking, which are all simultaneous and their simultaneity must be 47

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

imagined as an embrionary genetic code that defines the destiny of any entity, as past, present and future existence. Our spirit also contains a genetic code that carefully examines the existence in any entity. This code comprehends all the versions of freedom/constraint existent in the conventional/unconventional universe, (any embryo contains an infinite number of elements belonging to both conventional and unconventional existence, not only as existence, but also as spirit, form. It does not contain only man’ s destiny throughout his life, but also beyond the unlimited, or beyond his birth in the unlimited. Take a look at yourself or at the nature around you. If we look carefully, we can notice that it contains data from the beginning of the universe itself; if we look at its infinitely small composition, its profoundness, we will see that it definitely contains particles of God, (that we search for). Similar to other unknown things, these particles are part of the unconventional universe. The evolution of the genetic code is strictly dependent both on the infinite, (small infinite) internal or external factors of our conventional universe, and on the unlimited, internal or external factors of our unconventional universe. This is the reason why the destiny of any entity is limited and unlimited simultaneously, or known and unknown at the same time. Man always searches for all the finite/infinite versions of the 48

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

paradox. As we can infer, the paradox is contained by an unconventional infinite of simultaneous (universes), for example, a conventional finite/infinite universe, (world), an unconventional, infinte universe, (world), a spiritual universe that comprehends the sentimental, intuitive, instinctive, sensitive universes, as well as the universe of memory and thinking, etc. Consequently, its freedom/constraint must be understood as simultaneous. We must not have any reservations about particularizing, (conventionalizing) the universe the individual or the group are part of. One version of the analysis concerned with the notion of individual freedom/constraint (whose freedom/constraint represents his right to the conventional/unconventional) is the sentimental freedom/constraint, in the conventional universe, especially the human universe. It observes the right of any entity to the conventional/unconventional, the infinite versions of the conventional, (small infinite), as well as the unlimited versions of the unconventional. We cannot debate on both versions simultaneously. Similar to any book or work of art that distorts reality in order to highlight it, we will also resort to this artifice. We will reveal the simultaneous as successive images, as in the cinematography, or mathematics, (the perspective of the parallel lines, the plans concerned with paintings, or images rendered separately, but form 49

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

different angles of the same moment). The rendering is not real, it represents for both the artist and the spectator a transformation of reality by means of their spirit. The artist conventionalizes reality, turning it into another reality, that, we, in our turn, transform into another convention and another reality. Both the artist and the spectator infer, feel, experience, etc. reality as simultaneity and not conventionally, without having the possibility to conventionalize it. Taking into account the multitude of interpretations, we cannot state that the notion of freedom/constraint is a favour, or a punishment for one entity or another. We can definitely assert that it is both favour and punishment, but simultaneously. We can also say that each individual or group have their own criteria of values from this point of view, no matter whether they are conscious or not about their existence, no matter whether any form of existence, interior or exterior, agrees or not, consciously or unconsciously, no matter whether the freedom/constraint is positive or negative, individual or group freedom/constraint, etc. Any individual or group certainly has a system of comparison of these values concerned with the freedom/constraint and consequently elements of comparison, as well as elements of equilibrium and a domain of definition, more precisely the definition of entity, existence, spirit, truth, lie, thinking, instinct, the axiom of 50

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

definition, etc. We cannot say about any existence or spirit of an entity that its freedom/constraint, or only the freedom, or the constraint represents a favour or a punishment, as long as everything is relative, that is conventional and unconventional at the same time. As Dostoievski states, “if people have acquired money riches and wealth, their joys have strained to the limit.“ If we were to paraphrase him, we would say that “by earning freedoms they have actually limited the possibility of other freedoms.” The more positive freedom is, (conventionally of course), the more acute the constraint can be felt. It is only an individual or group convention, no matter whether it is accepted by many people, no matter how big or small the individual or the group are). Dostoievski is a classical and not modern writer. Convention depends on transformation, space or time, or simultaneously on all of them as entity, at a given moment, as well as on the universe. The universe of the 19th century, the planetary universe, the transcendental universe or the concentrationary space of Steinhardt, (where this convention is deformed) are different universes. All the versions are reflections (conventions) of an entity, that is as it has been analyzed by mankind up to the present moment, more precisely by myself, yourself, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, etc. To make ourselves better understood, no definition of 51

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

freedom has been analyzed in space and time, or as permanent transformation, which denotes the fact that these numerous parameters have not been taken into account and consequently they remain pure, limited conventions and just an illusion/reality. The analysis proposed is made separately for the conventional and the unconventional, because the spirit of an entity does not have the capacity of conventionalizing the simultaneity in the unconventional. The conventional/unconventional simultaneity represents reality itself, both in our human universe and beyond our limits. Other examples of analysis could be: the freedom inside the constraint, (Steinhardt’s freedom in the concentrationary space, of the people on their planet, of the planet under the human terror, etc.), of the freedom of constraint, (the dictator), the freedom of constraint specific to the individual or to the group, the theistic or atheistic freedom of constraint, the scientific, democratic, probabilistic, dictatorial freedom of constraint, etc., and why not the freedom of democracy or its constraint, the freedom of dictatorship or its constraints. They are all analyzed as variables from the negative to the positive, inside or outside the analyzed version. There are many constraints and exceptions related to any definition of freedom. As far as the entity is concerned, we will conclude that, apart from the versions of freedom enunciated until 52

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

now, we will find others as well, logical. Take a careful look at yourself, the more attentive you are, the more you will discover that the simple turns into the complex, as freedom/constraint. Let us now discuss upon the freedom/constraint in accordance with the domains described, but not before developing a synthetic plan, in order to simplify our comprehension and be able to compare the freedom/constraint in relation to elements and relations. Consequently, we will systematize things.

53

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

SCHEME OF UNCONVENTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE FREEDOM/CONSTRAINT I. Freedom/constraint – unconventional – unconventional entity – beyond reality A. Unconventional individual - as form – beyond the infinitely infinite, (convention of the unlimited, or beyond reality) - as existence – beyond the infinitely infinite - as spirit – beyond the infinitely infinite B. Unconventional group I. interior group, (the entity is made of) - as form – beyond the infinitely infinite, (the unlimited) - as existence – beyond the infinitely infinite - as spirit – beyond the infinitely infinite II. exterior group (the entity is part of) - as form - beyond the infinitely infinite - as existence - beyond the infinitely infinite - as spirit - beyond the infinitely infinite II. Coventional/unconventional freedom/constraint– reality itself – conventional/unconventional entity or real entity. A. Conventional/unconventional individual - as form – infinitely infinite, (convention of 54

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

the unlimited, reality) - as existence - infinitely infinite - as spirit – infinitely infinite B. Conventional/unconventional group I. interior group, (that forms the entity) - as form – infinitely infinite - as existence – infinitely infinite - as spirit – infinitely infinite II. exterior group (the entity is part of) - as form - infinitely infinite - as existence – infinitely infinite - as spirit – infinitely infinite III. Freedom/constraint – conventional – conventional entity – our illusion/reality, or conventional reality A. Conventional individual - as form – finite/infinite - as existence – finite/infinite - as spirit – finite/infinite B. Conventional group I. interior group, (the entity is made of) - as form – finite/infinite - as existence – finite/infinite - as spirit – finite/infinite II. exterior group (the entity is part of) - as form – finite/infinite - as existence – finite/infinite - as spirit – finite/infinite 55

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

A. Entity as conventional individual - of form - of existence - of spirit a.1. Freedom/constraint of form – finite/infinite conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) unconscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) a.2. Freedom/constraint finite/infinite - self-existence conscious – (moral/immoral) unconscious – (moral/immoral) - existence of effect conscious – (moral/immoral) unconscious – (moral/immoral)

of

existence



positive/negative, positive/negative,

positive/negative, positive/negative,

a.3. Freedom/constraint of spirit a.3.1. Freedom/constraint of memory – finite/infinite - conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) 56

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

unconscious (moral/immoral)



positive/negative,

a.3.2. Freedom/constraint of constraint – finite/infinite conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) unconscious-positive/negative (moral/immoral) a.3.3. Freedom/constraint of feelingsfinite/infinite - gustative conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) unconscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) - visual conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) unconscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral - auditive conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) unconscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) - tactile conscious – positive/negative 57

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

(moral/immoral) unconscious (moral/immoral) - olfactory conscious (moral/immoral) unconscious (moral/immoral)





positive/negative

positive/negative –

a.3.4. Freedom/constraint finite/infinite - fear/courage conscious – (moral/immoral) unconscious – (moral/immoral) - hate/love conscious – (moral/immoral) unconscious – (moral/immoral)

positive/negative

of

feelings



positive/negative positive/negative

positive/negative positive/negative

a.3.5. Freedom/constraint of intuition – finite/infinite conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) unconscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) 58

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

a.3.6. Freedom/constraint of instinct – finite/infinite conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) unconscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) B. Entity as conventional group I. interior group (the entity is made of) - of form - of existence - of spirit II. exterior group (the entity is part of) - of form - of existence - of spirit b.1. Freedom/constraint of form conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) unconscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) b.2. Freedom/constraint finite/infinite - self-existence conscious – (moral/immoral) unconscious – 59

of

existence



positive/negative positive/negative

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

(moral/immoral) - existence of effect conscious (moral/immoral) unconscious (moral/immoral)

– –

positive/negative positive/negative

b.3. Freedom/constraint of spirit (memory/thinking/feeling/sentiments/intuition/instinct) b.3.1. Freedom/constraint of memoryfinite/infinite conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) unconsciouspositive/negative (moral/immoral) b.3.2. Freedom/constraint of thinking – finite/infinite - conscious- positive/negative (moral/immoral) unconscious (moral/immoral)



positive/negative

b.3.3. Freedom/constraint of feelings – finite/infinite - gustative conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) 60

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

unconscious (moral/immoral) - visual conscious (moral/immoral) unconscious (moral/immoral) - auditive conscious (moral/immoral) unconscious (moral/immoral) - tactile conscious (moral/immoral) unconscious (moral/immoral) - olfactory conscious (moral/immoral) unconscious (moral/immoral)





positive/negative

positive/negative





positive/negative

positive/negative –

– –

– –

positive/negative

positive/negative positive/negative

positive/negative positive/negative

b.3.4. Freedom/constraint of sentiments – finite/infinite - fear/courage conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) unconscious – positive/negative 61

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

(moral/immoral) - hate/love - conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) unconscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) b.3.5. Freedom/constraint of intuition – finite/infinite conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) unconscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) b.3.6. Freedom/constraint of instinct – finite/infinite conscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral) unconscious – positive/negative (moral/immoral)

62

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

This generalized scheme is valid for any entity, (man, planet, tree, flower or God, etc.) and not just for the freedom/constraint. Starting from here, we can analyze all the elements, both simultaneously, (freedom/constraint) and separately, (freedom or constraint), but also the relation between the elements. The classical or modern theories on freedom will find their equilibrium, similar to the exceptions. As any analysis, in the conventional, it is finite/infinite (limited by the entity that makes the analysis and unlimited due to the groups that form it). This is due to the fact that the analysis should be related to the individuals that make up the individual analyzed and to the groups the indivdual analyzed is part of or to the interior or exterior universes between them (paradox). Each element of analysis must be related to the infinite particular cases, from galaxies to planets, people, plants, animals, molecules, art, religion, or philosophy, etc. Each has its own freedom/constraint, its own value, individual or group criteria, its own elements of equilibrium, or comparison, its limits, etc. This is something everyone can do for himself or herself, as well as for the individual or group he or she is part of, (and only in a limited way). We ourselves can only notice our own possibilities and point of view. The analysis of the freedom/constraint is 63

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

logical even if we were to separate the notion of freedom from that of constraint, for example sentimental, sensitive, thought, intuitive, or instinctive freedom, similar to the constraint, just that these separate cases have already been analyzed. However, their affiliation to other entities simultaneously has not been taken into account. As to the simultaneity freedom/constraint, it has not been discussed yet as simultaneity, or separately, as group or individual dependent, or as right to the conventional/unconventional. Furthermore, for all the versions from negative to the positive, we must define the limits, although these are never reached, (the limit being the limit of their existence). As any entity, the notion of freedom/constraint has limits, elements of equilibrium, elements of comparison, etc., for all the notions, for their conventional and unconventional form, specific to any entity, as an expression towards oneself, towards one’s interior or exterior nature. We must take into account the fact that any entity and their characteristics, such as the freedom/constraint are defined by these elements: limits, elements of equilibrium, of comparison, domain of definition, elements of space, time and transformation, both in the conventional and the unconventional. For example, you have elements of equilibrium, a domain of definition, elements of comparison, of time, space 64

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

and transformation, both for you in general and for your freedom/constraint in particular, or for truth/lie, or beautiful/ugly, etc.) We will not insist on the schemE above, as at the unconventional level, the notions are in a simultaneity where our conventional notions themselves disppear, and consequently the extrapolation has only the role to notify the unconventional existence. It does not have the role of extrapolation, which is impossible anyway.

65

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

THE UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM/CONSTRAINT

The unconventional freedom/constraint must be understood as beyond Kant’s “a priori,” or beyond Husserl’s “primary existence” wheraes in the classical philosophy, it must be understood as beyond the infinite or God, no mater whether we head towards our interior or exterior. Kant and Husserl have only inferred the transcendental or the primary extrinsic experience, omitting the one intrinsic to our entity, or to the other entities. We also carry inside ourselves Kant’s transcendental, as well as Husserl’s primary experiences, or more precisely, we are also part of the unconventional, of God. The universe and the unconventional entities cannot be defined as a hypothesis to another hypothesis, either, they are beyond the infinitely infinite, (the unlimited). Freedom/constraint makes reference to the unconventional reality we cannot reach. It implies the fact that the transformation/space/time cannot be possibly imagined. The variation of any entity (as individual and group) is beyond the infinitely infinite, as time, space and transformation. At the basis of the entities (form/existence/spirit), there lie the primordial elements, more precisely the moment and the 66

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

elementary particle, that can be found beyond the infinite, that evidently no entity can reach. Their freedom/constraint is perfect, a simultaneous of everything and nothing, where everything can be nothing, where there are massless elementary particles, without colour, parameters, memory, but that maintain their model, etc., particles that take shape and disappear simultaneously and that can turn into any past, present or future entity, but that cannot reflect themselves. We have defined these particles, in order to simplify things, “0+,” as they are zero as unconventional reality. They turn into matter under certain circumstances of unique relations. Freedom/constraint, form, existence, spirit, time, space, or other properties are totally simultaneous, but they cannot be received as conventionalized by any spirit, except the unconventional, infinitely infinite spirit. If in a small infinite, the moment can be conventionalized, things are totally different when it comes to the infinitely infinite. We cannot conventionalize the unlimited. This would mean to imagine the whole universal infinite as infinite and it would not be enough. This conventional moment, (although it does not exist), represents the equilibrium of the conventional universe, such as figure zero in Mathematics, or the conventional limits between the good and the bad, the truth and the lie. Everything seems impossible 67

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

in its absence. It is in relation to this moment that we establish the transformation, the form, the time and the space, although it does not represent anything and it is as relative as any other thing. The element of comparison helps us determine the priorities, whereas the moment brings about stability, it turns the paradox into a balanced element, we can conventionalize it, we can conventionalize the time, the space, the transformation, the form, the existence or the spirit, as well as any paradox, as positive or negative, as sentiment, intuition. It becomes accessible to our spirit, which is not possible in the unconventional. There is no unconventional universe for us, but we do know that we are part of this universe. We know that, by studying our universe, we implicitly study the unconventional universe, such as we know that we have neither past nor future. What we have is the present image on our past or future. The fact that we cannot conventionalize the unconventional, or its effects, does not mean that it fails to exist, or that we are not part of the unconventional. Conscious or not, our spirit is similar to our existence, to our unconventional universe, except that it is a particular case of the unconventional, more precisely conventional, or conventionalizing. To conclude, however much we would like this analysis to belong to the unconventional, it does 68

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

not. It is not even a paradox, although the characteristics and elements enunciated in this chapter are part of any entity. Our spirit cannot conventionalize these elements and characteristics. The spirit of other entities cannot do that, either. It cannot reflect them because the transformation, the time and the space are infinitely big or small at the same time, beyond the infinitely infinite, similar to the frequency of transformations. We infer the unconventional elements due to the unconventional in ourselves, but, as we have already explained, the unconventional cannot reflect itself, due to the infinitely infinite dimension of variation as space, time, transformation and due to the numberless elements of equilibrium, elements of comparison and of its limits beyond the infinite. Let us imagine that an image whose frequency goes beyond the unlimited passes before your eyes. You can infer that it is there, but you cannot render it. This would only be possible if the frequency went below a certain value, in relation to the possibilities of the spirit’s entity, that tries to conventionalize that image. The fact that an entity cannot reflect, (conventionalize) reality, the unconventional, its elements, or the unconventional entities, does not mean that they do not exist. It would be as if we stated that there is no reality, but only illussion/reality, or that there is no illusion/reality, but only reality. The climax of paradox is that 69

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

beyond the unconventional universe, (that is limitless), there are no limits, elements of equilibrium, of comparison, of transformation, etc. and consequently these elements, as any other elements, are obviously contained by the unconventional, unlimited universe. This unconventional universe is any entity and thus, you or I, by the elementary infinitely small moment or particle. This is not the analysis of the unconventional, the analysis of my own unconventional in relation to the unconventional and the image of this analysis elaborated by my spirit as an illusion/reality, convention of reality. It is not an analysis, it is not even an intuition. Let us not think similar to Kant, in whose opinion an extrapolation can be independent of the basis of the extrapolation, or that it can eliminate this basis after the process of extrapolation, whatever our capacity of knowledge or of any other entity was.

70

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

CONVENTIONAL/UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM/CONSTRAINT The conventional/unconventional freedom/constraint belongs to the conventional/unconventional universe and to its entities that exist as reality, but not for ourselves. It is only an intuition and an illusion for ourselves. We cannot define the entities, either, because their elements are infinitely infinite and the convention can only intuitively reach the unlimited. We have only the illusion that we can define and reach them. Conventionally, we say ‘this is an apple.’ The apple, as reality, is not just an apple. For the researcher, it is a group of molecules and atoms, bosons or unknown particles. For the universe, it cannot be defined, as it is very small. Reality stands for the infinite sum of all these interpretations and other unknown yet, of other entities. The illusion/reality is our reality, the reality transformed by the spirit of any entity. We cannot reach reality, we can see, feel and interpret it, but what we see or interpret is interpreted reality and not reality itself. It is a horizon that we can see, intuit, feel, etc, that we can never reach. We have reduced the frequency with which the images pass before our eyes from the unlimited to the infinitely infinite. This does not mean that we can also see the images, we can only intuit them. We can only perceive certain images in relation to our capacity of 71

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

resonating with reality. However, we can intuit reality much more correctly, although as an illusion/reality, we can better define the elements specific to this universe we are also part of and even analyze the images we resonate with, (we ourselves or other entities, which does not mean that we analyze reality, but the illusion/reality). We can define, (conventionalize) its limits or elements of equilibrium, of comparison or form, in relation to the images of resonance, images that are dependent on the transformation/space/time, although they are not the transformation/space/time itself, as in the unconventional case. This universe does not rely anymore on big or small infinitely infinite elementary particles, but simultaneous, conventional and unconventional combined elements and their conventional/unconventional infinitely infinite equivalent, more precisely a convention of unconventional, such as God in theism, or the infinite in Mathematics. It is only now that we can make that intuitive analysis, previously made known, without the possibility of adapting it to the conventional, (not as reality, but only as intuitive reality). This universe comprehends Kant’s transcendental and can be discussed upon. It does not go beyond the “infinite” limit of conventionalized thinking. Reality is infinitely infinite, infinite as transformation/space/time and infinite as entities, (forms/existence/spirit), infinite as individual versions and infinite as constituent 72

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

elements of one version. A. The entity as conventional/unconventional individual At this stage, we can intuitively define a form/existence/spirit, but the limits of these elements are infinitely infinite and thus nonexistent. These definitions are not a reality for ourselves, but an intuitive illusion. By holding an apple in our hand, we do not reflect its reality. This reality contains unlimited limits, that we cannot comprehend by means of our thinking or look. It is a paradox to hold the infinitely infinite in your hand and feel its limits slip through your fingers, but this is reality and not what we think about reality. The limits, similar to the other elements specific to any real entity, (also valid for its freedom/constraint), the elements of equilibrium, of comparison, or the domain of definition, are not only the ones that we intuit or think. There are many other limits that we cannot reach by intuition or our senses. These are the elements related to the universes of the apple’s reality, in our case, universes interior or exterior to the apple. It is not only the conventional apple that we hold in our hand, but a bigger or smaller infinity of particles, from atoms and molecules to infinitely infinite small particles, unknown yet, as well as a part of the infinitely infinite exterior universe, represented by the relationship between our reality 73

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

(the apple) and the universality, (fields, energies, universal forces, etc). We cannot hold either of these in our hand, especially that we do not know all of them as transformation/space/time. Do you think that if we were to penetrate inside our reality, towards the smallest particle, or towards its exterior, towards the infinite of the universe we are part of would be a different thing? This is not true. Just take a close look at the scientific discoveries, (from man as entity to its microscopic and mega microscopic infinite), to Genetics and further to the DNA’s vibrations, in parallel with the extra human discoveries, solar systems and cosmic universes and you will notice that we never reach the limit of knowledge. We are at the most at the limit of the possibilities specific to each entity of knowledge. Man tries to search for the particle of God and will keep on searching for the unlimted, because the forces and energies of the universe are infinitely big, (compared to ours or to those of any other entity). We ourselves, as individuals, who do we belong to? Do we belong to the infinitely infinite small particles inside ourselves, to the earth, to the unlimited universe, or to all of these? If both ourselves and the apple belong to all these universes, how can we say that we hold reality in our hands, that we can comprehend or conventionalize it? The same thing is valid if we refer to the freedom/constraint as reality. It is not 74

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

reality we have, but our image on reality, the intuitive, sensitive and sentimental image of reality, etc. Could we say that the human micro or macro cosmos end at the level of our power of intuition? Are we perfect? I would be very curious to see such a courageous person, (except those that have no idea). This is possible in the conventional. In real life, this is skeptical. If we do not allow this theory to exist at least as an unverified presupposition, we will stand to lose, limiting our horizon. The theory does not bring about any disadvantages for us. It is only people that disturb us sometimes in the name of God, or of another entity of effect. The apple we hold in our hand is our reality, (a reality we can conventionalize, reflect, etc.), an intuition belonging to others, (to those who have an idea on the apple, but as generality; we are not talking about the apple we hold in our hand), and a non reality of other entities, of those who have no notions on the apple, (the convention, the reflection). This reality, that is our reality, does not exist, or at least it is a deformed reality for an entity from another universe transformation/space/time, (it can also be another universe from the human universe, another man in another city, or on another planet). Is any reality both that which exists and does not exist at the same time? For some of us, it is a reality, for others it is just a presupposition, or non existence. We can only say it is relative, a convention, or illusion/reality 75

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

and not reality itself, (we can say it is a conjunctural reality). The same is true for its characteristics, more exactly the freedom/constraint, its limits or domain of definition, etc. Imagine that we hold in our hands a handful of earth and not an apple. Which one represents reality, the earth in our hands, the planetary earth it is part of, or the universe the earth is also part of? Conventionally speaking, it is part of the universe we choose, but in actual fact, it is part of all these universes, simultaneously. The real freedom/constraint is as far away from us as the unconventional one, except that we can reflect, conventionalize this reality, as paradox, as illusion/reality. Any kind of reality is determined by several elements, consequently any reality and any entity have their limits, elements of equilibrium, of comparison and domains of definition, no matter whether we are able to recognize them, (coventionalize, reflect, etc.), no matter whether these elements are only infinite, or infinitely infinite, or unbounded. We actually deal with a continuous transformation, the notion of “finite” does not exist. 1. The limits of the conventional/unconventional freedom/constraint do not exist, (or they exist, but are unlimited), although they are contained by the conventional/unconventional universe. The latter 76

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

cannot reflect, (conventionalize) them. The universal reality comprehends its own limits. Reality also lies beyond the power of our thinking as reality, (the unconventional is also reality, but not for ourselves). This is similar to a film, where we can see the 24 images as one single image, which is not reality. We are not interested in this kind of reality, but if we were interested, we could not see it anyway, because we would lose its illusion for another illusion/reality. If you take a look at yourself, you our readers, you will notice that you are also unlimited and part of the unconventional. The limits of your freedom/constraint are unlimited, (as particles and infinitely infinite short moments), but this time the unlimited is limited by a convention. It is a relative convention, that brings about stability, permanence, more precisely the infinite or God. Do not think of yourself only as an individual, but as a universal entity, (atoms, molecules, particles of God, or as particles of an infinite black hole, that is beyond the convention called “man”). Your entity is an infinite of entities, from the infinite to the infinitely infinte, it is unlimited. Apart from God, you are your own God. Each of us is the center of his own universe and of the conventional/unconventional universe. The limits of the conventional/unconventional freedom/constraint are unlimited as form, existence, spirit. In relation to 77

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

the transformation, time and space, each of these elements are infinitely infinite, (unbounded), from the positive to the negative. The difference in the conventional/unconventional is that the positive and the negative are simultaneous, but they can be conventionalized as illusion/reality, whereas in the unconventional they cannot be conventionalized, or conventionalize themselves, (paradox). It is as if we were somewhere in the universe, knowing that the earth does exist, but we have never seen it and we can only make an idea, (convention) of what it means by a mediator. We can talk about the conventional/unconventional limits of the freedom/constraint, as these limits are specific to any entity. They are both conventional and unconventional. This is the reason why we will never find perfection or the perfect freedom, as reality. These are conventional/unconventional notions, that is they are part of another system of coordinates. You will notice, as we have already mentioned, that your limits are also unlimited. It all depends on the convention and the chosen universe. This is valid for anybody and any form of existence, (entity). These limits determine the form, the existence and the spirit of the entity in relation to the transformation/space/time. It is in this way that the limits of the form, according to the transformation, space and time take shape. These limits are infinte in the conventional/unconventional, 78

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

heading towards the infinitely infinite, that we cannot reach even intuitively, (the intuitive goes only to the infinite and not beyond it). The limits determine the spirit and the existence, defending the limits of existence, as transformation/space/time or those of the spirit as transformation/space/time. a. The limits of freedom/constraint for the entity as individual and form. Similar to the limits of its universe, the limits of the freedom/constraint belonging to the form rely on infinite universal forms. We can talk about an infinitely infinite form as a sum of infinitely infinite forms, but also about an infinitely infinite unique form, that cannot be reflected, (conventionalized). We can define the versions of the freedom/constraint of form. They are infinitely infinite both as individual and as group. There are many infinitely infinite versions in the conventional/unconventional or infinitely small in the conventional. In our case as well, the forms have numberless versions, if we imagine ourselves within the universality, whereas as human beings, we only have a small infinite (finite/infinite) of forms, limited by the destiny of our existence as human beings. Could we possibly formulate a definition for the form of the conventional/unconventional universe? That would be absurd, as we would go beyond our limits. However, what kind of convention could shape a 79

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

conventional form of the conventional/unconventional universe? It is only the unconventional that could do that, which cannot define the forms. The form stands for the infinite characteristics of the entity immortalized by the spirit of an entity, more exactly, the paradox of the conventionalized entity. All the elements of the form, (colour, fields, dimensions, etc.) are influenced by transformation, space and time, as in the case of any entity, except that the transformation, space and time do not exist anymore in the conventional/unconventional, more exactly their positive and negative aspects overlap, (paradox), the simultaneity being total, without being conventionalized. As we have already mentioned, neither of the elements in the conventional/unconventional is reflectable, (they cannot be conventionalized). We are only trying an intuitive extrapolation. As in the case of the unconventional, the infinite or God, we deal with the image of reality, as it is reflected by our spirit, and not with reality itself (paradox). This is only a covention/paradox, similar to the infinite or God, shaped in the form of man. Our own intuition on reality ressembles our image on reality. In this context, the freedom/constraint cannot be identified by us. It has no present without the elements of comparison, the elements of equilibrium, the domain of definition. It has only past and future, that are simultaneous, (unlimited and 80

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

simultaneous). We can only intuitively talk about the individual or about the group, (simultaneous and unlimited). This is the reason why there is no spirit that can comprehend or separate them, (not even intuitively, or instinctively, etc.). There is no spirit that could comprehend them as reality. b. The entity as individual and existence As long as both the entity and its entities are infinitely infinte, their existence or the existence of their elements are infinitely infinite and therefore unlimited. We can easily infer the existence of a generalized spirit, as well as a generalized existence, or more, but it is hard to believe that we will ever be able to expand upon them. We do know however that we are also part of such an entity. Let us think about the conventional/unconventional existence in relation to the three elements of the universality, more precisely transformation, space and time. This type of freedom/constraint makes reference to the notion of empty/full belonging to any entity. There are numberless unlimited universes, outside and inside us, (inside us, up to the infinitely small particles and outside us, up to infinitely big particles). This theory is also valid for the energies or fields. It is only ourselves that can decide and only at the conventional level if our existence is reality or not. As a matter of fact, both ourselves and the other entities experience the illusion/reality of reality as 81

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

form, spirit and existence. The existence of any entity is infinitely infinite. From the existential point of view, (that is empty/full), there are many versions of man. Although, conventionally speaking, we also define as a man that human being without a hand or leg, this does not give us the right to neglect their differences of freedom/constraint. When it comes to the entities, the versions are infinitely infinite as transformation, space and time. Under these circumstances, the freedom/constraint is both unlimited and limited simultaneously, but without having the possibility for self-reflection. Reflected by one or more entities, it turns into interpreted reality, in positive/negative infinitely infinite versions. Each has its own version of freedom/constraint. c. The entity as individual and spirit We can consider the spirit in this case either as an infinity of numberless spirits, or as an infinitely infinite spirit. In both cases, the limits are unlimited. Anyway, the limits are distributed according to the transformation/space/time. By spirit, we must understand the simultaneity memory/thinking/intuition/instinct/sentiments/feelin g. In both cases, the spirit cannot reflect the unlimited. Although the limits are inside the unlimited, the spirit cannot reflect them or their freedom/constraint. We sometimes have the tendency to believe that if the 82

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

spirit represents an entity of effect, taken separately, its freedom is smaller or bigger. As a matter of fact, an entity of effect seems freer, but it is limited by an entity- support and its elements, form, existence and spirit. Taking into account the features of reality, we evidently come to be aware of our inability to comprehend this reality, (convention, limits, etc.). We must see the entity as individual/group or as part and whole simultaneously. The elements of any reality are infinitely infinite, which helps the freedom/contraint resemble the other elements in infinitely infinite positive/negative versions. 2. The elements of equilibrium specific to the conventional/unconventional freedom/constraint, (the element or elements zero, the so-called conventional beginning and end). As in any universe, there are also elements of equilibrium (paradox) and here the freedom/constraint has a unique point of equilibrium, that it cannot recognize and which is contained by the universe. Although it is infinitely infinite, it represents the sum of all the elements of equilibrium, of all the entities, but also an infinity of elements of equilibrium that can only be defined in conventional terms. This is also valid for any entity, if this is analyzed in the conventional/unconventional. We also have an infinity of points of equilibrium, both as a human being and as a universal entity. It all depends on 83

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

what we choose. If we choose a conventional element in our universe, we will find the equilibrium, if we choose a conventional/unconventional element, we will become unstable, variable, similar to the unconventional, we will turn into reality itself, into the paradox itself and not its image. We can surely debate here upon the elements of equilibrium of the freedom/constraint belonging to the individual entity as form, existence and spirit. Unfortunately, the conventional/unconventional real entity has an infinity of forms, existences and spirits. Given the fact that the limits, the elements of equilibrium, of comparison and the domains of definition are unlimited, it is impossible for us to establish a generalized convention for them. Intuitively, we can make extrapolations towards the primary experience enunciated by Huserl, or towards Kant’s a priori. To imagine the infinitely infinite does not allow us to visualize or reflect it, although, as a paradox, (as a normality), we are also part of this infinitely infinite. However, we must take into account the fact that all these elements have infinitely infinite characteristics, that the spirit can only sequentially comprehend the simultaneity and in this case the reality with numberless versions and entities cannot be measured by us or related one single element of equilibrium, but to an infinity, which cannot be done by the spirit of an entity. We will never be able 84

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

to measure two distances at the same time. Apparently, it is only the computer, (another entity) that can do that, but it cannot measure an infinity of spaces simultaneously, the finite/infinite simultaneity, or the infinitely infinite any reality is part of. We erroneously believe that we have a beginning and an end, neglecting the fact that our beginning as reality lies within the unbounded and that our end lies within the infinitely infinite from the point of view of reality, and not of the relative convention as “man.” We will not follow these paths out of several reasons, among which the fact that both ourselves and any entity are part of the reality we cannot reach and we would rather analyze the conventional reality, more exactly the reality of a concrete entity, of our power of knowledge, than its extrapolation. We can go on with an analysis similar to that of the limit, for example: - elements of equilibrium specific to the conventional/unconventional freedom/constraint of form; - elements of equilibrium specific to the conventional/unconventional freedom/constraint of existence; - elements of equilibrium specific to the conventional/unconventional freedom/constraint of spirit. 85

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

3. The element (elements) of comparison In the case of the freedom/constraint for the entity as individual in the conventional/unconventional, these elements also have the qualities and flaws of a paradox, more exactly they are infinitely infinte and undefined at the same time. They stand for the unlimited sum of all the elements of comparison, but they can also represent a unique element. Although the infinitely infinite cannot be compared, although it is unlimited, it is nevertheless contained by its universe. This also holds true for ourselves, as well as for any conventional element and as an unconventional element. The infinitely infinite also exists for ourselves as well, if we see ourselves as conventional/unconventional universe, and not as human beings, molecules, or entities. We are also made of “God particles,” and consequently we are infinitely infinite, but not as human beings or entities. As human beings, we can exist as entities, the socalled self-consciousness), which is not possible as “God particles.” Each has his own freedom/constraint. There are also infinitely infinite big elements of comparison. If we were to analyze the particular cases, we would never come to an end, but we resume at the conventional, as we would not like to deal with another kind of freedom/constraint, different from the human one, or with another dimension. We can talk here about the 86

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

freedom/constraint of entity, as individual, form, existence and spirit, but this is just an intuitive discussion, without the possibility of a punctual convention, similar to our illusion/reality. In Mathematics, we have a concrete theory. In Physics, this theory is relative. In actual fact, we have absolute theories that we cannot represent in accordance with reality and we cannot operate with them or with their elements, as it happens in the universal reality, (more exactly limits, elements of equilibrium, elements of comparison, or infinitely infinite domains of definition). We are going to give an example that can be intuitively extrapolated. Any entity and thus any man have figure one or the light-year as elements of comparison. We cannot establish for the reality surrounding us an absolute unit of comparison, (one, year, light, etc.). In the real universe, we cannot refer only conventionally to man or to the elements of his entity, (one, year, light, etc.), but simultaneously, as well as to the system this universe is part of. Although this is reality, man is never isolated, he is always part of the context of reality. We conventionally separate man from this context. In this case, we should establish a simultaneity of elements of comparison, that is second, meter, year, light, etc., at the same time. It does not seem logical to follow these directions. It would be as if we wanted to analyze God or reality, 87

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

both known and unknown reality. In the context described, there are specific elements of comparison for form, existence and spirit, more precisely: - the element (elements) of comparison belonging to the form - the element (elements) of comparison belonging to existence - the element (elements) of comparison belonging to the spirit In this context, the analysis could continue. 4. The domains of definition There is no entity without a domain of definition or the elements that characterize the specific part of any entity, from colour to dimensions, properties, etc. Only in the case of reality, its limits are unlimited. We can define domains of definition for the freedom/constraint of the entity as individual and form, as existence or spirit, but this discussion is only an extrapolation and not reality, as we think. We prefer the illusion/reality, that is the reality perceived by us, or by the other entities, in other terms, reality within the limits of our conventions. It is obvious that all the elements depend on the form, existence and spirit of the real entity, (conventional/unconventional), as well as on the transformation, space and time. We must take into account the fact that all these have infinitely infinite 88

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

characteristics and no domain of definition of any entity that can be reflected by a convention. We would need an infinite simultaneity of conventions and consequently an infinity of conventions on the freedom/constraint simultaneously. To analyze the reality we are not able to comprehend, but that we intuit, would mean to make the analysis of the infinite, that we cannot reach, but infer. This is the reason why we will end our analysis here, mentioning that there are domains of definition specific to the form, existence and spirit, more precisely: - the domains of definition belonging to the form of reality - the domains of definition belonging to the existence of reality - the domains of definition belonging to the spirit of reality and so on. B. The entity as group. The same analysis from the entity to the individual is valid for the entity as group, except that each entity that makes up the group is analyzed as an individual entity, but also for the interdependence that makes up the analyzed group. We can proceed in the same way for each entity, making reference only to the freedom/constraint. We must necessarily take into account the reality of the groups that make up the entity, the reality of the 89

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

groups the entity is part of, as well as the analysis of the two versions. Reality is impossible to determine by any entity. Its conventional representation cannot be made as reality. You will notice this fact at the end of our book, where after a complex analysis, you will come to the conclusion that we have reached a horizon, from where we can hardly observe another horizon, etc. This is the reason why we have not insisted on reality, but we will insist on the illusion/reality, that is on our reality, the conventional reality. If the atom is an entity whose elements and structure we do not know yet, (and at the same time with a lot of already known elements), just think what the structure of a man, animal, plant, flower implies. These are all made up of numberless atoms and molecules. This is the individual/group reality and we will never be able to separate these simultaneities more than conventional.

90

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

CONVENTIONAL FREEDOM/CONSTRAINT The limits of our spirit and conventions increase our power of comprehension, we come closer to our intuition, thinking, memory, instinct, sentiments and feelings, or to those of the other entities, (form/existence/spirit). We can now reflect the illusion/reality, we can notice the images, we can analyze, separate, conventionalize them, etc., taking into account the fact that these images are just the images of reality, and not reality itself. Although we have resumed the conventional, the unconventional makes its presence felt, (the relative aspect of convention) by means of the common, but essentially different elements, more precisely: limits, space, time, transformation, elements of comparison, of equilibrium, of the form, the domain of definition, their simultaneity, variation from positive to the negative, from individual to group, etc. While in the unconventional everything was unlimited, but contained by the respective universe, now everything is limited/unlimited, (limited, but relative), but we can conventionalize them as paradox or axioms. Now all the things are limited, but their limits cannot be reached by the entity they belong to, they are not part of the conventional 91

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

universe of the entity we analyze. We can however conventionalize everything. My limit is a limit of my convention, whereas my limit does not exist for you, (you have your own limits). It may exist for the group, but in that case the group cannot reach it either, more exactly we should not misunderstand the established system of reference, as philosophy has proceeded until now. As we can notice in the scheme of the freedom/constraint, it can be defined conventionally, because the entities can conventionalize the unconventional, (as any paradox). The notion of freedom/constraint stands for a convention of unconventional, similar to the notion of infinite, infinitely infinite, void, or God. This notion can now be conventionally separated according to the two main directions of freedom/constraint, (in relation to the freedom or to the constraint, but also to the individual and the group). The notions of individual and group are simultaneous in reality, but they can be separated in the conventional, for a better understanding. Consequently, an individual and a group freedom/constraint take shape, followed by one positive and one negative freedom/constraint, (one moral and another immoral, or morality from the positive to the negative) and these are simultaneous. Each and every entity experiences a negative, moral or less moral freedom/constraint. Man does not have only a moral freedom/constraint. At the level of the 92

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

individual or of the group, the freedom/constraint is to be found divided according to the simultaneity form/existence/spirit, that defines any entity, more precisely the freedom/constraint of form, existence and spirit, that are in their turn defined by other simultaneities, such as memory/thinking/ feeling/sentiment/intuition/instinct, defined in their turn by other simultaneities, (there are five senses and consequently five types of freedom/constraint in this sense; thinking is rational or irrational, conscious or unconscious, the sentiments are enough, the intuition is variable from negative to the positive on an infinite scale, similar to the instinct). All these elements and their limits, points of equilibrium, of comparison confer conventional stability. Each of them influences us in the definition of the freedom/constraint and each varies from the negative to the positive on an infinite scale in relation to each entity, to the transformation/space/time of its existence. Everything is relative/absolute, it seems complicated, it is complicated, this is the reason why it is called paradox. This paradox can be defined in very simple terms by means of any convention. I can choose my limit reality/illusion (the limit of the freedom/constraint chosen by myself or by my spirit). The criterion of my spiritual values is related to my spirit. What is it that prevents you from considering 93

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

any formula on the notion of freeom/constraint perfect? After all, it is a convention. As you have noticed, the notion of freedom can be defined by each of us and each entity. This is due to the fact that we are also part of the unconventional and the unconventional inside us, the spirit within us can conventionalize anything at the level of our human universe. We can conventionalize the unlimited or the impossible at the level of our spirit, which is not equal to reality itself. As individuals, groups, society, as planet or as universe, we can make our own rules. Although these rules or conventions ressemble the real ones, they are not identical and consequently do not represent reality itself. Each individual or group has its own conventions and freedom/constraint, perfect for himself and unique in the conventional/unconventional universe. The difference is made by the entity analyzed, not before establishing the parameters involved, including limits, elements of equilibrium, elements of comparison, of transformation, space and time. The freedom/constraint you feel, intuit, think, feel is only yours, it belongs to the atom or molecule inside yourself, or to the smallest particle in the universe, but also to the biggest entity that you know or that exists in the conventional/unconventional universe you are part of, which is also a paradox. If until now we have discussed the notion of freedom/constraint in general terms, making reference to the elements of 94

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

equilibrium, of comparison, to limits, related to the entity as individual or group, let us try to bring forward the elements related to the simultaneities of the entity, more precisely form/existence/spirit and transformation/space/time. The elements mentioned for the entity as individual depend on the space, time or transformation and the fact that we refer to these elements as related to the components of the entity does not mean that we pass to the analysis of the entity as a group, but to the analysis of the individual simultaneities of the entity. If we want to analyze the entity as a group, we must establish the interior groups, (the atom is a group, the molecule is a group) we can make reference to, or the exterior groups, (that can be the atoms or the molecules, the plants or the animals, the exterior societies or universes, etc.) The notion of freedom/constraint refers to a multitude of simultaneous elements, taken simultaneously or separately, elements that are part of the general/particular aspect of the entity as individual or group. As a paradox, any entity can choose any entity for analysis. Usually, the entity believes it is only itself it could possibly know the best and consequently it tries its conventionalization, although reality is totally different. The entity considers its own knowledge to be a primary necessary thing, without taking into consideration that the more comprehensive a conventionalization 95

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

is, the more it brings about significant distortions. The more comprehensive the conventionalization, the bigger its tendency to turn into unconventional, generating sooner or later its transformation into another entity, neither superior, nor inferior, or both superior and inferior, better or bad, developed or less developed, at the same time. We must take into account the fact that an infinite sum of conventions stands for the unconventional, more precisely the more we conventionalize, the more we draw away from the initial convention, heading towards the unconventional. Similar to the internet, a vast accumulation of information turns into disinformation. In the end, the transformation of spirit, its conventional side will be essential and the spirit is not able to recognize its anterior spiritual entity. In other terms, it will begin to experience the conventional/unconventional simultaneity as another entity. The previous conventional memory fades away. Conclusively, the moment that exists and does not exist simultaneously, as any paradox, (it does not exist either in the conventional, or in the unconventional, but it represents the element of continuity), stands for the element that brings out the unconventional into bold relief. In the absence of its conversion from one entity to another, memory could not possibly be used and the spirit could not reflect the unconventional in the conventional. Furthermore, due to the paradox that 96

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

this moment dilates up to a small infinite, although it does not exist, (similar to ourselves or to any individual or group entity, that identify ourselves with a dilated moment) counteracts the infinitely infinite, (unlimited), giving any entity the possibility to make known its reflections by means of the memory. It has no dimensions, limits, points of equilibrium, or comparison, unless it receives them from the spirit. In relation to the spirit, it is infinitely big or small, unique from one entity to another; it has no present, it only has past and future, similar to the unconventional it is part of, (another paradox). Your past or mine are limited to myself or to you as entity. Can we talk about our present or future beyond my or your own entity? Neither you nor I have past or future, we only have the present and present reflections of the past or future, which is also valid for our freedom/constraint. We have neither past nor future, but only the present and the present of the past or future time. The moment also has its own freedom/constraint, it exists and at the same time does not exist, it dilates negatively or positively on an infinite scale, similar to us and to any convention, although the convention is called freedom/constraint. The moment is the axiom of the present, although it has no present, or the present is the axiom of the conventional, the elementary paradox, such as the God particle in the universe. It perceives the infinitely infinite contraction or 97

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

extension, it has limits it cannot reach, it is the equilibrium of any convention. We could not establish the convention in its absence. This moment is specific to any entity, no matter whether it is a self existing entity, an entity of effect, or both. Let us try to determine, in relation to what we have read up to now, the meaningful or meaningless relations between ourselves and the other entites and we will come to the conclusion that what we thought had nothing to do with us, is actually directly related to ourselves, the individuals or groups inside or outside ourselves, that influence us. The conventional freedom/constraint is first of all individual, whether we like it or not and then group, social, collective, etc., because it belongs to us and it imposes our spirit by memory/thinking/instinct/sentiment/feeling/intuition to define us as self entity. This also holds true for the other entites. Further on, we will pass to a more concrete analysis, but not before mentioning the fact that all the elements that define the real entity are also valid for the conventional entity, with one single difference, namely that these elements (limits, elements of equilibrium, of comparison and domains of definition) are limited/unlimited or stable and relative at the same time, or as we define them, finite/infinite. These are the reflected, conventionalized image of the real elements, similar to the image of the infinite in a mirror. 98

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

A. The entity as conventional individual. The entity as conventional individual stands for the self entity (the conventional entity and not for the group that makes it up) and for its freedom/constraint. Any entity in the conventional has the basic elements, limits, elements of equilibrium, of comparison, the domain of definition, as well as its own freedom/constraint, that characterize the form, the existence and the spirit of any entity. Man is only a particular case. 1. The limits. The limit is the convention by means of which we conventionally limit any element from the domain of definition specific to the transformation of any entity and to its constituent elements. The limits of the entity are classified according to the form, existence and spirit. Any limit of an entity lies outside the conventional universe of that particular entity and inside the unconventional universe, which means that there is no space and time, but only the comparison between our time unit of comparison and a unit of time outside or inside ourselves, represented by the time element of comparison or space specific to another form/existence/spirit, exterior or interior to ourselves. Although it recognizes its own limit, it cannot reach it. In other terms, although we know 99

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

that our limit is death, we never reach it, we first die and only the others know what our death is like, not ourselves. The freedom/constraint also obeys by this principle and thus its limits are outside it, as an entity. Although it recognizes them, it cannot reach them. Each mentioned element must be analyzed separately, both at the level of the individual and of the group belonging to the same entity. The limits, the elements of equilibrium and of comparison, the domain of definition represent the parameters that define the form/existence/spirit on the simultaneity transformation/space/time. More precisely, the limits are the limits of the form, existence or spirit in time, space, or transformation. We will thus be able to find the limits of the conventional, individual freedom/constraint as limits of space, time and transformation in the case of any entity (form/existence/spirit) and for any of its specific elements. This is the reason why a definition of the freedom in the conventional has not been found yet, because in actual terms, freedom is simultaneous with the constraint, it differs from from one individual to another, from one group to another and it depends on very many elements. Kant has formulated a definition, (particular case), but in the transcendental. It is a materialistic definition, as that of Marx is, existentialist, as that given by Sartre, theistic, or anarchist, etc. These definitions are all both true and false within the same time, space or 100

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

transformation, true for the group that accepts that conversation and false, as they have not taken into account the simultaneity freedom/constraint, elaborated by this philosophy, theistic and atheistic, anarchist, individual or group freedom/constraint. Their solutions are entirely acceptable, real, (reality/illusion) at the conventional level, they are part of the unconventional and observe man’s right to the conventional/unconventional, but these are only conventions, both relative and individual or group conventions. They are just simple conventions, simple particular cases, they will never be conventional definitions for an unconventional formula. Let us take as an example a drugged man, for whom freedom means pleasure instead of existence, or a self-destroyer, whose freedom represents his right to death, (to put an end to his life, non freedom, universal, unconventional freedom, or...). The limits are clear. They continuously transform and do not disappear. After our death, there is no analysis available for ourselves anymore. This is not true for the entity that we analyze, that can still be analyzed by other entities, even we have disappeared as entity “people, human beings” (we do not actually disappear, we transform and this transformation can be analyzed). The existence of two different limits, one specific to the individual, as entity and finite and another one belonging to the component groups of the 101

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

entity, that does not disappear, it continues to transform ad infinitum. We will now pass to the analysis of the conventional freedom/constraint in relation to the structure of an entity, more precisely form, existence and spirit, not before defining the elements characteristic to any entity, that is limits, elements of equlibrium, elements of comparison, domain of definition in the conventional.

102

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

a. The conventional limits of the freedom/constraint specific to the form of an entity as individual. They strictly refer to the form of the entity that has in its turn many characteristics of form. Let us start from the definition of the form in the conventional and in relation to our philosophy, that is the simultaneity of the characteristics belonging to the transformation of an entity on the limited transformation/space/time. According to the definition, the limits of the form and consequently of its freedom/constraint spread to dimensions, colour, vibrations, fields, structure, etc., as transformation, time and space. Each element becomes a subject of analysis for its freedom/constraint. Thus, we will analyze the freedom/constraint of the dimensions, colours, vibrations, fields and structures of the entity and their limits. Any entity is defined by its form, that is we cannot say that a fat man fails to have another freedom/constraint, compared to a thin man, or that a blind fails to be different from another man with a healthy sight. Any of the elements specific to the form has an influence on the freedom/constraint of the individual, (entity), from the positive to the negative. The fact that we do not notice the differences does not mean they do not exist. If there are influences due to the form at the level of the freedom/constraint of the entity, its limits are in their turn influenced by each characteristic. There are many examples we could 103

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

mention, from colour to the energies in each entity or outside them. As you well know, man has its fields of energy with clear influences on his health. We cannot say that these energies fail to influence its freedom/constraint and consequently the limits of its freedom/constraint. b. The conventional limits of the freedom/constraint specific to the existence of an entity as individual. The definition concerned with the existence of an entity reveals us the fact that it is an empty/full simultaneity. We strictly refer here to the existence of the entity and consequently to its elements, more exactly its possibilities to reflect or to be reflected and thus to the limits of these possibilities, the possibility to extrapolate this capacity or not, the possibility to extrapolate its limits by means of other entities. In this context, we will analyze all the aspects referring to the notion of empty/full separately or simultaneously, as well as the versions of this existence in each entity and their effects as freedom/constraint. It is obvious that the absence of an organ or the attachment of certain devices to a man increase or decrease his capacities and thus his freedom/constraint modifies. A single handed man is not as free or as constrained as another healthy man, even if his hand is replaced with a device. The limits of his freedom/constraint are modified in good or bad. These conventional limits depend on 104

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

all the empty/full elements of an entity, from the atom or molecule that make it up to the unknown infinitely small particles, to the empty/full integrity of the entity. If a man lacks a number of iron atoms, he becomes anemic, or if his cells increase in number, this will turn into cancer. His freedom or constraints are different, as their limits are. c. The conventional limits of the feedom/constraint specific to the spirit of an entity as individual. The spirit represents the simultaneity memory/thinking/feeling/sentiments/intuition/instinct. Starting from here, we can make an analysis of the freedom/constraint on each element, more precisely the freedom/constraint of thinking, memory, feeling, sentiments, intuition and instinct. The spirit is the one that reflects the transformation in its existing particular forms, it has its own freedom/constraint, with its spiritual limits, elements and domain of definition. The limits of this freedom/constraint show us how much the notion of illusion/reality can reflect, helped by other entities. The analysis will take into account each element, (as each element is another simultaneity). Thus, thinking is rational/irrational, moral or immoral, etc. Memory is conscious/unconscious, the sentiments are hate/love or fear/courage, etc. Each of these enumerations is analyzed separately 105

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

or simultaneously, both as freedom/constraint and as its limits. Memory and thinking have their limits and bring about limitations of those freedoms or constraints specific to an entity. We cannot possibly fail to recognize the influence of the instinct or of the feelings on the freedom/constraint and on its elements. You can find as many examples as you wish, it is not difficult at all to do that. Take each element separately and analyze its relation to the freedom/constraint of the entity. The different level of evolution belonging to each entity, (man, plant, animal, universe, etc.) determines different versions of freedom/constraint and of its limits, for each version and each stage of transformation in space/time. 2. The elements of equilibrium, for the freedom/constraint of the entity as individual in the conventional. The element of equilibrium is a conventional element, or a zero element, the beginning or the end of a transformation. a. – of the form of the entity, that make reference to the elements concerned with the beginning and the end of the form, the entity is related to. This is similar to the feeling of the simple man separated from his origins, his home or land, when his equlibrium becomes unstable. His element 106

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

of equilibrium is represented by his birth place. The equilibrium of an entity’s form is given by its aspect in all the elements of form previously mentioned. Each element has one or more conventional points of equilibrium. For example, each of man’s colours has its own points of equilibrium from the pink aspect of the skin to the cyanotic aspect of an ill person. Each organ has its own colour and structure. Each entity has its own specific colours and forms related to a zero point. Zero can be a point of equilibrium for the colour or the field of energy belonging to a man or entity and consequently to the freedom/constraint of that entity and its elements. b. – of existence refer to the existential appearance and disappearance of the entity, more exactly its empty/full aspect. The elements of equilibrium make reference to the versions of the different entities in this sense and to the appearance and disappearance of that particular entity and its freedom/constraints. The origin of an existence can be taken conventionally as the point of equilibrium belonging to an entity, as in Geometry, where the beginning point of the straight line is a zero point or a point of equilibrium. Any point on the straight line can be chosen to represent the origin or the zero point. In the case of man, zero can also be an element of equilibrium within the empty/full existence of its 107

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

entity, but this is not mandatory, as its existential integrity or the real situation conventionalized by it can also stand for the element of equilibrium. c. – of the spirit, describes the spiritual equilibrium of an entity, determined by its criteria of values, related to the principles of that entity. Any entity needs spiritual stability and in this context we can talk about the elements of equilibrium specific to the freedom/constraint for the elements of the spirit belonging to each entity (memory/ thinking/feeling/sentiments/intuition/instinct). The system of positive or negative values of an entity represents a point of equilibrium of the spirit specific to that entity and to its spiritual freedom/constraint. The values themselves have zero points or points of equilibrium, around which the system of values is shaped and consequently each value has a zero point for its freedom/constraint. 2.b. The elements of comparison. These represent the conventional element by means of which we can draw a comparison between two or more elements of a transformation, or unit elements. a. – of the form – they are the elements by means of which we can draw comparisons between the types of freedom/constraint of the forms in their 108

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

diverse representation. Thus colour for example is different for the same entity, for its various constituent entities, but also different in nuances. It indicates different degrees of freedom/constraint for the entities. Colour variation is a bigger or smaller degree of freedom/constraint within the same entity. In order to compare the different colours and nunaces, as well as their effects as freedom/constraint, we need a convention. These common conventions that allow us to draw the comparisons represent elements of comparison belonging to the form of that particular entity. We can associate an element of comparison with an element of the form and evidently with a general element of comparison specific to the form of the entity. We cannot draw any kind of comparisons either inside or outside an entity in the absence of the elements of comparisons. There are many other similar examples. b. – of existence – the existences can also be compared from the point of view of the relations empty/full, that represent an entity or more. We do not know if existentially speaking, we can say that water is freer or more constraint than the metal or the air, but certainly the empty/full is different and their degrees of freedom and constraint differ as existence in this sense, similar to their freedom/constraint from this point of view. In order to be able to compare their freedoms/constraints, we need 109

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

conventional common elements, that we define as elements of comparison proper to the existence of their freedom/constraint. All the elements of comparison must take into account the individual/group simultaneity of any entity. Imagine that we want to compare the self existence of two different human beings. We would not be able to do that in the absence of the elements of comparison. Do not take into account only the figures, one, two, the second, the meter. The elements of comparison are also parts or subsystems of an entity, (a hand, a leg, a screw, or the tyres of a car, etc.). Their absence influences both the freedom/constraint and its possibility to compare. c. – of the spirit – these are the conventional, common and spiritual elements of freedom/constraint, by means of which we can draw comparisons, both at the level of the spirit as simultaneity memory/thinking/feeling/ sentiment/intuition/instinct and according to separate elements. These elements of comparison represent the elements by means of which we can draw comparisons between the values of the system of values proper to an entity, in our case, man, as individual and group. Reason cannot exist in the absence of the unit of comparison belonging to its values and non values. This is the reason why we cannot neglect the elements of comparison specific to each spiritual element, with the influences proper 110

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

to its freedom/constraint. Many of the old or modern philosophies draw comparisons between them without clearly defining the elements of comparison and their simultaneity. We could take as an example the case of moral philosophy, that has been compared within diverse systems, but without taking into account its interaction with the state of human existence at that moment or with the human form or spirit at that particular moment. Many people compare the old moral philosophy with the modern one, without taking into account the infinity of parameters at the respective moments. Which is the criterion, the element of comparison chosen for the moral analysis? Is it the truth, the justice, the beautiful, the ugly, the bad, the good? Which is the general unit of reference for all these elements? Each of them has chosen its own unit of measure. However, it is only to the elements of comparison proper to the freedom/constraint and to its moral philosophy that we refer here. 3. The domains of definition. The domain of definition is the domain according to which we define a certain transformation, space and time, it is the universe of each entity. In less general terms, it is an entity (taken as entity or universe) or more specific terms, a man. In the case of each entity, transformation is considered in 111

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

its conventional limits. Any entity, no matter whether it is a self - existing entity or an entity of effect, it has a representative domain of definition, (universe). This is given by the limits space/time of the transformation and by the limits specific to the form, existence and spirit of the entity. Their freedom/constraint has its own conventional domain of definition, similar to the limits space/time. The domain of definition proper to the entity is generated by the limits of its existence as individual/group or form/existence/spirit entity. The freedom/constraint is distributed on these elements. For example, according to the definition, man is “the superior, social being that is characterized by thinking, intelligence and articulated language and morphologically speaking, by the vertical position of the body and the structure of his legs, adapted to this position, the free hands and capable to perform subtle movements, the extremely developed brain.“ This definition reveals us a part of the elements of the domain of definition, position, form, components, etc. Some of them are to be understood, more precisely man’s existence on Planet Earth or in families. His domain of definition evidently influences his freedom/constraint, taking into account the fact that man is defined as an intelligent being. He is not perfect. Man must also be redefined as imperfection, more exactly conscious/unconscious or good/bad. Let us not forget 112

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

about the fact that the freedom/constraint of a crippled man is different from that of a man in a profound coma. a. – of the form – these are the delimitations of the elements specific to the form of existence in relation to the transformation/space/time and consequently of its freedom/constraints. Any domain of definition specific to the form of an entity has its degrees of freedom/constraint, as well as the domain of definition of this freedom/constraint. We cannot say that the freedom/constraint of a Chinese and that of an American are similar, or that the difference of colour has no influences on man’s freedom/constraint. It is at this level that the variation of the freedom/constraint lies, in relation to the domain of definition belonging to the form of an entity. The entity is influenced by the domain of definition belonging to the entity, in relation to each parameter of its form and consequently to its freedom/constraint as well. As we have already mentioned, the lack of energy in the case of man or his deviations of energy do not do away with him as a man, but they certainly modify his freedom/constraint, which is valid for any entity. b. – of existence – these represent the domains of definition proper to the empty/full existence of the entity’s transformation. In this case, the freedom/constraint belonging to the existence of an 113

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

entity has its conventional domain of definition, dependent on its existence as entity. The absence of an organ in the case of an individual means his disappearance as existence, it is another domain of existence, another notion of empty/full and obviously another freedom/constraint. The absence of one part of an entity’s whole modifies its degrees of freedom or constraint. A computer without a monitor evidently loses or gains degrees of freedom. c. – of the spirit –these are the domains of definition belonging to the spirit, on elements such as (thinking//memory/feeling/ sentiment/ instinct/intuition) and according to the transformation of the entity. The domain of the spirit used to be the domain of the entity “man,” which is a limited opinion. All the elements of the spirit, together with their domains of definition have a positive/negative influence on the freedom/constraint. Any modification of the domain of definition brings about the modification of all the parameters of the entity. These elements are also representative for the spiritual freedom/constraint on its separate or simultaneous elements, which depend on the transformation/space/time. All these elements have their own freedom/constraint and their own domains of definition on the entity as individual/group, as 114

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

finite/infinite and they are consequently interdependent. All the elements described in this chapter can be developed according to particular examples, such as each entity can be analyzed as freedom/constraint on each and every element. a.1. Freedom/constraint of form Starting from the elements discussed in the first part of the analysis of the freedom/constraint, it is obvious that the form has freedom/constraint on each element of form, (colour, energy, image, or form, fields, flavours as individual or interior groups, tastes perceived, etc.). Each element specific to the form has limits, elements of equilibrium, of comparison, domain of definition. Consequently, we have: - colour freedom/constraints; here are not included just the colours or the exterior nuances, but also the interior nuances, or the nuances of the interior entities, separately or in group, colours that we emit and perceive and receive. There are finite/infinite colours and nunaces, specific to all the entities. One single colour has finite/infinite nuances for a single entity, if we were to notice it both at the entity as an individual and at the entities that make it up. In the case of each colour, we must take into account its effects and perception from the point of view of its transformations in space and 115

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

time. Similar to the atom’s structure, that is considered to be the smallest particle, colours and their nuances vary from the positive to the negative, on an infinite scale. Let us not perceive colours just at the level of our visual perceptions, or of the entities we make use of. These are just a part of reality and only our conventions. This means freedom/constraint, more or less, according to our conventions or to the conventions of another entity. - energy is also variable and both negative/positive and finite/infinite. We must take into account here the energies emitted, but also the energies that intersect us. The energies we can determine, as well as those that we determine by means of the known entities are not the only ones. This would mean to have reached perfection, but neither the energy zero, nor the infinite one have been determined yet, for the entity or for the atom’s structure. If an atom, whatever its nature has energy, then any substance also has energy. Any entity as individual has energy from zero to the infinite, without reaching its limits and all the constituent entities have these versions of energy. The human energy is not limited, the energy of the atom does not vanish after its disappearance. The energy in a man does not disappear together with his death, the atoms do not lose their energy. The variation of the energy means nothing more than freedom/constraint at the level of this element. This 116

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

element and its freedom/constraint also influence the freedom/constraint of the entity overall. - exterior or interior image, (the form) – we sometimes consider that the image of a man is just a simple image. However, any image is an image made up of finite/infinite details and images. Let us notice the image of a man not just at the tridimensional level, but infinitely from the dimensional point of view, as it actually is. The real image of a man represents the sum of his images, from the infinity of the points exterior and interior to the man and not just his tridimensional image. An image is just an entity of effect and its support, more precisely, the entity that supports it. Any image in our brain or belonging to another entity has a support. If we did not exist, the image would not exist either. We are not talking only about the images that we emit, but also about the images we can receive and not only. In this case, the image is finite, due to its support as entity and infinite, due to the infinity of the entities support and to the interpretations. This is the freedom/constraint of an image interior or exterior to an entity and it influences the freedom of the entity overall. The absence of a hand or a crippled hand does influence the freedom/constraint of a man overall, as image, not as empty/full. It is not only the physical absence that influences the ensemble, but also its aspect, that belongs to the form or image of a man and it 117

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

obviously has its effects on man’s freedom/constraint. This is also valid for each entity. - the magnetic fields also have their influences. The existence of the magnetic fields has been demonstrated in the case of each entity. Each entity is at the confluence of many fields. This is the reason why we must acknowledge their finte/infinite, as number, densities and variation from entity to entity. We thus define their freedom/constraint with their conventional elements, (limits, elements of equlibrium, elements of comparison, domain of definition), influencing the entity we refer to. - tastes – if we bite an apple, each of us has different sensations. The taste itself differs from one moment to another, from one bite to another, or from its different constituents, (peel, seeds, etc.). The constituent elements of man also have different tastes, similar to the entity. Let us take these versions as the freedom/constraint of an entity, at the level of the tastes produced. We cannot deny their existence. Each entity has its tastes, no matter wheteher we ourselves or the entities that help us can define them. They can vary from zero, (that no entity recognizes), up to 100%, (that no entity recognizes). Let us not exaggerate by saying that zero stands for the absence of a taste. We are talking about the measuring of a taste, from zero to the infinite, and not by its absence, (outside it). There 118

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

are so many tastes, (that we cannot experience) and about which we say they do not exist. The atom also has its taste. The fact that we or the entites we collaborate with cannot recognize them, does not mean that they do not exist. Although we will never be able to find God, we must search for him, (we must conventionalize, analyze, etc.). We are talking here about the tastes of the constituent parts of an entity, or produced by an entity, but also about those induced to an entity and by other entites. For example, if we sit on a reek, our body will certainly smell like hay. - smells, the same analysis, as in the case of tastes. - interior or exterior, tactile tastes, more precisely the effects that another entity notices at the analyzed entity, that is the effects produced for the tactile senses of the other entites, but also the effects of other entites. Any entity has tactile effects inside or outside it and these effects confer it a certain freedom/constraint, that influence the freedom/constraint of the entity in its ensemble. We are talking about what it is that another entity experiences, when it feels this entity, but also what it experiences in relation to another entity. - many other known and unknown elements of the form. These elements produced by the entity belong to the form and not to the spirit. Their representation in our brain is undertaken by the 119

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

spirit, in one form or another. In all the mentioned cases, we refer to the elements produced by the entity and to those induced by other entities. We make reference to the elements themselves of the entity and to the relations between the elements of the entity and those of the other entites. a.2. Freedom/constraint of existence. All the elements of a convention, (limits, elements of equilibrium, elements of comparison, the domain of definition) are related this time to the empty/full existence of an entity, by its simultaneity individual/group, by the simultaneity transformation/space/time, as well as by the possibilities of variation from negative to the positive, on a finite/infinite scale of an entity. Each has its own degree of freedom/constraint, both as simultaneity and as separate elements. Everything with a self-existence is made up of elementary, infinitely small or big atoms or particles, according to which our possibilities or the possibilities of the entities help us to reflect them conventionally determines the existence of an entity. We do not know yet the secrets of the atom. Moreover, it is an unknown empty/full. This is its freedom/constraint, we do not have to compare it to our freedom/constraint, (our freedom/constraint is apparently more conscious, but it shapes the 120

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

tragedy of death, the sacrifice is too big). Once we have discovered the freedom/constraint, we have also discovered its elements and at the same time its distribution, according to the consciousness and unconsciousness of the entity, as well as according to its morality and immorality. All the entities with self-existence are conscious/unconscious, they have self consciousness more or less. There where the moral or immoral philosophy appear, consciousness also appears. The consciousness of an entity is not necessarily moral. It is improper to say that a man in a coma has consciousness. His moral side has vanished, he is unconscious and we can certainly say that he is negatively or positively conscious, according to its state of being. We thus turn into his freedom/constraints in relation to consciousness and unconsciousness. Is a criminal conscious or deprived of consciousness? We are convinced that he is sometimes perfectly conscious and that he is endowed with consciousness, a less moral, or negative consciousness. If a man’s brain is supported only by apparatuses, it is an empty/full, that we cannot continue to call man, but cyborg, that has his own conscious or unconscious freedom/constraints, with negative/positive consciousness. a.3. The freedom/constraint of spirit Here and now we debate upon 121

the

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

freedom/constraint of the spiritual elements memory/thinking//feeling/sentiments/ intuition/instinct, of course taking into account the transformation/space/time, form/existence/spirit, individual/group, etc. We do not discuss the effects produced by the form or the existence of the entity, but the effects produced by the spirit of the entity on its own form. We will analyze the freedom/constraint on each element, but we should never exclude their simultaneity. a.3.1. The freedom/constraint of memory. Memory is an element of the spirit. Nothing belonging to the the spirit of the Antiquity could have been conveyed in time, in the absence of memory. If you were amnesic, your past would not exist. The past or future images would not exist, either. You would not be able to determine the succession of moments, of the images illusion/reality around. Moreover, the amnesic being still, has some unconscious and even conscious memory of the present. He makes the difference between close moments, his amnesia is smaller or bigger in relation to the sum of the moments, that memory can preserve. If he were zero memory, he would not know how to breathe, eat, or watch, he would not have the memory of instinct, thinking, feeling, intuition, sentiments. We would like to be contradicted by a physician, 122

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

another convention might appear in this situation. The simultaneity between memory, (memory does not belong to thinking, but to the spirit) and the other elements of the spirit is evident and indispensable. It has its own freedom/constraint, of course in a relation of interdependence with the others, a finite/infinite freedom/constraint, varying from the positive to the negative, etc. It is a freedom/constraint with the same elements and limits, a freedom/constraint for both the amnesic and for the dog and trees in your yard. Memory is somehow awkward, it is the only one that allows us to expand upon the finite/infinite of the entity inside or outside ourselves, with self-existent entites and existences of effect, (such as God, the void, our ancestors, our parents, but beyond our senses, etc.). Kant’s transcendental would not have taken shape in the absence of memory. We continuously discover things, without being aware of that, as in the case of the unconventional, which is both big and small at the same time, (elementary, infinitely infinite small and big particles). The fact that we cannot exactly remember (more or less) things that others cannot remember is both a freedom and a constraint, due to the fact that memory, similar to the whole system of thinking, is limited and the things that occupy space in our memory do not allow that particular space to be occupied with other things. We ourselves cannot establish the 123

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

priorities, it is our memory that can do that, even if we are helped by other entites, (computers, cameras, etc.). The freedom/constraint of both conscious and unconscious memory has obvious influences on the freedom/constraint of the entity. a.3.2. Freedom/constraint of thinking is given by the freedom of spirit to think and its constraints. There are philosophies and philosophers that have tried to describe it as freedom of thinking, (a limited formula, because the freedom to think and the freedom/constraint of thinking are different). It must be divided into two, namely the freedom/constraint of thinking and to think. Thus, the freedom/constraint of thinking is limited to thinking, according to our own spirit, more or less, to its capacity of thinking and to our own entity, whereas the freedom of thinking depends on the exterior entities of the analyzed entity, more or less, that allows us to think or not. Both versions are analyzed in the case of the entity as an individual and also as a group. The freedom/constraints of a man subjected to electrical shocks are limited by another entity, (or he limits himself his freedoms or constraints from the outside or the inside), while the thinking of an insane man or a criminal is affected by their spirit and existence. In the classical philosophies, the freedom of thinking is considered to be the possibility of a man to think. Thinking is different, 124

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

when we deal with the notion of freedom/constraint, in the case of both entity and man. The freedom to think made reference only to a conscious, rational, human formula, and it did not take into account the unconscious side of thinking, in the large sense of an entity. The moral side of freedom was dealt with, when actually the freedom of a criminal, thief, anarchist, (which is immoral for us and moral for them) was not taken into account. As far as homosexuality is concerned, it is only now that it has been granted in some countries the morality of its freedom/constraint. Although the classical or modern theory of the freedom of thinking included the constraint, it has never emphasized its simultaneity and it did not make distinction between the personal freedom and the one dependent on the others or between the personal constraints and those imposed by the others. There was no distinction between the ascetic or the masochist that established their own constraints, considering them freedoms and the condemned man, that was imposed the constraints as punishment. This is a clear example of constraint as freedom and constraint as punishment or freedom as a constraint. If we take a close look at the notion of conventional, we will notice the finite/infinite we have previously mentioned, as well as the infinite number of versions, with the necessary mention of its possibilities applied to the individual 125

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

and to the group, simultaneously or separately. We must take into account the same elements of equilibrium, elements of comparison, or the domain of definition. Furthermore, we must have in view the fact that the thinking of an entity is not only rational, but also irrational, (Freud). Any entity can limit, (conventionalize) enough any notion, according to its limits of thinking or to think, voluntarily or involuntarily. This thing represents its own constraint or freedom. Any entity has its own thinking, (philosophy or reflection of reality) and consequently its own freedom/constraint, more or less logical, more or less rational, more or less moral, more or less reflected by the other entities. A flower does have its positive freedom/constraint, the lily is special, but toxic, the belladonna is poisonous, but it is used in medicine. What freedom means for the criminal is crime for us. The freedom/constraint can be an endless analysis, accompanied by numberless examples, in relation to the finite entities and their infinite freedom/constraints, to the conventional finite/infinite (small infinte) and the infinitely infinite unconeventional. Any entity can conventionalize its own freedom/constraint as paradox. In other terms, it can turn the unlimited into a limited notion, by means of a relative convention, (axiom), illusion/reality at the same time. You will not find the beginning or the end, 126

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

either. This would only be possible by means of a convention. There is no subject or analysis with a beginning or an end, except by means of a convention, a volitive or imposed convention, on the one hand because it is related to the infinitely infinte unconventional and on the other hand to finite/infinite entities as form, existence and spirit. Time and space are other kind of entites, just that outside us they are entities of effect with form, existence and spirit of effect, and not of selfexistence, more precisely attested from one entity to another, similar to the void or to God, which brings about their disappearance together with the disppearance of the entity that has reflected it. The freedom/constraint of thinking is simultaneously conscious and unconscious, but it can be analyzed separately. a.3.3. The freedom/constraint of feelings (of senses) is apparently clear enough in the case of the entities whose senses are appreciated more than the intellect is, (the thinking), than the feelings, the intuition, or the instinct and describe, similar to thinking, the two versions of the freedom/constraint to experience the things induced by our interior and exterior entities to our senses and to feel, more precisely our own capacity to induce feelings to the other entities. We must make the difference between the 127

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

freedom/constraint specific to its senses and the freedom/constraint imposed by the other entities. They both influence the general freedom/constraint, but they belong to different entities. To give loose to one’s feelings, to constraint them, or to have this sensation are versions of the freedom/constraint of feeling. To be constrained by other entites, or on the contrary, to be let free by them belong to the freedom/constraint of feeling as well. The fact that we cannot measure the temperature of the molten metal by means of our hand, is a constraint from one point of view and a freedom of our entity not to burn ourselves. It is due to the freedom/constraint that we are not able to see the infinite, with all our modern possibilities of extrapolation, glasses, lenses, optical telescope, as all things, (entities in their turn) have their limits and cannot see the infinite, especially the infinitely infinite that makes reference dimensions, (space), time and transformation. Thinking itself, (Kant’s transcendental, or the metaphysical) cannot extrapolate the senses to the infinite, if we refer to the limits of the freedom/constraint of feeling. We can also make the analysis in relation to the element or the elements of equilibrium, the elements of comparison, or the domain of definition, conventionalizing positive or negative versions, according to the entities under discussion. Can the elementary particle and the unconventional 128

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

elementary moment extrapolate the senses in the infinitely infinite, in order to measure the infinitely infinte time, space or transformation? Yes, they can, but they cannot reflect them, because they are infinitely infinte and because they are themselves the simultaneous infinitely infinite. Memory is the element of comparison proper to the spirit of an entity for its conventions, (its philosophy). In its absence, the conventional evolution or involution would not exist, such the present of the past or the present of the future would not exist, either. It is only the present that would exist. The present time cannot be compared to itself, in the absence of memory, because to compare two images from one space to another, from one transformation to another, is impossible without the memory of an entity, although this is photographic or film paper. Their images represent their memory. The transition from one moment to another, from one entity to another, or from one parameter to another means time, space and transformation that cannot be compared in the absence of memory, that is to be seen as a comparing device. Memory can compare both that which exists as self existence and that which exists only as existence of effect. Consequently, it can also compare the freedom/constraint which is an entity with existence of effect. Memory is guilty of our death as entity. The senses are based on the memory of other 129

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

senses. We can talk about a memory of thinking, of senses, of the instinct, of feelings, of intuition, more precisely of a memory belonging to the spirit of the entity. Consequently, we can also talk about a freedom/constraint of memory, of touch, of taste, of seeing and smell, each with its own elements of equilibrium, elements of comparison, its limits of freedom and constraint, or domain of definition. If we analyze our position with regard to our own freedom/constraint, related to your senses, as entity man, as individual/group, as well as in relation to the transformation/space/time, we will notice that the analysis is tiresome, but it is simple, if we establish the convention from the very beginning, thus giving a loose to our spirit in its choice. a.3.4. The freedom/constraint of feeling is determined by feelings and it is analyzed according to each feeling. - olfactory – the more developed the olfactory sense, the bigger our sensation as sensitive freedom. In actual terms, it is a freedom/constraint in a certain version out of the existing finite/infinite versions. It has its specific characteristics, but its limits, elements of equilibrium, of comparison and the domanin of definition are included in the finite/infinite, without reaching its limits and as any entity of effect, it needs the support of another self-existing entity. The freedom/constraint of this 130

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

feeling affects the freedom/constraint of the entity analyzed and of the other senses. - visual – we must take into account any kind of feeling; each has its own importance; its absence makes us understand its importance; similar to death, the absence of life makes us understand its importance. Under these circumstances, we also understand the importance of the freedom/constraint of this feeling, its limits, elements of equilibrium, elements of comparison, as well as the domain of definition and their importance. - tactile – as we have mentioned, we refer to the tactile perception reflected within our spirit, but also to the one produced by the form of our own entity within the spirit of the other entities, reflected in the spirit of knowledge. From this point of view, the freedom/constraint of the entity is directly influenced by the tactile factor by its freedom/constraint and its positive or negative versions. - gustative – there are people that turn the taste into pleasure, sometimes more than necessary. The other perceived senses can be transformed into an immense pleasure. They give the entity the sensation of freedom, which in reality is a freedom/constraint of taste, from the negative to the positive, more or less. Let us not neglect the fact that each entity has a taste for us and we ourselves have a taste for any other entiy. It all depends on 131

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

the interpretation of each entity. - auditive – a passionate music listener would certainly say that this is his freedom, which is not something exaggerated from his point of view. However, we can conclude that the effects of music within the spirit of an entity (plant, man, animal, etc.) influence the freedom/constraint of an entity, whatever its nature, positively or negatively from case to case. There are many things we could say about the freedom/constraint of a music listener. If you do not agree, try to have a discussion with such a person or with the music lover inside your spirit. a.3.5. The freedom/constraint of sentiments, of those sentiments induced to the others, or those induced to us by the other entities. Love usually gives us the sensation of confidence and freedom, which does not mean that we are deprived of constraints, or that we the people do not infer the alternation and simultaneity of the feelings of freedom and constraint. As somebody stated, there are two feelings that lie within us, namely the fear and the hate. We would add their positive versions, more exactly, courage and love, as well as their finite/infinite intermediary versions. Under these circumstances, the freedom/constraint observes its statute of convention with limits, points of equilibrium, points of comparison, the domain of definition, which are all conventional from positive 132

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

to the negative, on an infinity of versions dependent on the transformation/space/time. Feelings obviously define the freedom/constraint of sentiments and not just in the case of man, but of any entity in some way or another. We thus notice that the entites cannot undertake the simultaneity of this notion as reality, because the sentiment of freedom and constraint belonging to the entity alternates, and not at the same time, as in reality. Sentiments allow us to perceive the relative of the freedom within the constraint and vice versa, but they cannot conventionalize it. It is an unconscious relation and at the same time superposed on the other types of freedom/constraint, (of intuition, thinking, feeling, sense, etc.), which are inseparable in the conventional/unconventional, but conventionally separable. This is the reason why when an entity defines the freedom or the constraint, we must ask ourselves about the type of freedom or the constraint it makes reference to. Does it refer to the freedom or constraint of thinking, feeling, intuition, memory, sentiments or to their conventional/unconventional simultaneity? As in the case of the conventional/unconventional version and separately of the sentimental freedom/constraint, we cannot obtain the absolute/relative of reality, or the finite/infinite versions of its senses, dependent on the infinitely infinte transformation/space/time. This is also valid for its intuitive, instinctive, etc. 133

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

colleagues, both at the entity as individual and as the group analyzed, on separate or simultaneous components. At the same time, as any paradox, each entity and consequently ourselves as well, we often have the clear sensation of the freedom/constraint as freedom, or as a sentimental constraint, more precisely we experience our sentiments, their convention of freedom or constraint, (more or less in relation to the entity and its capacity to reflect, to the spirit of the analyzed entity). Sometimes, this takes place with an immense simplicity, due to the memory of the entity that can reflect the moment and elementary particle, (specific to the entity) that can make the comparison, (conventionally, of course) of the elements specific to the sentimental freedom/constraint. We live sometimes free, some other times constraint, or both, in various proportions, from positive to the negative, on numberless versions, (the limit is given by the entity). Thus, memory manages to separate the moment of sentimental freedom from the moment of sentimental constraint at the conventional level, although this is not reality, it is the power of convention and of conventional memory in front of the unconventional, that has memory, but an infinitely infinite, (unlimited) memory, that cannot reflect the unconventional moment and particle, not even conventionally. It has no memory, as it cannot define itself. Let us not mistake the sentimental 134

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

freedom/constraint for the freedom/constraint of intuition, instinct, etc., although all the properties specific to each version, can be applied to each version. There are many conventional differentiations, as well as similitudes. Each of these can be positively or negatively interpreted, in finite/infinite versions, on any individual/group entity. If an excessive love can kill, intuition can also kill, similar to thinking, senses, etc. Hate, courage, or fear in certain proportions, from entity to entity, or in diverse versions of the same entity, as well as the process of values creation, the so-called evolution, the chaos and the system are normal things, except that the entity can conventionally choose their meaning. In the same context, the freedom/constraint specific to the notions of hate/love and fear/courage is conscious and unconscious from the negative to the positive on a finite/infinite variety, on the simultaneity and on the elements. Each definition described allows for a separate analysis, as well as for an infinity of examples, for any entity and element. a.3.6. The freedom/constraint of intuition If we let loose of our intuition, we will find a lot of freedom, but also a lot of constraint, as in the case of any paradox. The freedom/constraint of intuition does exist. Despite the invention of the computer and its possibilities to extrapolate, less sensitive, 135

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

intuitive or instinctive), intuition remains a human, variable characteristic, less conventional and more unconventional, more precisely a component belonging more to the unconscious than to the conscious. Extrapolation stands for the intuition of science, the conscious part of the intuition, compared to the sensitive, sentimental intuition, etc. It does not belong to the geniuses, it belongs to everybody, just that geniuses are able to conventionalize this intuition, they have the capacity to contribute to the transition of intuition from its unconventional to the conventional specific to the thinking of our spirit. We do have this freedom/constraint that originates in the unknown inside our spirit, past or future, by means of our subconscious and unconscious, having all the elements previously described for the types of freedom/constraint. If you feel yourselves free or constrained, you can exclude the intuition or the instincts, they are simultaneous. It depends on which of them you reflect first as freedom or constraint, because if you take a close look at this theory, you will come to the conclusion that they are all present at the same time, in bigger or smaller proportions. It all depends on the capacity of the entity’s spirit and you will only be able to delimit them by means of a convention, (axiom), specific to an entity. Intuition stands for one of the elements belonging to the spirit of each entity and 136

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

simultaneous with thinking, senses, sentiments and instincts and of course simultaneous with the memory, that we can certainly define as the sixth sense of the spirit. All the elements specific to the spirit of an entity are limited by the entity, (form/existence/spirit). Moreover, we intuit things about the past or the future, about the continuity of existence, of the spirit and of the unconventional form of an entity. We intuit things about the finite/infinite paradox of the entity, we intuit positively or negatively in finite/infinite versions, but also infinitely infinite coventionalized, by means of the unconventional within us. The fact that neither ourselves nor the entities have the capacity to reflect the infinitely infinite or the reality, but only the illusion/reality, does not mean that beyond our spirit and its capacity to reflect, there is no reality. We can intuit these things inside ourselves, we often translate, (conventionalize) them as sentiments or instinct or intuitions. The uneasiness of the infinitely infinite that we infer is the one that gives shape to the fear of death and not to the grief produced by death. Do the plants and animals fear death, the suffering that it generates or the infinitely infinite beyond our death? We consider that these entities intuit and experience the unconventional, the infinitely infinite and reality in their own way. There are many examples, (everybody can intuit, similar to other entites) that infer these things, 137

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

except that they are unable to translate them into a convention. They may not have this capacity to conventionalize. It can be considered as a new capacity to extrapolate the intuition, the senses, the sentiments, etc., or even a sixth sense. Can you reflect something in the absence of intuition or based only on the intuition? Apart from instinct, the animals are also endowed with sentiments and intuitions, similar to us, from negative to the positive finite/infinite versions. Obviously not all the entities can conventionalize to the same extent. The reflection of illusion/reality by the other entities is certainly different. Their modesty may have its say. Maybe we are not tuned in to one another, to the same magnetic, eclectrical, or unconventional resonance of the convention. Intuition is also variable in relation to transformation, space and time, as well as in relation to the elements of equilibrium, elements of comparison, limits and domain of definition belonging to the entity, in relation to the elements of the entity, more exactly form, spirit and existence, as well as in relation to other known or unknown elements. Some entities are definitely endowed with a better or worse intuition in various proportions, explaining in this way unknown or partially known phenomena, such as the probability, parapsychology, or the previsions more or less conscious, more or less logical, or moral. We are not 138

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

superior beings. Our planet may exactly know when our civilization will disappear, although we do not know yet. We may find it out or not. It all depends on a lot of factors and on ourselves as individual/group entity. We must first of all understand that it is only within an infinite association of entities as forms, existences and spirits together that we have chances to carry conventionalization to its infinite limit. Our will and the capacity of our entity are not the only ones capable to modify our destiny. Although we suicide ourselves, we do not know whether we have modified our destiny or our destiny was to kill ourselves. Maybe, as the simple man can guess, we only bring this destiny to an end and only for the entity man within ourselves, not for the group of the entity that we are made up of. Sometimes intuition deceives us, sometimes the simple man intuits things better or worse. We sometimes make extrapolations, in association with another entity, discovering other limits. The computer is an entity that helps us extrapolate, (of course, by means of its freedom/constraint). Sometimes our negative intuition on justice or freedom leads to disasters, crusades, smaller or bigger inventions. Where is the freedom we are all searching for? Each has his own freedom/constraint, that he or she tries to convey to the other entities. We do not know if they really manage to do that. There is a limit that can be 139

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

surpassed, if not by our own intuition, at least in association with you or with the infinity of entities, whithin the limits of our human finite/infinite universe. The freedom/constraint of intuition is simultaneously both conscious and unconscious. a.3.7. The freedom/constraint of instinct This deals with the analysis of the freedom/constraint of instinct, in relation to the other entities and spirits, but also in relation to the spirit of the analyzed entity. It also treats the instincts induced by the other entities to one of the entities, but also the instincts induced by one entity to the other entities. Many of us consider that to be free means to give loose to one’s instincts. We ourselves also had this feeling, when we used to think that the primitive man was freer than the modern man. This is only a sensation and it is due to the instincts within us. In the present reality/illusion, things are totally different. People often think that to be free means to do what they feel like doing during that precise moment, (more exactly, what their instincts guide them to do), but we should not neglect the fact that the senses also mix with the instincts. Many people have the sensation that if they eat good food in large quantities, sleep well, make love, or love metaphysically, they are free. A homosexual considers he is free if he marries his partner. This 140

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

holds true for the carcinogenic molecule, during its development, etc. Food, sex, breathing, the development of the molecules are all instincts, that have their own right to both freedom and constraint. All these examples underline the freedom of instinct, but we should not exclude the simultaneity from any entity as form/existence/spirit, to which the simultaneities of each component are added, followed by the simultaneity transformation/space/time, followed in its turn by the simultaneities of the infinitely infinite entities, separate or group entities. This is a paradox and the fact that in the case of any analyzed subject, the analysis is finite/infinite and infinitely infinite is also a paradox. There is no limited subject, it is only limited by a convention, (or will, or inability). It is the capacity of our entity that limits the analysis. It can be expanded by means of another entity. For example, if we were to analyze a “beautiful” word, this word can be analyzed by any entity, each with the numberless senses confered by the entity. From the negative to the positive, man has his own interpretation on the “beautiful,” in infinite versions, for each individual/group of the entity “man,” from the negative to the positive. This is also valid for the freedom/constraint, for any other word or convention, for an atom or a glass, as well as for a carcinogenic molecule, etc. Any subject is an entity, (a self-existing entity or an entity of 141

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

effect) and as any entity, it has a finite/infinte micro and macrostructure, (limited by its existence as entity, the convention). In the conventional/unconventional, the analyzed subject also includes the infinitely infinite, unconventional particles and moments, as well as the relations between them. Isn’t it a paradox the fact that this analysis can continue beyond us, for any entity? This is all about the instinct, that, in association with the infinite or the unlimited, generates a reaction within us, (more or less), trying to put an end to this liberation, towards an unconventional tendency, where we exist and will continue to exist forever, but without the possibility to recognize ourselves or to be recognized by another entity. This instinct tries to maintain us within the conventional, the place where we belong as entity. The instinct does not resume to the preservation of the human element, or of any entity. It must be necessarily associated with the infinitely infinite small, unconventional moment and particle within ourselves, or within another entity, that in its turn, instinctually speaking, tries to maintain itself, to disintegrate in the unconventional. There are two types of instinct, as in the case of any convention, one absolute and another one relative, the absolute one related to the unconventional moment and particle and a relative one, belonging to the entity, of its conventional as individual/group. One 142

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

searches for the equilibrium of the entity, the other for the unconventional universal equilibrium. They are both simultaneous and depend on the transformation/space/time, as well as on the form/existence/spirit. If one version is based on stability, including it within the convention, the other one describes stability in a permanent change, more exactly non convention. This is the continuous fight, the relative of the entities and consequently our own relative aspect. The version of our absolute is the relative or the finite/infinite, whereas the version of the unconventional absolute is represented by the ininitely infinite. The instinct of conservation is evident for the human being, but there are many people that notice its difference from one man to another. We ourselves are convinced that any entity has, from this point of view, its versions. What is it that makes people greedy, voluptuous, good or bad? Is it the instinct of conservation or that of transformation? We think each has its own role. It is only convention that can make the selection and only hypothetically and relatively. The versions of convention turn into simple versions, due to its power to turn the infinitely infinite into the infinite and the infinite into the finite. Then, the infinite becomes more and more limited, to “zero” convention, that does not exist, or it exists as the conventional infinite. The instinct belongs to any entity, including to the tree 143

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

in the yard, although we ourselves or the entities are not able to reflect this reality, not even as illusion, which does not mean that it does not exist. The elaborate complex of any entity does exist. There is no domain of philosophy, religion, or science whose research is complete. Man will continue to be a subject of research, which is also valid for the trees, the flowers, the molecule, the finite, the infinite, literature, morals or freedom, the word, etc. This is the paradox of the finite/infinite. All of these subjects will continue to be discussed, As the volume becomes huge, (tending towards our finite/infinite), we will give up on several directions, to be later resumed by other authors, or by ourselves, by means of other discovered entities. The end of a subject of any kind would mean the discovered perfection. Here, the convention at the level of our entity is established as “impossible.” We are all looking for perfection, beginning with our instinct of selfpreservation. Nobody has found perfection or will ever find it. It is a side of paradox, similar to us, we are perfection, but we cannot reflect perfection. We are also infinitely small unconventional moments and particles and we are infinitely infinte, as transformation/space/time, except that the paradox adds the convention, more precisely the finite of our entity, valid for the instinct, the freedom/constraint, as well as for anybody and anything. We could give finite/infinite examples, as 144

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

the entities are conventionally finite/infinite, but infinitely infinite as reality, as versions and self entities. We will not try to set any limits to your freedom/constraint, make use of it. Each of you possesses each of the notions we have mentioned within this philosophy, (more or less) and many other we do not know, related to the finite/infinite of our entity, (computers, animals, plants, planets, sciences, technologies, etc.), some of them with an existence of their own, some others characterized by an existence of effect, (transcendental, metaphysical, the void or God). We sometimes discover them by means of our own capacity, some other times by research, other times by other entities, (as scientists try to discover now another conventional elementary particle, “the particle of God“). Unfortunately, similar to any horizon, (paradox), the closer we get to it, the more it will bear away from us, because its transformation/space/time is infinitely infinte, (unlimited), whereas us and any entity, irrespective of their number and however big they might be, we only have the finite/infinite at hand. In order to shape an image of reality, imagine that this schematic analysis is also valid for each entity and that there are infinite entities in the universe. Furthermore, this scheme holds true for the freedom/constraint related to any universe, as simultaneity transformation/space/time. We have not debated yet upon the group version. The 145

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

freedom/constraint can also be analyzed as freedom/constraint of transformation, time or space, or simultaneously for any entity and universe. It is only at the infinite that we could reflect the horizon from the infinitely infinte, but this is a limit that the conventional and the entity of any kind cannot reach. What a pleasant feeling is to need nothing; to tread on the grass and look melancholically at the horizon. My instinct tells me that this is perfection and freedom/constraint, that corresponds to my spirit, instinct, intuition, sentiments, etc., being simultaneously conscious and unconscious and obviously the freedom/constraint within my spirit. Particular cases. We will give several examples: man, animal, plant, work of art, God, the void and their freedom/constraint. Let us not forget that both you and I are particular cases of the particular “man.” - man, Man’s freedom has been often enlarged upon. We could discuss about it infinitely infinte. We would not like to make things harder, but simplify them, which does not mean that everything we have written in this book is less valid in the case of man. The definition of the freedom/constraint can be formulated as follows: “man’s right to the conventional/unconventional.” We can analyze man’s freedom as freedom or as constraint, as a 146

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

convention or as a convention belonging to the unconventional, (axiom, paradox, principle). You, reader, you are the one that choose your own version or the group you adhere to. Your version is the one that describes your form/existence/spirit, it is unique for the infinitely infinite, no matter whether you recognize it or not, or whether your spirit clearly conventionalizes it or not. There are two different directions related to the notion of freedom, namely man’s freedom in relation to himself, (to be free in relation to nature, family, society) and man’s freedom in relation to the other entities, (more exactly to be able to fly or not, to eat or not, unless any other entity intervenes). This is also valid for the constraint. Man can live isolated or within the society, he can think or not, he can commit suicide or not. The past and present philosophies have discussed about unorganized freedom. Now we can analyze systematically man’s freedom, (the freedom of the form of existence – colour, energy, fields, forms, etc., the freedom of his existence – empty/full, the freedom of his spirit – memory, thinking, feeling, sentiments, intuition, instinct, his freedom as individual or as group, his freedom related to the universe – transformation, space and time, but also the constraint in relation to these elements and to those previously mentioned in the present theory, in positive or negative versions, (moral or immoral). 147

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

The simultaneity freedom/constraint is closer to the surrounding reality where we also exist, compared to the independent versions. You will not find any exceptions. Each type of freedom or constraint or the freedom/constraint can be developed for any other entity. Each man has his own freedom/constraint and philosophy that can be analyzed according to the scheme of principle described in this book. Each human component, (from the atoms and their microstructure to organs and organisms, etc.) has its own freedom/constraint. The fact that the molecules make up men can be considered a kind of freedom specific to them, but also a constraint. - animal, You have certainly often felt at the zoo that those animals are constrained and not free. How could anyone think that a dog is not happy when it is let free? Pay attention to your own sensation and to that of the dog when you set him free. Aren’t they similar? We think they are and they also feel the differences. They may not be as aware as we are of them, they may be more adapted as spirit to the tragedy of existence. They may be against the process of evolution, such as many people want to be, knowing that the evolution is not necessarily a good thing. It is rather a favour and a punishment. We could give many examples, you also have many 148

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

examples and nobody is able to say whose freedom/constraint is bigger, theirs or ours. Each feels the freedom/constraint differently, according to the transformation/space/time or form/existence/spirit or the individual/group of their entity. We call it evolution from the atom to the molecule, to the plant, animal, or human, but each has one’s own distinct branch and man is not a continuation of them. They had their own, distinct evolution and the specific conditions of evolution. As in the case of man, animals have a freedom/constraint, freedom or constraint, it depends on the entity that makes the analysis. They may not have the same freedom of thinking as people have, but as long as they have senses and feelings, we should not exclude their freedom/constraint. An animal must not be seen as a molecule or as an atom, it is a finite/infinite individual/group, with its own elements, including its freedom/constraint. It has its own freedom/constraint and another one according to the interior or exterior entities. - the plant, Why should we think that the sun shines out of our backsides and it is only us that have the endowments superior to any entity? How come that we think that by making reference to qualities and flaws, simultaneously or not, (which are arguable), 149

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

our opinion is not arguable, especiallly when we deal with another entity. We know we have not been able to figure ourselves out and that we will never come to know ourselves completely. How could we think that we would manage to know another entity better?In our opinion, we act like this out of snobbery and not out of reason. As long as we cannot know a plant better than we could know a human being or another entity, how could we know that certain elements of form, existence or spirit are absent or they are bigger or smaller compared to our elements? Aren’t we wrong? Doesn’t a flower that is taken care of, or one that grows in the field feel better than a flower that is not taken care of or that lacks the advantages offered by nature? There are many unanswerable questions. However, we are interested in another aspect, namely that we find it easier to neglect them, (we treat our fellow men the same). Any plant, tree, or entity has its form, existence and spirit more or less, except that we are not the only ones to believe that we can reflect this thing. Our conventions are our own conventions. These are not necessarily correct conventions, especially when we do not have any certainties. It is wrong to believe that plants are not influenced by the entities around or that genetically speaking, they fail to vibrate, resonating with other entities, now when we surely know that some plants are listening to music and they are influenced by our words. They do have their 150

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

own freedom/constraint and similar to us, from finite/infinite negative to the positive versions. Some of them are influenced by music, noises, etc., others are not. There are many people that are immune to music, or to the beautiful. As long as at the level of the DNA, which is so small, the resonanace of feelings has been discovered, why should we think that a plant, evidently bigger as structure and existence does not have a DNA and resonance in one form or another? The particularization can go further, for each vegetal reign or each plant and we are convinced that there are many surpises yet to come. - the work of art, Any entity is a work of art, a perfect work of art. It is only its interpretation that is different, according to the interpreter. It seems relatively simple to talk about something concrete. There are people that like this or they consider themselves free as to this area of analysis. Could you interpret, reflect something that lies beyond your capacity to reflect, more precisely beyond the infinitely infinite, or beyond a void of thinking? No entity can interpret something that does not exist, except as a convention related to the unconventional, a convention of something unknown, (such as the void, God, the transcendental, the infinite, etc.). It may reflect something already existent, but unknown to us, whereas our spirit has the capacity 151

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

to reflect this existence, unknown to us. It is under these circumstances that the conventional related to the unconventional appears, that is the axiom, which is synonymous with the paradox, or accepted, but unprovable truth. If this unknown existence generates all kinds of effects, (such as any axiom generates effects), could we still say that there is no existence? Starting from here, we have asked ourselves what it is that the observer, the listener, or the art critic interprets, while interpreting the work of art? The spirit always reflects reality, no matter whether this reality is selfexistent or it is just an existence of effect. Non existence cannot reflect it, such as you, after having died, you cannot reflect anything anymore by means of this spirit. If they are reflected by a big number of entities, among which many different people, a painting, a symphony, or a gastronomical work of art, of the nature around are differently interpreted by different people. In this case, do their interpretations make reference to a self-existence or an existence of effect? Both. Who does the interpretation belong to? Does it belong to the interpreter or to the work of art? Does the interpretation stand for something that our spirit has found in the work of art or is it something independent of the work of art? More precisely, was the multitude of interpretations related to the work of art or it is just the result of the interpreters’ 152

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

imagination? As a conclusion, the interpreters did not have the interpretations; the work of art had the embryo of all the interpretations, such as each embryo belonging to each entity has its genetic code. The genetic code of interpretations was and it is present in any work of art. In other words, the simultaneity of interpretations lies in the work of art, before the interpretation, which develops these genetic codes, according to the capacity of interpretation specific to each of the interpreters and according to the transformation/space/time. The reality of any entity works as a genetic code. This is similar to our own evolution, where there is a genetic code, that under the proper conditions develops the human destiny. This genetic code of the work of art contains the finite/infinite of the future interpretations. If an interpreter reflects the work of art at different times and spaces, the interpretation is different. It also differs according to the various stages of transformation specific to the interpreter and the interpreted, (the work of art). The proof is simple. A painting by Van Gogh is differently interpreted in London and Paris. These interpretations are obviously dependent on thinking/memory/feeling/intuition/instinct/sentime nts, belonging to both the interpreter and the interpreted. A dog may want to eat the work of art – this can also be an interpretation. The resonances in relation to the feelings of the individual, at the level of 153

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

the DNA and RNA are studied. These also exist in the case of plants or animals to a certain extent. Any discovery is a reflection of reality, a relative discovery. The fact that we create a computer does not mean that we have created it, but that we have assembled something already existent, in another formula. As a conclusion, it is not the interpreter that has the interpretations, but the interpreted, that is the work of art, or any reality. Any reality contains the finite/infinite embryo of its own interpretations, (reflections) and of the other entities. In this context, the freedom/constraint exists in any entity in all the finite/infinite, positive and negative versions, except that its reflection is specific to the spirit that reflects it, although the interpreted one is the interpreter himself. Any entity is a work of art. Its interpretation is differently conventionalized, (reflected, interpreted, mirrored, classified). The degrees of freedom/constraint belonging to the art, exist. Similar to any entity, the works of art have their freedom/constraint. If conventionally we can say that the impossibility to move is a constraint, their action on the spirit of the other entity can be described as degree of freedom. The absence of movement does not represent only a constraint, it also stands for freedom in another context, more exactly the absence of movement is a favour against its depreciation. Furthermore, it can move too, by means of other entities, it is true. It 154

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

depends on the convention or the constraint of movement. In the case of the work of art, the definition of the freedom/constraint as “the right to the conventional/unconventional” is also valid. Art must not only be understood as beautiful or aesthetic, it is a convention. The negative language has appeared in both literature and art. The elements of an entity are not and must not be established only by thinking, they are also sensitive, intuitive, instinctive and sentimental simultaneously. We can analyze and define them conventionally, in any version, simultaneously, separately, or combined, they are infinite, (a small infinite) in the conventional and infinitely infinite in reality. At the same time, zero is a convention, but on an infinite or infinitely infinite axis. It can exist anywhere and it can be associated with any entity. It depends on the entity from negative to the positive, with an intuitive, sensitive, instinctive extrapolation, related to feelings or thinking. Could we say that a work of art is not endowed with thinking, as long as it induces the notion of thinking to other entities too? Is our convention on thinking limited? It is from here that takes shape the possibility to analyse the freedom/constraint specific to the musical, theatrical work of art, to film, painting, etc. - God, 155

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

His freedom/constraint is given by the faith of the entities support. The bigger the freedom/constraint, the bigger the freedom/constraint belonging to God. When the faith was big, peoples were trampled for this faith. If you tell a simple Orthodox or a Muslim that his God does not exist, they will surely not believe you or they will curse you. In the name of a strong faith, people still sacrifice their lives. This is also valid for the atheists. This is God’s freedom/constraint in finite/infinite versions from negative to the positive. You should never neglect these fredom/constraints. Although the entity is an entity of effect, it can have unmeasurable powers, according to faith and faith is a complete theistic or atheistic philosophy, according to the entity. Love is also an entity of effect and it can bring about catastrophes or evolutions. In the case of an entity of effect, the freedom/constraint, the freedom or the constraint are related to its effects towards the entity support, in all the versions that belong to the entity support. Each of them is subject to analysis. You should not confine yourself to this, you should resort to each religion, to each God. - the void, The void represents, similar to God, an entity of effect and its freedom/constraint is given by the entities support, the ones it has an effect upon. 156

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

Void’s effects range from the positive to the negative, on an infinire scale in the universe or in finite/infinite versions for any entity. If a man finds himself in the void, the freedoms of man modify negatively, (restrictively), while the freedom/constraint, or the freedom, or the constraint of the void, modify positively or negatively, (elimininating its restrictions). Let us not omit the fact that there is no chemical or physical element without certain degrees of freedom or restrictive connections. This is not the end, this is only the conventional/unconventional beginning. The end does not depend on me or yourselves. This is only the beginning of another convention and conventionalization, the beginning lies within the infinitely infinte. An elementary particle has come to transform into people, who, in their turn, have created sciences and religions, histories and destinies, similar to ours or yours, that have finally given shape to a new convention, a new beginning. If we take into account the fact that this illusion/reality is the reality interpreted by us or any other entity, that reality is both simple and complex at the same time, finite and infinite, conventional and unconventional, paradox, theism and atheism, but especially form, existence and spirit simultaneously within an universe transformation/space/time. The void, similar to God, is dependent on the entity 157

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

support and consequently we must analyze each entity support, which is affected or not by God or in the void. Each has its own freedom/constraint. B. The entity as group. Reality would be complicated without the conventional limits. We have just discussed about the freedom/constraint of the entity as individual. We are going to deal with the same analysis on each entity, that makes up the analyzed entity. If we take into account the fact that the smallest known part, (the atom or the bosom, as you wish) is still unknown, aren’t we right when we talk about that finite/infinite? Each organ, part of an organ, field or metabolism is a self-existing entity or an entity of effect and each must be analyzed according to the analysis of the entity, as an individual. Each entity in the group certainly has its effects on the analyzed entity. The simplest molecule in the human body (the water molecule) is equallly complicated, from the point of view of the freedom/constraint, thus defined, similar to planet earth or to the universe. The difference consists in the fact that while in the case of the molecule we must search for its limits, the elements of equilibrium, of comparison, or the domain of definition by means of the microscope, in the case of planet earth, we must search for them by means of the telescopes. In both cases, in order to conventionalize their simple or simultaneous 158

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

elements, we need an army of scholars, from physicists to informaticians, translators or philosophers, (theists or atheists), to parapsychologists or SF writers. We will never find the limits of research. Let us not forget that the water molecule gives life to the planetary oceans, but it also takes part in the existence of the universe. The entity is limited as form, existence and spirit. It is also limited as memory, thinking and feeling, as sentiments, intuition, instinct, etc. Any entity, (that is you the readers and myself, as well) have no right to discover the infinitely infinite reality, but live with its positive/negative fredoms/constraints. No matter whether we like it or not, we represent reality, a reality that does not allow us to do everything we want. We already have more than many of us could endure, namely that we are aware of the fact that we die. We do not know if this is a favour or a punishment. We do know however that many entities, in their evolution, have refused this present, they have refused consciousness; maybe we have had no choice, or maybe as Christ had to bear God’s present, namely our salvation, (our freedom by His constraints), so we had to bear the salvation of our universe from indifference. No subject from this book is finished, it can never be finished. It can be resumed by anybody and interpreted differently, from the absurd to the rational, from the abstract to the sensitive, from one 159

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

entity to another. All the elements analyzed should be indentified and analyzed for each entity. The entities are infinitely infinite in the universe, as form, existence and spirit. The analyses will also be infinitely infinite, which for an entity or group of finite/infinite entities would be an impossible thing. Any entity is at the same time an universe, (entity/universe), that is a simultaneity transformation/space/time. We have dicussed only about the freedom/constraint for an entity in itself and not as universe. We should resume the discussion for each element of the scheme, but as transformation, (for example the notion of freedom/constraint from the point of view of the existence, form or spirit should be discussed as transformation in time and space), time and space, in another paper. We have opened Pandora’s box in philosophy, such as quantum theory has opened Pandora’s box in Physics. Quantum Physics includes the existence of some parallel worlds, which is actually only a pretence, as the worlds are simultaneous. When the world will be able to quantify figure zero, it will be at the beginning of the uncoventional world, which is impossible in a conventional world. We will also debate upon other simultaneities, such as transformation/space/time, form/existence/spirit, individual/group, as well as their separate elements, in another or more papers. Which is the beginning and which is the end? The 160

UNCONVENTIONAL PHILOSOPHY

choice belongs to each of us, this is the paradox. The particular cases are infinite both as individual and in the case of the group analysis, within the analysis of the freedom/constraint, that is atoms, molecules, plants, animals, organs, organisms, people, planets, universes, works of art, the void, or God, etc. We ourselves do not insist on conveying the ordeal of the unconventional. This the reason why we will conventionally confine ourselves here and now. Thank you.

The unconventional universe is the universe beyond the limits of any entity, (form/existence/spirit), as form, existence and spirit.

161

UNCONVENTIONAL FREEDOM

CONTENTS

Introduction into the unconventional or thinking exercise ........................................................................... 4 The freedom/constraint as unconventional simultaneity ....................................................................................... 27 Scheme of unconventional analysis of the freedom/constraint ....................................................... 54 The unconventional freedom/constraint ...................... 66 The conventional/unconventional freedom/constraint. ....................................................................................... 71 Conventional freedom/constraint ................................. 91

162