Antonio Jaques de Matos

The myths of time, ego and laws



One of most difficult questions for an author - after conceiving its book, evidently - is to choose a title that is capable to synthecize his main contributions. At the time that we searched a title for this book, coincided that we studied - in self-taught way the history of art and in we discovered the painting “From where we came, what we are and for where we go”, of Paul Gauguin. We observe that the artists had the interest on these questions, contrasting with the disinterest, contemporary, on the part of whom call theirselves as philosophers: certain time, we testify a professor of Philosophy – at least, he was formally philosopher - that, answered to a pupil, for who the philosophy had to search to answer the questions as “Who we are”, saying that if somebody will have doubt on this, would have to look a psychologist. However, for him, doctor with many others, in more famous universities of world, this question, proper of philosophy, now, belonged to a science! We do not to think this subject, here, but we intend to present arguments that will show that we do not have guarantee of, when going to a psychologist or a psychiatrist, that they will have a definitive reply on “what we are?”; therefore they just will reproduce the dogmas that was taught to them. These professionals remember me to confessionals priests or then those beverages that after opened to seem extraordinary, but they do not pass of water with sugar! When I sent my thesis on “duration” for doctors in Psychology, I received bureaucratic answers: or he was specialist in other areas, despite he has written an article on the perception of time, or, then, he advised to me to read more articles of Psychology, incapable to present despite contraries arguments of ideas that I had presented to them. But, I am not defending that Psychology and, also, Psychiatry are useless areas of knowledge; what we are saying is that, today, they had lost the focus: or they argue using false beliefs (when they say that the sex is for backwards of all our actions), or they only see solution for our problems giving drugs to its patients. What the neuron lacks to them is a look more detailed for inside of mind human being with


more advanced technologies to know neuron until knowing accurately where they are our problematic memories, as it makes the telescope Hubble with the galaxies! The Philosophy that was forgotten is that one where the masters stimulated the disciples to have proper ideas and arguments and not this sad monologous that it practises today. It was forgotten, also, that the exercise of Philosophy is only capable to extend our capacity of perception, when is awake in us the satisfaction to look answers to the causes of our actions and the facts of world. Current education forgot this: teachers demand that the pupils “save” the teses of ancient philosophers and do not doubt their truths, repeating the existing and barren theses, as parrots, opposing the well-known phrase of Aristotle: “the truth was above of friendship”! They are friends of philosophy, sympathetical of teses and the thinkers, but they are not friends of wisdom and the search for the truth; they believe already to have discovered it. They look at only for the past, as somebody that drive a car only looking at for behind. But who will write the future theories? What it happens is that wrong people - that possess, as we will see more ahead, neuron connections that lead them to make, fastly, part of a group, a philosophical school, accepting the theses as definitive truths, without any critical sense - are occupying the place of people adjusted for the function! Well appropriate the critics of Jean Piaget in book: “Problems of philosophy”, when he relembered the malaise that he felt in the metaphysics classes that they did not lead to no conclusion, because there is in the French universities (and, also, in Brazil) a “gerontocracy” that chooses who goes to substitute a professor to the eves of retirement, but, also, we add, who choose those that more resembles to his masters for obtaining a vacant in some research! It was because of this sad picture, that we do not carry through after-graduation in Philosophy - nor master, nor doctorade. And without master title we was four years unemployed since we left to university untill to be admitted in a public high school. Unfortunately, we live in a world where the form is thought to be superior to the parts, a book is measured for its layer and the people, for their headings, not for the effective knowledge! The burocracy, also, is another plague that makes us to feel inside labyrinth without Ariadne’s thread and despite we did all right, they will find some mistake, because they didn’t give all information needed: people who nothing


more make that following what someone said to them; i paid R$140 reais ($70 dollars) to register me as publisher to get the “ISBN” of my two most important works: this book and “Course of thematic Philosophy” to put them in the Internet, in the site of google, because I do not have money to publish them and no publishing company it is interested. And after to send a letter to Brazilian Nacional Library i discovered that it lacks some information and they just come back to me the fiches of registration (called, too, as “forms” in english). Maybe they say that they are the best and most dedicated professionals. We answer that those that conceived the poisons used in the gas chambers, in World War II, also were the best pupils. It is necessary to have care with those that always obey! We believe that the economically successful people are the ones that have the empty mind, as the blank sheet of paper, of John Locke, on which are easily print the orders of the others. Of our part, we find many obstacles when we prefer not to imitate the others, but, this not worries us, because the life is not a race of 100 meters and nor gains who arrives first! How they can call Philosophy, an activity that, imitating sciences, made a mistake: became specialized? All the object of Philosophy will be reached from partial views? Negative. As any one knows, the all is not the addition of parts; nor it is bigger, only different. Diogenes de Sinope punished a disciple, because he accepted the argument of master and he did not develop its proper one; this is the true philosophy! Today, if a student did something, they would be receive sholarships in a strange country! Today, those that call themselves “philosophers” are only translater of ancient languages! Do reader desires a criterion to distinguish who is or is not a philosopher? Asks to a person who call himself a philosopher if he is specialist in some subject, and if he knows more about a subject than about many others. If his answer is yes, then he is not a philosopher. The philosopher has an ample, superficial, vision of life. It is enough for a philosopher to know that there are three oceans in the planet; but do not interest to know their depth of each one, which chains are the hot and cold, what animals and vegetables live in each place! The philosophy is similar to the army of the Cavalry, whose motto, we believe has been given for the other armies, is “fast and badly did”, an error, because it carries through one important task to recognize


for the first time the land and the enemy, what, for the Philosophy, consists of formulating hypotheses for the other “armies”, that is, sciences. We need, however, to be intent to the limits of Philosophy: David Hume, in his “moral Essays” wrote that the Philosophy takes the people diminish our sensibility, because when they have diminished our vices, would diminish, also, our virtues. In his words: “when the nervous terminations are destroyed, they are destroyed together with the pain feeling, also, of pleasure”. It is necessary that to clarify that does not have sensitivity destruction properly, but a predominance of a subtler type of sensitivity in detriment of that most common one. More: the lackness of sensibility that is attributed to the philosophy is, in reality, caused by the series of experiences that we live and that they become our perception more ample, keep us far from the daily life. When I was a child I received much attention from my family and when my brother was born I did feel rejected (What pass inside a child mind!) , then I keep myself away from people and, I believe, my perception became more abstract than sensorial one. It is clear that this behavior can be strengthened by the philosophy, especially when it become our only reason of living. Therefore, we must remember Nietzsche for who, in the measure that we extinguish our doubts and our searches for the causes of things, then, it would be the time to forget them and, then, we mus to start, finally, to live our lives. Finally, we want to explain why we change the title of this book from “Who we are?” for “myths of time, of ego and the laws”: because the new title presents more clearly the objectives of this book, while the first one seems to limit the reflection only on the ego. Finally, we desire that this work not only represents a substantial addition to existing philosophical doctrines and, exactly, a clear overcoming of most ofm, but, still, a declaration of independence of Philosophy of Brazil and a definitive evidence that the pseudo-philosophers (necrophilos and neofobics) that many new

philosophical doctrines will arise to perfect the old ones.


INDEX INTRODUCTION 1) THE PHYSIOLOGY OF TIME §1. Is the time an external cause? §2. Slow or short time and long or fast time. §3. Does time flows? §4. The separation between time and movements. §5. The contradiction of Aristotle’s thesis of time. §6. Two meanings of time. §7. The origin of duration in the memory. §8. The duration definition. But, if brain doesn’t feel pain... §9. Some times we do not perceive duration - or time. §10. What is speed? §11. There always is a pre existing condition that cause the duration. §12. The definition of neurology for “duration”. §13. Is duration of sensation equal to the sensation of duration? §14. What pain is. And about the saints, heroes, yogis and geniuses. §15. Which is biggest pain: the short / fast or long /the slow one? §16. The memory does not keep duration. §17. The duration is similar to the secondary qualities of Locke. §18. Slow/long duration is not the addition of many fast/short duration. §19. Do past, present and futures events exist? §20. Why do not we know the future? §21. The time is not a series of “nows”. And is it a fourth dimension? §22. The time travels? And the passage of time in the massive bodies. §23. Where are our last ages. And about to live forever. §24. What is there inside people’s mind ? §25. About the sky and the hell. §26. A localization for the conscience? §27. The animals and the embryos also perceive time. §28. Time, a collective neurosis? §29. Time and music. §30. The mind and the presumption of a “neutral state”. §31. Duration and the measure of space - short and long. The illusion of “simultaneity” and our contribution to the quantum mechanics. §32. The imitation and the unsatisfaction as cause of good and bad actions. And the Talion law. 2) WHAT IS THE CONSCIOUSNESS? §33. The consciousness does not depend on the size of brain. §34. Why do we have a consciousness, if each atom is divine? §35. Why to contemplate? §36. We are many, not only a person? Is there a conflict inside us? §37. The senses organs as first “soul” or cause of animation. §38. Is the soul the cause of life? And do soul progress? §39. The nonsense of a separate consciousness. 6

§40. The consciousness differs from the ego. And do the subjectivity exist? §41. What do occurs in the impact of sensations on the consciousness? 3) THE PERCEPTION DEGREES. §42. The emotion and the alteration of degrees of perception. §43. Practical examples of perception change. And the opinion of Science… §44. On the solitude, the pardon, the treason and the love. §45. What are the restrained desires or “diminished consciousness"? And about dreams, that is, our thoughts seen for inside. §46. On the habit. §47. The truth degrees. Protágoras. And the error. §48. Do senses organs delude us? And is there a progress? §49. Language and degrees of perception. §50. Plato - the words as noises. And the Wittgenstein’s mistake. §51. What is the “reason”? And is there an organ of happiness? §52. The “form” as a “myopia”. The “inductive method”. And is there a form of human being? §53. On the Genetics. Difference between form and limit. Plato and Kandinsky. §54. And the “force of will” or “ample perception”. 4) WHY WE ARE NOT FREE §55. What is to think? §56. What is this that we call for “freedom”? §57. An example of our determinism. Celibacy, taboos and guilt. §58. The cathartics effect. And how do we remember? §59. On the aggressive behaviors. §60. Jean Piaget and Howard Gardner. 5) MORAL, ETHICS AND HAPPINESS §61. The moral and ethical feelings. And the customs, the religion and Jesus. §62. The moral and ethical actions and feelings. Examples of neighbors. Is there a list of virtues? §63. Is there a supreme happiness? §64. Which virtue: aristotelian or stoician? The definition of “good action”. And againsty euthanasia. §65. Is there moral principles? Is there a evil innate in us? §66. How to teach to be virtuous. The difference between “is” and “must”. §67. On the suicide. §68. Do the moral feeling aims to reproduce the embryonary state? §69. Are we born good? §70. “The strongers” and moral ones. §71. The morality in the animals and our care about them. And the mineralism. 7

6) SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENTS §72. the origin of societies. §73. The origin of governments and the leaders. Is there a monopoly of force? §74. On the ascension and the decline of nations. §75. Constitution or declaration of human rights? §76. Most of us prefer a bad government than its absence. §77. The death penalty. And self defense. §78. Why the anarquism is a lost fight. §79. Revision of term “Democracy”. The scholars. And about the equality. §80. The advantage of three powers of a republic. §81. The master and the slave and the degrees of perception. §82. The cooperativism as third way. And twenty weekly hours! §83. The wars as infantile or youthful act. And the art of peace. 7) THE MYTH OF LAWS §84. The legal system is potentially infinite. §85. On the natural law. §86. The law of divorce made weak the marriage and the family. §87. Rights and duties: a physiological explanation. §88. On the legal principles. §89. The non-retroactivity of law. §90. Do nobody can allege that unknow the laws? §91. Jurisprudence, interpretation of law and the feeling. §92. On equality of the penalties and its reductions. And what is anger? §93. We want an elect judiciary Power and whose access is universalized! §94. One magistrate or a plurality ofm? And about the popular jury. §95. How to modify the justice system? §96. Judiciary and the others Republic Powers. 8) THE ART AND THE BEAUTY ARE NOT SUPERFLUOUS. §97. Pain and pleasure for backwards of feeling of beauty. And what is the aura? §98. It there a sexual desire for backwards of feeling of beauty? §99. Dressed beautiful women. And the golden ratio. §100. The beauty in itself. The world of ideas of Plato and the test of retro projector. §101. The “beauty in itself”, “pixels” and the criterion of “isocronia”. §102. The origin of the ugly. §103. The unaesthetical and amoral art. And the false “paradox of art”. §104. On the fame, the styles and the perpetual return in the art. §105. The other causes of beauty. §106. Kant and the sublime one. And the degree of “beauty”. §107. The beauty in rare things. §108. The physiological and the cultural beauties. Hume and the enemies. §109. The development of aesthetic sense. 8

§110. Is there rationality in the beauty? The beauty: a mystical experience? §111. The propensity to the art, the Philosophy and the architecture. §112. Why do we want to surpass the nature? 9) WHEN THE LOGIC BECOME ILLOGICAL §113. What it is the “form” and the nonsense argument of “sorites”. §114. Nietzsche and the natural selection of logic. And the natural logic. §115. The logic as Aesthetic. The reversible thought. §116. Which are the requirements of a logical form? §117. Is there a fallacy of boy and the girl? §118. The Principle of identity. §119. The principle of not-contradiction. §120. On the relations. And the truth tables. §121. Is causality a subjective mental idea? §122. What are they subject and predicate? And on denotation and connotation… 10) THE HUMAN MATHEMATIC §123. The origin of figures: circle, triangle, etc. §124. What is a point? And a line, is composed of points? An new “Euclidean Geometry” based in brain physiology. §125. What is to make a average. The tone of absentee blue in Hume. §126. Is Mathematics the language of world? §127. What are the numbers. And about the lottery. §128. Are there infinite numbers? §129. On the prime numbers. 11) GOD OR THE UNIVERSE §130. What is the “nothing”? §131. If God has mind also perceives duration. §132. The impossibility of omniscience. §133. On the “thing in itself”. The essence is equal to the appearance. §134. Nor finite, nor infinite. Against infinite series. §135. One proves of cyclical world. And had the universe a beginning? §136. Another false paradox: the universe always repeats itself or is different? §137. Is there simultaneously infinite universes existing? §138. The paradox of lizard: is there an order in the world? §139. On the gravity.


INTRODUCTION We will look for in the present work to present our philosophical ideas to the reader in a way that becomes more easy the access as possible. Therefore, we decide to imitate the style of philosopher Berkeley where his ideas are presented in short paragraphs and, thus, it makes possible to the reader a more easy identification of treat subjects. Also we imitate Nietzsche, when placing titles on each paragraphs, for the same previous reason, to facilitate the reading. In this book, we desire to expose the natural development of our reflection, without being too much long, from the inquiry of following subjects: time, in its two meanings, of a succession passed events and future and of duration, after, the senses of aesthetic and moral, later the myth of free-will, what is the conscienciousness, the illusion of “ego”, the thesis of perception degrees, what is the rationality, for what we relate when we use the word “freedom”, if there is a human happiness; a revision of concept of democracy, the illusion of system of laws and the necessity to rethink the judiciary power, through the promotion of direct elections. Before choosing for the construction of this work, we think about possiblity to write three separated books - the Myth of time, the Myth of Ego and the Myth of Laws - written in 2000, 2001 and 2002, but not published, despite we had looked for publishing companies. However, we decide that there are good reasons to prevent to make what some men made and make: to spread children for the world, in so great number that they finish their lifes not recognizing them. Or still, to present untied ideas, spread for different works, as if the arguments jumped of one for another one, in a chaotic state. Also, for respect to the reader, we do not want to monopolize all their attention in our ideas, even because the biggest satisfaction in philosophing inhabits not in reach an answer but to investigate and to be surprised at the discoveries.


1) THE PHYSIOLOGY OF TIME. Nine in ten scientists will say that time is the cause of order of world or the cause of all events that exist in the world. That belief is so deep in our minds that none would disagree. But, it is necessarily in moments like this that the critical sense dies. In title of this chapter we suggest that the time - in its two main senses means: (a) a serie of passed, present and future events; e, (b) duration (lenght), that is not more than a product of our mind, not existing as something real, but only inside of us. We will prove it in the next paragraphs.

§1. Is the time an external cause? If it had a external time, two people who had been born in the same day, fatally would die in the same day. We know a life with a healthful diet and practical of exercises, can draw out the life expectancy, while a sedentary life, with drink consumption, cigarette and drugs, will shorten the same life excessively. But, how would be possible to deceive the time, if it was an external cause? And the acceleration of growth of plants with the hormone that speeds up the metabolism ofse beings? They modify, also, the time? Plato believed that time was the mobile image of eternity, what it sounds strange, because something in movement, or is an image of another thing that is in movement, or then has one third element that it makes it to move! But Plato had a letter in the sleeve: the god “Cronos”. According to myth, told for proper philosopher, god - the deity that eats its children -, that is responsible for the order of world, in a certain day, left to exert such order and, therefore, the flow was inverted: people to appear, in the world, already in advanced age and, then, they retrocede until the first years ofir lifes. In century twenty, Stephen Hawking, physicist, researcher of emissions of radiation in black holes - that speculated on the possibility ofse gigantic celestial bodies to have start and end -, also, as Plato, believed the possibility of that, ceased the force that cause the expansion the universe and existing only the attractive powers between the galaxies, they would start to try a world of events behind for front, in the inverse direction that we are naturally observe, as we can read in the book: One brief history of time. What is our reply to this


answer? Who defends that the time is an external cause of universe, they would have to go out of universe for prove or reject this thesis, what so far did not happen. Before considering a thesis where we do not have means to verify - something strange for scientists -, why not to observe this question for other perspectives?

§2. Slow or fast time and short or long time. When we read the book “Time: the familiar stranger”, of J.T.Frasier, we come across with the dominant belief of physicists about those perceptions that we have when we feel that the time passes very fast or very slow. They say that those are experiences that do not disclose the time as really it is, uninterrupted and constant. Frasier wrote: “the passage of time is an illusion of livings beings” (p.184). Of where the physicists had taken off this conception? The opinion of Henry Bergson comes to our remembrance: It was the philosophers who had taught such conception to the scientists. Once that notion is wrong, the consequences in the scientific inquiries, will be disastrous. Who had been the philosophers who had induced the scientists in error? Two in them seem to be clear: Aristotle and Newton, this last philosopher of nature or physicist. For Aristotle, the time is not fast, nor slow, but, the movements are. The time can be short or long. The central problem in its thesis is that we know to distinguish clearly in our experiences when it is the time and not movements is fast or slow. Newton did not say something very different. For him, there is an absolute time, also, constant.

§3. Does time flows? Of where it comes this belief that the time flows without ceasing and with a constancy to give envy to the most competent watchmakers? From any place, because everything that we perceive with constancy is the sensations flow, variations of luminosity, sound, taste, tactile sense and smells, but we never had, have or will have any experience of an uninterrupted and constant flow of time.


§4. The separation between time and movements. We believe that is the moment to consider the separation of millenarian “society” between the time and the movements that we observe in the world. When our clocks - that they just reproduce the terrestrial movement or almost that, therefore each four years we have to add one day more - are divided in equal parts and give to these parts the name of time - or duration -, are forcibly and without evidence, estimating that inherent to the movement and its parts, have, also, the time, as “siameses twins”, connected beetwin itself for a natural or divine force. Why we must accept this? It would be the same that to divide a cluster of bananas in twenty and four parts and to find in each part one another fruit, as apples or pears! For more nonsense that this example is, it discloses that the co-presence of time in each movement of each portion of substance in the world, included ourselves, results of a false belief. Nobody never saw this time that all assumes “glue” to all the movements that we observe. It would not be in the moment to we start to think that what we call “time” is inside and aren’t out of our minds? In our agreement, the supposed objective existence of time is supported by mere opinions. Two lines of argument to show to the separation between time and movement are the following ones: (a) sometimes we perceive time, even because when an object is stopped. An interesting objection was made certain time for us and resembles to thesis of William James in his book “Principles of Psychology”: despite that we don’t perceive movements, still thus, our eyes move or internal organs are in continuous movement. In part it seems correct, but the perception ofse movements would not make to appear a perception of time, as something that disappears, irreversible, in a past behind us. Is it a pulsation of heart that disappears in some place of past? If we did not know of our mortality, we could not, ofse movements, to infer time. It’s ok, a doctor measures the number of pulsations of a patient and compares with clock; but, here he is estimating that the clocks measure time, what, to be correct, it would need to prove these “siameses twins”;


(b) some times we can perceive movements without time perception. In pleasant experiences, we can completely lose any notion of a time passage. We will see, more ahead, with more details these questions.

§5. The contradiction of Aristotle’s thesis of time. It is opportune to relember an aristotelian book of few pages - “on the sense and the sensibles”, part of his work “Parva Naturalia” (small treated on nature) -, where macedonian thinker asked if we can simultaneously perceive two qualities - or sensations - as color and heat, for example. His first reply (in the truth a thesis of some contemporary writer) was to say that “not”; in truth, a perception occurred after another, in an imperceptible time between one and another one. But, if Aristotle had accepted this thesis he would be contradicting himself, because, according to him, it can’t have a perception of a movement without perception of time. His solution was to say that the organ responsible for consciousness - the heart or the brain - had a way to perceive these two distinct sensations. But nor this example seem to be right: of a segment of straight line AB, divided in two parts - AG and GB, we agree that these segments are perceived as something continuous and if we do not perceive the time in a segment, then, is because we are not perceiving the segment, but the same reasoning is not valid for sounds or images, because these are separated things and perceived separately. But, there is one another bigger error in his reply: when he defend that there is simultaneous perceptions, he denied the principle that was essential for any knowledge on the world, the principle of not-contradiction and, also, of third excluded: when we perceive, for example, two objects simultaneously – A and B -, we will not perceive A and B separate, but a made up ofm, that is, one third element, distinct of previous ones. We are not saying that the relation in AB is of a nature that modifies them, but only that, in reason of that the mind principles are ways to think the world that is around us, it is followed that the perception of “A” is distinct of “B” perception. In the example of line AGB, Aristotle, we can say that the segments are not perceived at the same time, but one after other the separate ones for an imperceptible time and when perceived together we will see just one line and not two segments.


Let us catch the colors yellow and blue: the simultaneous perception ofm, keeps the essence of each one? Evidently that not; blue and yellow, seen together, produces the perception of green color, a mixture or composition of two first colors. And to perceive at the same time a bitter and a candy flavors? Impossible, except if we perceive one and later the other, exactly because the regions of the tongue where they are perceived are different. And the eyeglasses of third dimension, where there are two lenses, blue and a other red: we think that we see the images of each eye together, but they present one after the other! The fixed or cellular telephones are another good example of that it seems that two people can speak at the same time, what it does not occur; in the case of fixed telephone, each person uses the line for time, in the case of cellular one, has two distinct signals, one for each person. It has, still, one another problem, still on the perception of time: when Aristotle defends that when we perceive movement, perceives time, he conduces us to believe that two perceptions are, or simultaneous, or successive. If simultaneous, we fall again into the difficulty displayed in the previous paragraph. If successive, then it refutes the belief that it is central, of that the time and the movement is nonseparable. The same problem was raised in century XVIII, for David Hume: when we hear five musical notes, what is the duration ofse notes, one sixth sensation? John Locke, a little before, defended the belief of that the duration results of succession of our ideas and, therefore, an internal operation in the mind. Moreover, for where of five senses stimuli enters the duration in our mind, understood as something external? Reply: for none ofm. This question sends us in return to the Aristotle, because his definition of time as “measured of movement” leads the same lockean explanation. Nicholas de Cusa, medieval thinker, as well as us, as presently we make, interpreted in the same way the aristotelian definition: measure is a product of intellect and, thus, the time is subjective, different of real time that Aristotle defended!

§6. Two meanings for the time. For us, it is clear that for “time” we can mean: or “duration”, or, then, “a succession of events, pasts, presents and futures”. The distinction ofse two meanings


is only possible of being made, because we understand to be time and movements something independent: we can think about a sequence of events with a total duration or about an isolated event, with its respective duration. Let us see the term “duration” with more detail.

§7. The origin of duration in the memory. As we already said before, seem us difficult to believe that fast or slow “time” or “duration”, was so only an illusion or a product of our subjectivity. Our first search consisted of reconstituting what occurs in each experience ofse two “abnormal” perceptions of time or duration. Recollecting our experiences, we relembered that when the duration seems fast - or shortly, as Aristotle would say -, generally, we are living some experience where we do not perceive what is or was ahead of us; on the other hand, when we perceive that the duration is long, in general, it seems to occur when the object - or a complete experience - that affects our perception, appears as a series of repeated sensations. Once we reached these observation, our inquiry stanched there. Then, we remember that René Descartes, in the work “the passions of soul”, wrote that the process to recollect a passed experience, requires the passage for the memory of “animal espirits” - what it is equivalent, today, to the electric impulses – and, then, our rememberances were brought to our consciousness. Although the explanation leaves to desire - it seems like an old myth , still thus, it served to show us that the memory could be something organic and, if it is, then its functioning could be compared with the one of other organs of human body. It is opportune to stop this inquiry, to explain to the reading why we believe that is in the memory that appears what we call duration. There are a theoretical and one practical justification. We already speak before on the thesis of Locke, who believed that the duration appeared in the succession of our ideas and, having nothing inside of our mind except the memory, it is there that the duration would appear. In nineteenth century, Franz Brentano, did develop the thesis of “imaginary association”, not very different of what Leibniz, centuries before, already had speculated: of that the duration appears from a first sensation, being that the first perception is


instantaneous and, only later, from the following sensations, the duration perception will appear in us. It is clear that in these two last thinkers do not have any reference to the memory. Therefore, a practical experience was decisive: our curiosity was awaked when we saw one same movie for the second time and we perceive that in the second time the movie seemed to us faster than the first one. For that, it was clear that the memory was involved in the sprouting of duration! We reject immediately, for being so little credible, thesis like Plato, that we relember those experiences lived before the soul coming to the body, in the divine world or, still, of Saint the Augustin, that the memory is one of faculties of soul, exactly because has difficulty to conciliate two natures, a supposedly divine one and to another, human being. What it would bind them, if they are as water and oil? Then, for our surprise, we recommence the inquiry on what it is the duration. For this, we compare the memory with an organ of body, as the stomach. What does it happen in its functioning? When we have hunger, we can feed little, equal or beyond to the capacity that the stomach allows. It is clear that we can increase its capacity, in function of its elasticity, but this does not occurs in immediate way. What it interests at the moment is to know if the comparison with the memory could be useful. As memory has a capacity, except if we think it is infinite, thesis that our daily life would refute as absurd, ahead of many mnemonic problems that we have, we would need to know why “duration” occurs inside of memory. If in the stomach it has the three described situations before, also, in the physic organ responsible for the memory must occur the same situation: depending on the amount of foods - lesser, equal or bigger that the capacity of stomach - we would continue or not to feel hunger. Already in the memory, the food is substituted by sensations. And, in the relation among the retention of these sensations and the capacity of memory to hold back them is that - we speculate - the phenomenon of “duration” would appear. Thus, in we step by step approach to the following reply: if the amount or quality of sensations was insufficient to recognize the object that affects our perception, a pain in the memory would persist (not is brain, because it doesn’t feel anything); if the amount or quality was identical, pain would cease and a pleasure - as it happens with the stomach - would appear; or, finally, if the amount or quality was superior to the


capacity, another pain will appear - as, also, it occurs in the stomach, when we feel it “heavy”, after to consume much amount of foods. Another example that sample that the duration arise inside of our mind: how do we know that we will have time (duration) enough when we go to cross the street and to prevent to be run over by an car that comes in our direction? It is not because we know the final duration of movement of car, but because the series of images of vehicle that we perceive, the duration of movement of car appears in us and, then, we compare with the duration of our movement that, if lesser than our legs’ speed and duration of our movement, we will decide to cross the street.

§8. The duration definition. But, if brain doesn’t feel pain... In a simple way, duration would consist of two types of pain located in the memory in the process of retention of sensations. A pain for insufficience and another one for excess of sensations. Only once in the college, when I was student, I heard from a certain distance two people talking on this my theory on duration: they - a psychoanalyst and a professor of philosophy -, spoke that the brain did not feel pain, then to say that duration is sensation of pain in the brain is a big mistake. But, we do not defend this! What we defend is that the brain perceives one another pain (beyond those ones produced by the body), one pain that appears in the memory, what is followed, still, that the memory and brain are not the same thing.

§9. Some times we do not perceive duration - or time. In a lecture that we pronounce on the thesis of time, remeber us about some expressions of common language, that strengthen our thesis: when we say “I lost the notion of hour” or “i don’t see the time passage”, we are communicating an experience where we do not perceive the “passage of time”. If our thesis is correct, it will be very difficult to keep all the structure constructed for Kant, in his “Critics of Pure Reason”, where he wrote: “Space and time are surely pure concepts of all element… and, for consequence, represented “a priori” in our spirit; but, exactly thus, they would lack of all objective value and signification if its application was not


necessary in the objectives of experience” (Analytical of Principles, Chap. II, section II). In another stretch: “between two moments it always has a time” (Second Analogy).

§10. What is speed? We could substitute “amount or qualities of sensations” for “speed” as cause of sprouting of duration in our minds? Traditionally the scientific concept of speed appears in the relation between the concepts of space and time, what does not seem us correct. As we saw, before, the clocks do not measure any time. When we say that a person walked for one hour, we are saying, only, that its movement can be compared with one on twenty and four parts of movement of Earth. That is so only a comparison between two movements, being that this last one, is more regular and, therefore, it serves of reference to organize our lives. Jean Piaget, in the work “Illusions and wisdom of Philosophy” (chapter III, pp.131), remembers a colloquy that had with Albert Einstein, in 1928, and the his interest to know if in the children searched for Piaget, the speed notion appeared before the duration one. The reply found in the research made for Piaget is that the speed notion appeared before the duration one, what discloses independence separation - of a perception from the other and one anthological priority - a previous sprouting - of a notion from the other. Other question researched by him was the sprouting of the notion of reversibility of the time, that appears from six or seven years of age. We disagree, however, that the belief of Piaget of that the duration is “product of an advanced intellectual manufacture” and, in this point, we disagree with “the advanced” notion, because we are certain that the duration is primitive. The only reason because the children do not perceive duration and reversibility is that its brains are very busy in perceiving the new features that the world presents to them and that they involve a great pleasure. When there is a pleasure, we do not perceive mnemonical pain, that is, duration.


§11. There always is a pre existing condition that cause the duration. It matters to explain why for some people an experience can be ackward, whereas, for others, the same experience can be pleasant. We do not have, still, here, the means for a complete reply, because it depends on one another line of inquiry: of degrees with which our perception apprehends the world around us. But, what we can advance, can be compared with a game called “seven errors”, where two photos are presented and we ask for someone to identify the differences between them. We ask: why some people identify more easily the differences and others delay more or, still, nor arrive to identify an error at least? Our reply consists saying that some people - for some types of experience – have inside thei memory a pre condition that became them able to perceive details that others are not. Let us imagine a game where the photos are of painting of Rafael, the school of Atenas: a philosopher or an artist will be able to feel themselves motivated more to identify to the differences than another person whose subject does not mean nothing to him. Returning to our lives, we will be able to recognize moments where an experience does not say nothing to us and it seems, or chaotic, or monotonous. In these cases, a duration provoked for this experience will appear in our mind, that, as we before saw, are nothing more than a pain in the memory. For this reason, we can’t accept the false belief that the duration is property of events that we perceive, but, that it is born inside of our minds. And this because it is necessary, as we saw in the previous paragraph, that occurs in us an emotional envolvement for that appears the duration. It cannot have an independent duration of our minds. A butterfly lives seven days. How much lasts for it the proper existence? And for us when lasts seventy years and how much they last for a eternal being, if it exist? By the way, years, are only returns that the Earth gives around of sun. How much a life lasts, will depend on one another question: for who? Surprise us finding in the edition of day twelve of January of 2002, of newspaper “Folha of São Paulo”, an article of doctor Dráuzio Varella, on the compulsory pleasure of people addicted to drugs. In this article, he makes the following story: “all time that the brain is submitted the loaded repetitive stimulations of emotional content, the circuits of involved neurons in its conduction, modify themselves to try to perpetuate


the gotten sensation of pleasure”. Let us observe the presence of terms on which our thesis comes approaching: “repetitive stimulatons”, “emotional content” and “sensation of pleasure”. Mr. Varella adds that the knowledge of this mechanism is sufficiently old; is called “neuroadaptation”. The involved chemical substance is called “dopamina”; it is a cause of new linkings among the neurons. Thus, when we look at the face of woman that we love, for example and, therefore, we receive a series of images or repetitive sensations, what - for everything what we said before, they would make to appear pain in the memory -, something occurs surprising: the image stirs up us to a pleasure by means of “neuroadaptation”, holding back the sensations, without any pain comes to appear. It is possible to think about one another explanation: that the pain located in the memory is weak or is eclipsarred by the pleasure to touch the skin of woman that we love or smells her hair. High involved degrees of acuidade in these last pleasures, would hinder or diminish the intensity of that specifically mental pain, the duration!

§12. The definition of neurology for “duration”. I found, for my surprise, in a book on neurology, a weak definition of duration: a relation between “intensity of external stimulations and the intensity of perceived stimulations”. This relation is, in turn, according to neuroscientists, measured for the clock. Thus, we see that the science of Medicine, also, estimates the real existence of a external duration. Now, if the relation - external stimulation and our perception - is of 1 for 1, then how this would explain the duration, if this relation is always constant? What does “perceived stimulations” means? And where is the long and the shortness duration? William James looked for to explain the duration as resultant of perceptions that remain residual - “after images” - in our nervous system, as sounds that they would exactly continue being produced when a musician already took off his finger of ropes of instrument, for example. We do not know if W. James intention was to prevent to have that to appeal to the memory - place of last facts - as cause of duration, but of any way, when we relember facts, we bring them in return to our present perception. Another point of view of James, consisted of assumption - a mistake - that the young


and the old people perceive differently the “passage of time” - or duration. We do not agree to him, because the young also feels duration long, when live deeply monotonous experiences. Seem to us that he came close to the problem solution when he observed that oldest people, for not living not much new experiences, they would tend to perceive them with a longer duration. However, what he did not explain is that thre are a great number of seemed experiences, that overlap - in the memory - on those already lived. W. James seems to say that while we are affected by an object we would not perceive time, when a sensation only leaves its impression, as shades, behind itself? The same researcher believes that the young people only have - in general, he adds the perception of a short time. But, would the difference between the systems nervous of young and of oldest explain the different perceptions of duration? We believe not, because we know how much, also, the teenagers become bored with monotonous situations and, of another part, oldest can, too, perceive an experience as short duration! Therefore, It does not make sense to limit the short duration as well as the long one to a specific ages.

§13. Is duration of sensation equal to the sensation of duration? Ones of critic raised for Edmund Husserl, in relation to the gaps left for the thesis of “imaginary association”, of his professor, Franz Brentano. In our agreement, the duration of sensation is equivalent to pain in the memory, caused for one or more of five sensations. For example: a pain that we feel when we see repeated images of green color or to hear repeated loud sounds. Already the sensation of duration, consists of perception of duration, that is, of pain. But, for us, to feel and to perceive, is the same thing, even therefore, one refers to external stimuli and other, for internal ones.

§14. What pain is. And about the saints, heroes, yogis and geniuses. We do not desire to stop here our inquiry, because it would be like to leave an incomplete task. Why, then, we feel pain? This question does not accept an obvious reply, as the one that says that the brain when receiving the provoked electric


stimulaton, for example, one cut in the skin, this sensation goes up for the system of nerves until the brain; from there, another stimulaton - now a reply - return with an order for let us move away from the source of cut. Everything this seems clear and unquestioned. Nor we intend to deny that we feel pain. What we want is to find the cause of pain. Perhaps we had to detail the question: Why the brain commands to take off the finger from the fire? It has some innate idea that we bring with us before being born? If there is, where it would be, in the soul or the DNA? Is it a preservation instinct? If it is, why this instinct exists? The error that the philosophers had incurred in all the history of Philosophy, into the inquiry of what pain is, as to think that it is a divine work, “annexed in us for God for our preservation” - as made John Locke, in the Essays on the human agreement (book II, Chapter. IV, 17 and VII, 4) - was caused by the fact to try to understand and to define pain as if it was an only same thing. However, in our bodies we do not go to find the only one only pain, but, many, that have - it is truth - something in common, but do not constitute the only pain, because they result of specific necessities, of specific organs and not a something spiritual, transcendental. Why we feel pain and what is it? It was the reading of dialogue of Plato, “Philebo”, that alerted us for this question, when he asks of where comes the memory that makes us to extinguish a necessity and to return to the state in which again in we feel us complete - “of where it comes the knowledge, not of lack, but of completude”. Our reply to this question is the following one: when we are in the uterus our mind already registers the sensations and it knows the completude state, being unaware of necessities as to the related to hunger, fear, cold, etc. Thus, the mind would register these sensations and it takes them as standards, as something daily, constant. Later, out of uterus, the experiences lived in the exterior world that to present distinct characteristics of that we still find in the fetal state, will produce answers - since a simple agitation until a more aggressive behavior - that it will aim to reestablish the state previous, intrauterine. Some observations seem to indicate that we are in the certain way are related the experiences and stories of three types of people: saints, heroes, yogis and, with certain restrictions, also, those that – na illusion - are called genius. In these cases,


we observe a certain lack of sensibility to pain, as well as, a distance of reality, what gives to them an exempt perception of what is around! It is not enough, however, the feeling of completude or order (fetal) to explain such cases; we need the thesis of perception degrees, that we will see more ahead. What we can advance here is that as much more our perceptions are next - not spacially, inside of brain, but, in similarity, to the neuron structures - to the acquired perceptions in the fetal life, less will perceive pain, this because pain is a reaction to the difference between the memory of fetal state of completude and a present perception - that it involves a bigger degree of acuity. Thus, saints, heroes, yogis and genius are, clearly, people who see things that the others do not see, fact that do not make them beings the holy ghosts, but disclose that the remaining portion of humanity has a similar problem to the people that have myopia, a myopia of perception, because they aren’t able to see more far!

§15. Which is biggest pain (mental): the short / fast or long /the slow? A very sad fact occurred: an accident of helicopter with two Brazilian personalities, where one ofm disappeared in the sea and the rescue of its corpse seemed impossible. We notice that, for the family of that person, it was preferable to have the dead body of its relative than to lose it for the sea. Seem us evident that, if it dealt with our relative, our reaction would be the same. However, to philosophy requires a distance to understand what is deeper in the essence of things and the beings. We had understood that the pain of absence is - in general - always bigger that the pain of presence of that corpse. We dedicate, then, attention to this fact: the short pain is more intense than long pain, that is, not seeing the body was more tragic - evidently, beyond the suffering of familiar for the death - than its image in a coffin, with flowers and being able, thus, to carry through a last homage and a worthy burial. But, why short pain is more intense than the long one? We believe that this is caused by the fact of that the memory of embryo had more contact with experiences of long duration, repeated, and, therefore, more resistant to the future experiences of long duration and untill he not to see them as painful in contrast with those experiences of short duration that, very probably, the embryo has not had any


experience or, at least, in lesser amount than the others experiences: pleasants and those where a long duration appears! Let us observe, yet, that, if the embryo had not had more perceptions that formed in it the long duration, then we could not distinguish as painful the short duration and would take both - the shortness as well as the long one - as identical in relation to intensity of pain’ sensation. However, we know that, in reality, they are distinct pains and, under our present point of view, this is the origin of pain sensations, that is, in the maternal womb.

§16. The memory does not keep duration. If each event had a duration in itself there would be ahead of us a great paradox: our memory would have not only to keep the experiences lived for us, but also the duration ofse experiences; but, this is not possible, therefore, to remember, for example, an occurred event ten years ago, we would need others ten years to relember it! It follows that the duration only has its sprouting when our memories are brought to our perception or when lives - presently - some fact.

§17. The duration is similar to the secondary qualities of Locke. The distinction made by John Locke between the primary qualities - that they are in objects, out of our mind - and secondary one - that they result of our interaction with external objects. We do not go to deepen the study of this distinction, because it does not seem real. What it is essential in this question is: (1) we do not perceive nothing that does not have form. A broken egg has the broken egg form…; (2) we beleive that colors have a form or, in a way more clearly, we only we perceive its form or the most external limit. When we say that the surfaces of two tables are brown, we are saying that there is something in common that both tables share, a form, that is, the form of brown color. Now, the point that interests us here is to establish the similarity between the perception of duration with others, like perception of colors, heat and the cold, for example. Nobody will say that colors are in objects or that the heat exists as property of things. The time (or duration), thus, would appear of relation between movements of objects and the


movements that our mind made to perceive and to memorize such objects. And, therefore, as well as the thermometer does not measure the heat or the cold, also the clocks do not measure the duration, only compare movements. In addition: when we see a clock we just see the movement of hands of clock, not duration.

§18. Slow/long duration is not the addition of many fast/short duration. Of what we said until here, we cannot more believe that the slow duration is an addition of short durations, in a similar way that we cannot say that a full stomach is the addition of empty stomachs!

§19. Do past, present and futures events exist? The reply to this question it appeared to us with the reading of Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty. For Heidegger, if “a time in itself it is temporal” - then it would be submitted to one another time and that to another one, infinitely and, is followed that nor the time and nor its parts are temporal. Of another part, Ponty wrote that space is in the bedding of time. Let us finish, therefore, what they had started: past, present and future are position in the space in reference to an observer. Past is the name that we give to all the stimuli - visual, sonorous, tactile, etc - that physically passed for our directions and that, or they had been lost, or they had been kept in our memory. Present, now or instant does not have external existence, but it means the stimuli of which we are conscientious and future corresponds to the stimuli that we not yet receive or perceive. We can complicate our thesis: each person has a specific past, present and future, but the planet also has, even because is not conscientious of it. The Roman empire is past? Most appropriate is to say that its archaeological vestiges are present to us, but after to go there and to come back from Rome, the images and other perceptions, for example, of Coliseu, today, partially destroyed, it will leave to affect our perception and they will be situated, behind us, in the memory! Past, just for someone that had testified the last events of Roman empire until its decay. Thus, we conclude saying that the supposed parts of time - past, present and future - are, in reality, space positions, but under the point of view of alive one to be provided with


sensorial organs, of memory and perception. It will fit, therefore, to the culture of a people and its historians systemize in a perspective the individual perceptions and stories. Something similar occurs with who thinks, as Burnyeat, that who studies the time already would estimate its existence when it gains money for a reserch for the period of one year to search the subject. However, what it means one year? One comes back complete of planet around sun and, because of its inclination, a projection toward the space ahead. Thus, we understand that “one year” does not denote time, but a certain number of kilometers ahead of point where we are. Evident that in that position all the substance will modify its position in the space not only the Earth.

§20. Why do not we know the future? Philosophers and scientists who accept the real existence, but relative of time, had arrived at the following conclusion: for two observers one exactly event can be perceived as present, passed or future, then because we do not know the events future? For that we said until here, we believe that the time exists only in our minds: the future, object of this paragraph, constitutes the space that is in front of our sensorial organs and, therefore, not yet perceived for us; it cannot have any independent reality of a mind. This problem could better be formulated thus: why we cannot dress a pants and, later, the underwear? How we could know which experiences we will live in the next five or ten years, if the center from which the experiences will be developed depends from us? We are what we said: a center for which the world is attracted, a small black hole, perhaps. Thus, we can observe a period of life where this center accumulates more substance than it loses, but, once having reached one limited maximum, it will decreases and extinguishes. And those people who foresee events as aerial tragedies? We believe that in situations where the perception is under a very ample degree, we can perceive the “order” of world and, then, to be capable to foresee facts that will occur in a space we do not say time - beyond the space where in we find them. This seems us sufficiently reasonable. Explanations could be added: in the experiences that seem to


see the future, it could be involved a extra-sensorial perception, where external stimuli - distinct of sensations - could be recognized, for similarity, inside of our minds. One is not about one sixth sensorial agency, but an internal perception, as the thoughts that appear in our mind. This is not impossible, because being the skull done of calcium and, knowing the calcium is a metal, then does not have limit of capacity to receive electrochemical, external stimuli. Beside that, we believe that we are able to povoke interferences in electric equipment and livings beings. Heidegger was who that gave more value to the future than to the past, therefore, for him, the essence of human being is always for being constructed by ourselves, what makes us to direct our attention for what will come, the future. The future, for me, is like a sunrise, full of promises, because the past quickly becomes repeated, monotonous and, mentally painful, because as we are ownership of an ample perception, we perceive little details of things and faster we become bored with our experiences. And the past? It is passed! People who I knew in the past: i see them at a distance, as if i saw ghosts, espirits, whose existence are possible if they have meat and bone – you already see something just with form, not corporeal substance?

§21. The time is not a series of “nows”. And is it a fourth dimension? We do not agree to the thesis of that the time consists of a “series of nows”, that we find in Saint Augustin and Hegel. If the time was a series of “nows”, everything would be present, but we know that some experiences become past and others, still, had not happened. “Nows” would exist, thus, passed, while others would be presents and still others, future! How this could be possible if we understand for “nows” as something that does not pass? This solution, nor Saint Augustin, nor Hegel had been capable to explain, probably in the yearning to prove that there is something divine in us that contemplates the eternity. We can until accepting - with certain reluctance - that, under the point of view of a God, the time can be a series of “nows”. Better it would be to say an only one “now”, therefore, for definition, the deity concept says that It is always the same one and the object perceived for It - the universe - is contemplated as an only event. But


to extend this perception for us, perishable and temporal beings, is exaggeration. Better it would be to have denied, not only the existence of past and the future, but, also, of one of “now”: this could be possible if they denied the existence of this “dimension” called time and to unmask it showing that it does not pass of space under the perspective of that someone that observes the uninterrupted flow of stimuli, reaching our sensorial organs and disappearing - literally - behind our coasts or going to stop behind there, in the memory. Let us see with more attention this last question: it is the past behind us or the objects that testified those events that had occurred? Certainly that second is the correct anwer. Therefore, the events that we try and those older occurrences same centuries ago, we can’t properly “locate” these events, but the place where they had occurred, or more necessarily, the place where the substance of universe was organized in a peculiar and distinct way. Therefore, we reject the thesis of Saint Augustin of whom the past is what is in our memory. The certainty is to say that what is memorized are only tracks, vestiges of what it happened. It is, thus, more easy to understand that the events that had constituted the fall of Roman empire, for example, do not have to be found in our memory, but in vestiges as the Roman Coliseu and in the defense that in certain position, there backwards in the sidereal space - covered for the planet -, the substance found organized in one mood that only thus the events had been able to occur! We were awaked for the impossibility of time to be a series of “nows”, after to read in the work “the being and the nothing”, where Jean-Paul Sartre - that had studied with the phenomenologists philosophers - recognized that a “series of nows” atemporal - cannot generate a time perception. An experience that understands a series of “nows” would be the equivalent only to look at a first sensation that we receive from each object: i see the picture in the wall, when i turn my head, i see the floor, then, i quickly turn the head for the left and see the door, without seeing any image twice. It is this that constitutes a series of “nows”, without to comet the error to identify and to define the “now” as temporal thing! When Hegel made that dialectical exercise - at a first moment, brilliant - to write in a piece of paper “now” is a sunny day, valid at that moment, and, later, it will leave of being when the night to arrive and


to reread the piece - even so it seems extraordinary -, makes to appear more doubts of what answers, because: (1) we will be able to ask if all the time that is a sunny day, during every following days until the end of universe and the piece of paper is in accordance with the sun - or, at least, the clarity in the sky - what we observe outside of window, then, will be the same “now”? Negative, they will be distinct moments, but it is exactly to this error that Hegel induces the reader in his book “Phenomenology of Spirit”; (2) the philosopher defends that the divisions of hours, minutes, seconds, are “nows” and, at the same time, defends that “now” intuitivo, that is, an abstraction of our minds. We know that the seconds can be divided in infinite parts, but we are not capable to perceive bilions of parts of seconds, for example! On the time to be one fourth dimension beside of three space dimensions: a physicist gave the example of two people who mark a meeting. The three space dimensions will not be enough, but, also, we will need a exact hour. However, when we say three hours at afternoon, we are to refer to a space dimension, because “three hours” mean a position in the according to meridian of Greenwich, the east or west, that is, in a position that is the 45 degrees of distance from the place where we are, when there is noon or midnight. I changed e-mails with a physicist on subject of the time and the gravity. He presented as main argument that “if it (the time) did not exist, everything would happen of a only one time, at the same time (birth, death). It could not exist cause and consequence. The grandson would have died at the same moment that the born grandfather, etc”. However, what we defend is that the duration is a mental sensation, but from there it does not follow that everything happens in an only instant. First: when we deny the existence of the time, we don’t defend the real existence of a instant, notion theological and, for us, a name for when our perception receive some external estimuli, a mere mental abstration. And in those researches that seems to show that an electron occupies many places at the same time, did they occur when the time leaves to exist? Then it does not have relation between time and instantaneous or who defends such thesis has that to admit that for backwards of the time there is the instant! It is opportune to


explain our reasoning: we did not say that “If there is “A” (time) then has B (simultaneity)” and occurring a “B”, then will not occur one “A”, because it is possible that the sentence is true if there is a “B” and one “A”. It is the same that to say “All man is mortal”, “That is mortal”, then “That is a man”, because nor everything who is mortal is human. But, if we understand that the relation is of disjunction (or A, or B), then se there is “B”, there won’t be one “A” or vice versa and, still, we can see the relation as all the times (A1, A2, A3, etc) or the simultaneous events (B1, B2, B3, etc). There is another possibility in the disjunction: that “A” and “B” are both true and, because they coexist!

§22. The time travels? And the passage of time in the massive bodies. To come back in the time, would be enough a machine? Not. For us it would be necessary to have an energy or force of size of that it created the universe, so that it is possible to modify the current position since of each miniature portion of matter until great conglomerates of galaxies and black holes. Let us see this question at greater detail: let us assume that we want to come back to the yesterday. What will be necessary? To stop the movement of Earth and to reput it in the position that it was in the previous day. But is that enough? All the substance, all the beings and all the physical objects, would not have to be reput in the space where they found yesterday? Each ingested food would not have to be reput in its original position? And each present bacterium in the air and each molecule of present air in the atmosphere? But and the planets, the sun and the galaxy, how much space had covered since the yesterday? And histories of travels in the time only using of thought? A myth, because we will see more ahead than the thought is physiological (§39). And experiences where few seconds in this world would be equivalent the hours or days in another one? As the duration sensation depends on our brain and the amount of lived sensations, the thesis alone would be possible if we perceived millions of images and very fast sounds, but, in this way, we would not understand that experience. Finally, although we reject the time existence and we reject that near of massive bodies (planets, stars, etc) time’s passage is more slow, we don’t reject,


however, the whole theory, because we can rewrite it thus: “the movements occurs more slowly for bodies that move in high speed”, because, let’s image somebody in a centrifugal machine, trying to move itself: everything becomes more difficult and everything becomes more delayed! Simple, as life must be!

§23. Where are our last ages. And about to live forever. Will they be our first years of life and all the others for which we pass, in some place in the past? We could come back until them with a machine of time? Not. Let’s compare us as a building in construction, where each floor will correspond to each one of already reached years of life. How could this building whole if each one of floors that compose it disappeared? Impossible. If the previous ages were not contained inside of us, as could have the current age? If to each year that was added to our previous age, the previous one disappeared in a mysterious place that they call “past”, then we would not leave the first year! If each new cell that substituted the previous one - how gave its origin -, was condemned to go for the past, then we would be only unicellular beings! And why we grow, we ripen, we age and we die? It is that when we grow more cells are born in relation than die, we arrive at the apex (the adult phase) where the number of cells that are born is identical to that cells that die, having, therefore, a stagnation and a stop of growth. Later, a bigger number of cells die in relation to the number of that they are born, causing the aging that, when natural, is caused by insufficience quantitative of cells that they would have to keep the body organs work. One question makes necessary: we could live forever? It has two possibilities: (1) that the cells are always born in bigger amount that the ones that dies, but thus we would be beings that would grow in height and width and would reach, perhaps, to the sixty years the size of a mountain without stopping; or, (2) that we stimulate the birth of cells (in each organ of body) in the same number of that ones that die and, thus, we would keep us, adults, even so stagnated, without growing but, also, without aging. It won’t cause surprise to us if the science one day discovering that the first forms of live choose to put a limit for their own life to avoid to be destroied when they reach a big size!


§24. What is there inside people’s mind ? We saw that the short and the long duration are not in objects or movements, but appear inside of us. Thus, a good way to know the feeling of somebody regarding one determined experience, that is, if liked or not of, for example, to go to the cinema, one dinner, of our company, etc, without inquiring directly is to ask to which the perception of time that elapsed of this experience: slow / fast or long / short? There are three possible answers: (1) not to perceive the duration - when the person lives deeply a pleasant experience; (2) duration fast - when the experience passed more fast than it was expected or it was pleasant, but finished. It can be a positive situation, when it stimulate us to want repeting it again; (3) long duration - the worse reply, because it means that the experience was ackward.

§25. About the sky and the hell. If the time is inside of us… what is out there? Reply: the eternity. Do you desire to know how the sky is? Look at for all the sides. This is the sky. And the hell? Here, also, depending on our actions and the other people. In the places of planet where there is war and violence of all the types, there is the headquarters of hell. In countries where is the kingdom peace, there is the sky. And where there isn’t life human being, it is sky, also, at least for the beings livings of other species.

§26. A localization for the conscience? We were surprised in elapsing of this inquiry on the time when we come across with the following affirmation: “passed is the space that is behind our conscience”. We arrive, thus, to the conclusion that the conscience - predominantly - is come back toward front of our body. Such disposal harmonizes with the fact of that most of our senses also are situated in the part of front of our body. We use the term “predominantly”, because in our coasts, half of extension is busy for the skin and nervous terminations that answer for the tactile function; therefore, still, there is a conscience, but we can saing that of its area of total perception - 360° - 180° of part of front, is more stimulated and active.


It would be the conscience between the senses organs and the memory? There is an other possibility: we can speculate that, when we are waked up, those sensations - internal - that they are kept in the memory are dimmed for the intensity of external sensations; however, when we sleep (or our attention isn’t turn for the external world), external sensations almost diminish or cease and are detached those sensations that are in the memory. Thus, the conscience could be behind the memory, not, in its front! We had thought that the science of Neurology had identified to the localization of consciousness in the lobe frontal or cortex cerebral. Seem us that what they call consciousness is not properly a focal point to which sensations converge to, but, so only, the region where it would be “ego” or where the image of our body would be memorized. We do not want to decide this question, to only play some combustive in the fire, that is, to mantain the discussion. It is one of most complex question. It could have many “focal points”, one for each region of brain or one for each direction, for example.

§27. The animals and the embryos also perceive time. If for to appear in us the duration perception is necessary that we have sensorial organs and memory, it follows, then, that the embryos as well as the other animals, also, will perceive duration. It seems a good indication of this when we observe anxiety in animals. Although we can doubt that such anxiety is same or the similar to the human being, all that possesss an esteem animal will notice that they also do not like to wait for its meals or its strolls: when the desire of one or another appears in them, immediately they look for us untill the point that it only remains us as alternative to obey its wills - or for some people, “the philosophical-scientific” term must be “to obey its instinct”. But this does not matter now.

§28. Time, a collective neurosis? If the thesis of real time as something, defended for the majority of scientists, was true, why our mind would make to appear the short duration in the pleasant experiences - or, more necessarily, when they cease - and the long duration, in the ackward experiences, attacking, thus, itself and to the body which is part? If the mind


could modify the time, why would not modify in its own benefit, that is, short duration for ackward experiences and long duration for pleasant experiences? That neurosis or restrained desire - to use the Psychoanalytic language - all the humanity has in common, that it makes all us to modify the time in a neurotic way? Let us imagine a public attending a lecture on an ackward subject that is pleasant for some and not for others. Between the first group, will not appear perception of time, whereas for the second one, will appear a perception of long time. Thus, it does not proceed that let us participate of a “collective neurosis”, therefore, if this was truth, would have simultaneously to perceive identical perceptions in identical experiences. Certain time somebody assumed the following explanation: the souls, before come for the bodies, would protest against this experience; thus, our neurosis would be explained from the restrained desire of souls not to want to come to this corporeal world. Even because existed soul - thesis that we reject - nor all the souls would be rebellious, some are kind and justs. These last souls, therefore, would not participate of “collective neurosis of time”: they would accept the experience! We saw here until the incoherence of thesis of that a psychic time; in truth, it only has a time, that one that the mind produces. Even for they that believe that a external time exists and is modified by the mind, is necessary that they offer to us answers to the two questions: (1) of what material this time is made that can be modified by the mind; (2) what kind of mental operation could to compress or to prolongate the time? When the mind prolongating it, would it add more time and from which place it would take off more time?

§29. Time and music. When musicians use its musical symbols they indicate the duration with that the execution of music must follow, would seem evident that is necessary to know beforehand of duration, for, then to execute music. Our reply is that we do not have knowledge of duration anticipatedly, a time that we believe that just appears after the succession of our sensations, not being able to exist before these last ones. What it occurs is that: (1°) nobody leaves singing, without training; (2°) in the memory, we assume that is kept a series of many vowels as “aaaaaaaa”, or, only, a instantaneous


“a”, as well as, the difference in the pronunciation - open or closed; (3°) when we hear the sound that we ourselves pronounce we must have conscious that it had previously - a series of unconscious movements, that prepare the best communication of what it is in our memory.

§30. The mind and the presumption of a “neutral state”. Plato and Aristotle believed that the intellectual activity could or not be folloied of pleasure, but that this did not appear after a pain that has been extinct in the mind. This would only happen in the most basic necessities of body, as when we feel hunger - pain - and, then, we feeds making arising a pleasure. What our thesis on the duration discloses is that there is a pain in the memory and, thus, our intellectual activity is caused by a previous pain. However, we cannot say, until here at least, that we are not free, because still could have, as most the philosophers believe, a free will that ahead of necessities - pains - of memory, the body and external - as of being recognized in a social group, receiving honors, etc -, still, could choose to follow one amongst as many pains. The examples of heroes would seem to validate this conception: they are people who open hand of its own necessities and support biggest pains, to help the other people. And neither we could say that there isn’t a impartial reason, for the same motives of heroes existence.

§31. Duration and the measure of space - short and long. The illusion of “simultaneity” and our contribution to the quantum mechanics. When we were in the classroom, i repair that our notion of space is different when the room is empty and when it is full. Why? Appealing to our thesis of duration, we can evidence that when we pass the eyes for the room, we hold back the images of people one after other. A bigger number of perceived external elements will require greater “work” of memory, provoking pain for excess of sensations. Another time, after to repaint the walls of building, before dirty and peeled, we perceived that the distance between us and the wall it seemed to have diminished! As in the example of room, the cause inhabits in the fact of that before we needed to hold back a bigger number of stimuli and this generated long duration - pain for excess of sensations -,


whereas, after the painting, we hold back, little sensations. Of this it follows two conclusions: (a) that has it good reasons to believe that the space is an illusion; (b) that is not in the distance that it creates the difference, but difference that creates the distance! When we were child we live the following experiences: we open a hole in the wall of apartment where we lived to see if what same thing that was of other side of wall was similar to that we saw for the window. Another time, we play a ball of soccer of fifth floor to see if it, beating in the soil, would return to us. The child, thus, by chance acquires the space knowledge, when interacting with the world. Everything indicates that the senses - internal - of space and the time are not as Kant believed, “previous forms” anterior to our sensitivity and anterior of our experiences, but posterior - and never simultaneous -, because does not have concurrence in no part of universe, as we saw before in the paragraph §5. When the people say, for example, that a soccer teams is simultaneously competing in two championships, they do not say that the eleven players are playing in two fields at the same time. And when we see two letters, as “A” and “B”, we see them simultaneously? Not, because if this occurred we would see something completely strange, that is, two symbols, ranks one on the other, not representing nothing. Consequently, cause us the queerness that scientists want - and they do not obtain - to measure the position and the speed of an electron, simultaneously. How do they could? They are surprised that the atom, sometimes seems solid, sometimes wave, but is only wave that we see for all the part. When my window was almost closed, noticed that a ray of sun, beat in the surface of a cup and created an image of that surface in the wall: it remembered electricity, as rays in movement and was only the visible surface that hid something more underneath. Thus, when they say that our observation become atom dense, we cannot compare this with the influence (gravitational) that the moon exerts on the tides of oceans? And on the effect to happen before the cause? Maybe we see only the crest of waves and we do not see that in its lower parts they connect themselves and are subtle causes that produce the effect, before seeing the crests that connecting each other?


We find in the quantum physics the belief of that something can be in some places at the same time, but, before, with Galileo, there already is the belief that two objects, independent of weight or mass, fall at the same time! How to know? One only fall time? They would not be disdaining millionth or we bilions parts of seconds or, worse, that the time is potentially divisible to the infinite? And the clocks used in the experience: they measure the time identically? We know that between two subatoms particles of mass very seemed does not have force of gravity between them. Why? Perhaps because they have similar masses; if one had lesser mass, would be affected by the other. It is not around of sun that the Eath turns? And why a satellite fall on the planet and not the moon?

§32. The imitation and the unsatisfaction as cause of good and bad actions. And the Talion law. In the measure where we show that in the memory exists pain, we can say, also, that this pain will be able to contribute to provoke, in us, a reaction. If, until then, we don’t have an alternative or alternatives predominating, we will appeal to the imitation of people. It is certain that the imitation is in the cause of most of our actions - good or bad. We believe that the famous “law of talion” is related to the imitation of behavior of other, in the absence of internal moral principles; of ownership of intense image of violent scene, that remains in the mind of victim or ofir relatives, it will determine its reaction. It occurs, also, that somebody can plan an bad action, but in this in case here is yet a hability of planning how will be done the reaction. But, there is one another factor: an increasing disposal in us not satisfying more with what we have - a pain for the monotony. Certain time, we play a water cup on a dry seedbed of garden. Not satisfied, we play a bucket of twenty liters of water!



We only can call pseudo-philosophers those people whom for all questions answers with innumerable classifications, as the ones that when being asked on what consciousness is they answer: it is phenomenological consciousness, consciousness of access, self consciousness, flow of consciousness, moral conscience, etc. They nothing more gives that particular examples when they would have to offer a definition, an abstract idea from the observed particular facts. As Socrates said: they give us one swarm of bees, but they do not explain us what bee is and make this, unhappyly, on all the philosophical subjects! And why? Because they are not philosophers, they only seem to be! Let us start - dialectically - accepting that the intellect is the divine element in us or that let us be a thing - a compound of human being and the holy ghost - that possesss the monopoly of thought. We go to assume everything this. What it elapses of acceptance of this thesis? What it elapses is that if there is a God and if the intellect - or soul - is an divine element, it follows that everything what exists is equally divine, as for example, the substance of that we are made. A leg - or any another part of body -, is so divine as our mind. Otherwise, of where it would come the substance if it was not part of “divine meat”? From another God? Then we would have that to start to defend politeism. Saint Augustin opposed that the substance was divine: how we could step on and eat God? Any way, if we accepted what he wrote we would be still eating part of one second deity. The disdain to the substance led for the religions is nonsense, not only Christian, but, also, the Hindu: one day, the dog of my family rubbed the face on one thing that was in decomposition in the soil; for us, it smelled the rotten one, one I smell chaotic, perhaps because it had a mixture of smells there that, under the point of view of developed canine nose, was very pleasant, what induces it to want spreads it in its body! There is one old medieval philosophical sentence, of aristotelian origin, that says “from the nothing, nothing it comes”, what conduces us to affirm categorically that, or each piece of substance has conscience - even because the most insignificant


portion -, or nothing is conscious, but this is not possible, what takes us to a similar argument to “cogito” of Renné Descartes: we cannot think that we do not think, we cannot doubt that we doubt, nor that we do not have any consciousness, because we already will be conscientious of our body, thoughts, feelings, doubts, etc. It is useful to remember Will Durant who, in its work “Mansion of Philosophy”, wrote that, to enter in contact with the the holy ghost, is “to feel the world our return where the divine substance takes the most diverse forms”.

§33. The conscience does not depend on the size of brain. That is evident for the following example: it is enough to remember that when children, exactly as a lesser brain, we saw the green trees and and blue sky and, today, after to have reached the apex of life, still we see the blue sky and the green gram, even so we have a bigger brain. Is this consciousness the same when we are adult and we are? The correct is to say that it is qualitatively the same one, because the consciencious substance is not the same one, the amount was increased, without speaking in the lost or substituted amount! The brain will have the task to perceive a greater or minor degree of existing details in the world. Animals - whose existence for Christian, theologians, philosophers and scientists (those who use the animals with food source and other materials) come to “service” of human beings – have, too, consciousness in distinct degrees of ours, but it is not followed that they are inferior for this. Better it is to say that they have only different perceptions of ours, because the size ofir brains. It is useful to remember Epicurus, in his Speeches: “it is illogical to reason thus: I am richer of what you, therefore, I am superior you”. If one day the other animals to speak, will say: “the fact of that you have a ampler conscience than us, this do not mean that you are superior to us”. Wittgenstein speculated on the possibility to see our consciousness - or of other people - when suggesting that we looked at for inside of eyes of other people. We believe that the consciousness is itself the “thing in itself” that we look for. We think we can observe it at moments as those where, after one tiring day of work, we go bed and when closing the eyes and to rub them we see luminosities that we cannot attribute to the exterior world, once the room is dark. We think that this luminosity


(some it seems a net forming figures of losangos, some seems a point moving away in a road) can be the image of consciousness. Someone will say that they are only indications of electricity in the nerves of eyes… We thought once, but we find the challenge gigantic, if it would be possible to measure the diameter of conscience, from in the distance maximum that our sight could reach and understanding the mind as lenses that converge the luminous stimuli, sonorous, etc.

§34. Why do we have consciousness, if each atom is divine? This is - certainly - the most important question to extinguish any doubt on the existence of a reason for our lives: an atom or any other portion of substance, for its restricted dimension, only can is conscious of space that is around it. But, when the sensorial organs lead the sensations for the brain, we can have a much more ample vision of world around us, since the similar beings until the great limits of universe. Yes, the brain is the organ in which the consciousness is extended to observe, to contemplate, the world and ourselves, but, it is not the cause or origin of consciousness! Another aspect related to this “extended” consciousness is that it does not perceive – under a normal view - something inferior to this macromolecular world, as the atomic world. There is, thus, a limit in the capacity to perceive the world, limited, this, for the size and structures - percipient - of brain, neurons and its connections.

§35. Why to contemplate? Scotus Erigena had a thesis - the “teophany” - in which he defended that through this world, the deity could know itself. We don’t agree with this, because knowledge is not necessary for a being that is eternal and, it would be enough only one experience for Him know itself. It is opportune to remember Nietzsche whom wrote that the of force that originated the universe is limited - according to that we have own concept of force; thus, the world would be repeated many times and we would come back to exist and to make the same things that we made before. And if the universe had an end to reach, it already would have reached it.


Of our part, two can be the causes for this only consciousness to break itself up: or It searchs to live the experience of to be perishable - mortal -, or our mind is very limited to understand that what is perceived by us as broken up, under the point of view of a more complex being is, in truth, an identical and perpetual totality. We are not likeable to this last thesis, originated in Heraclitus (Greece, century V a.C. ) and, later, supported for Hegel. One strong indication of that the existencial sense of life taken in its totality and not under the point of view of individuals - is to contemplate and to try the life mortal, still inhabits in the fact of that our mind is structuralized to always know new objects and beings, or, to learn new knowledge and getting great satisfaction and pleasure with this, whereas to recognize same objects and the same beings it does not originate the same satisfaction and, very frequently, it makes to appear pain. Who will disagree that the first experiences have a superior flavor in opposition to the following ones and that they will not be happened again in a similar way. The discoveries related to the sexuality are among those more intenses. Because thinkers as Freud, had established, erroneously, our sexual choices. It occurs that the rememberances of first food and the first drink are very there behind, among the oldest rememberances. On experiences the social acts, as to make a speech in public, the public reaction do not depend exclusively on us and, next to it, have great amount of anxiety that eclipsars the pleasure that comes to appear. And, therefore, the sex and the hunger are seen as stronger necessities, even so are only more immediate (they appear first). By the way, the error of Freud was to accept without questioning the opinion of poet Schiller who said that two things moved us: the hunger and the love, preferring the father of psychoanalysis to believe that this last feeling was stronger and that he would be behind on to a supposed “perpetuation of species”. We want to leave clear that we do not monopolize the sense of life in the desire to know, that is, in the philosophical and scientific reflection; we extend it, also, in the relative desire the two other parts of soul: the concupiscível part - to know new people and to have new relationships, to eat different foods, to prove different juices, etc, and the irascible one - to know and to be known by new people, to receive prizes, etc, lived - it is good for leaving clearly - in a balanced way. Moreover, already they had observed that a


person or an animal, when castrated, loses interest in sex? How so fragile structures could determine all our choices?

§36. We are many, not only a person? Is there a conflict inside us? Let us speculate: we hear to say in a scientific news article that to each six years our cells are substituted. Thus, being the life expectancy, on average, of seventy and two years - we are saying of south region of Brazil and the countries of hemisphere north - and, if to each six years our cells are substituted, it follows that during all the life, approximately twelve times, we are completely new, that is, we are not one “I”, a John, a Mary, a Heloise, a Socrates, but, yes, twelve John, twelve Mary, twelve Heloise, twelve Socrates - which ofse twelve individuals have soul and deserve the eternity? It is opportune to cite Empedocles: “I already was boy, I already was girl, shrub and in the dumb sea, I already was fish”. The correct would be to say: “this, the universe, already was boy, girl, ...”. This means that the substance that composes us is perpetual and is part of a series of transformations. We are a broken up consciousness, that combines and dissolve itself. I read that 5 billion years ahead Milky Way will join with the Andromeda and i felt sadness for not being here to see it; but, this “me” is just a combination (with millions of variations throughout a life) of the universe that won’t be there, yes, but this universe, what we really are, it will contemplate that event. Nor it makes sense to think that we are many “some thing” that remains the same, despite for some time, because each molecule of oxygen that enters change what we are and makes already us different and, because this, the more correct is to say that it does not have real separation between this “I” and the atmosphere or the remaining portion of world, for example - where starts one and finishes the other? It had a philosophy professor that inventedd the expression “birtree” (arvorinho in portuguese, from “árvore”, tree, and “passarinho”, little bird) to relate what we see when we look at a bird put in a tree. Our example seems better: “atmansphere”. This is the moment to stop for asking us if what we call “consciousness” cannot be, in truth, many one, that is, a series of points - focus - that receive the sensations proceeding from each sensorial organ? Who knows one day somebody carries


through a research to discover some electric chain of brain for the senses, to know, for example, if an image that we remember come from memory to senses, in a inverse direction. There are, however, arguments that would object our thesis: (1) Aristotle and Descartes understood that all the sensations are tactile forms and, because would have something of common among them and, perhaps, an only consciousness; and, (2) when we associate a name to an object, must have a linking inside of mind between the memorized image and the noise, as if a bridge was constructed between two roads! David Hume was first thinker to justify that “I” (self) is not more than an illusion, a “series of isolated perceptions” of pain or pleasure, love or hatred, etc. It is not rare to find certain decisions incredible that we took years ago in our lives, such are our discontinuity. Hume related the false belief in one “I” to an operation of imagination or the memory. A repainted old boat, he wrote, will look the same when it was bought, years ago. It was of Hume, by the way, the thesis of that when we sleep we are “insensitive” to ourselves. An experience that we live and that was definitive to reject the existence of a “ego” was when we paid attention that our arms and our legs they had grown, without we had note thisduring the process! A good solution for the question why we see us and the world as something continuous is to think that our consciousness as a lens, to which images and other sensations converge and, therefore, it is hindered to see, for example, the discontinuity of stimuli and the itself that is not the same one, once that the cells of brain also go being substituted with the age. Didn’t the reader already perceive that we can perceive, as a video camera, distant images with focus, while next objects is out of focus and, sometimes perceiving next objects with clearness, whereas we lose the focus in that they are distant? We cannot forget that the memory plays basic role in the construction of a continuous series of our perceptions and, therefore, it assists the percipient system (neurons) in the sprouting of idea of that we are one “permanent I”; if we did not have memory, everything we would be always new, we would walk - or perhaps we would crawl - in direction the new stimuli, without constructing nothing, learning nothing.


In century twentieth, Freud in his work “Five lessons of Psychoanalysis”, before opting to the thesis that we know – that believes to exist an ego in us -, told that the minds of his patients seemed “many mental groupings, independent, without one knows nothing of others”, that is, many “egos” inside of each “ego”! Without speaking, in another contribution of science: the one that observed that in people whose cerebral hemispheres have been separated, them they behave as two independent consciousness! The platonic question that Descartes tried to decide, of that it did not have an internal conflict in us between reason and passions, did not get success however, because it recognized that the will was many times led (brusquely) to make what the body wanted. How do we solve? Not affirming the existence of many consciousness, but of many memories of lived experiences that are inside of us compared with similar memories and these series of rememberances they will influence our future actions. Let’s imagine that each one of this series has a own intensity, as running of one hundred meters, where one ofm will leave winner. It occurs that they are not fighting to hinder that the other is successful; but, the victory of one ofm will provoke as effect the appearance of a similar behavior the certain last experiences (emotionally) more intense. Reading Skinner, Science and human behavior (section II, Chapter X), that remembered to a very interesting theory of William James and C.G.Lange: we do not feel the interior cause of our emotions. Why!? Because they simply are perceived by us when they appear ahead of us! Even because we realize that that Plato called “the soul talking to itself”, that is, our internal reflections, still thus, appear ready to our perception. Irving Copi, in his “Introduction to the Logic”, remembered the reply of a child when he said that it was important to think our arguments before speaking: the child answered that this is impossible, once that it only knew what thought after to hear her speaking! Another example: when we laugh of what we speak, this happens because we are surprised by something new that we did not wait! A good model of what we are: hurricane. What is it? Nothing beyond the result of meeting of two forces or two chains of wind - hot, an ascending one, and another cold, descendant. For where it passes, they go being substituted original molecules


for others differents ones. Its life, as ours, will be limited in function of its capacity of resistance. What differs it form us, however, is that in its center it does not have nothing; inside of us, we believe, exist a consciousness, as an elementary particle of substance on which colide the continuous flow of sensations! Another model of what we are: waves of an ocean. This example shows how much he is meaningless to ask if we are eternal. How Hume and others had thought that only waves existed, without an ocean? How Kant could believe that individuals exist (singular beings), without at least proving this, aiming at only to facilitate its work to identify inside of mind the forms (categories)? Would not he (wisdow of of Könisberg) have used the empirists beliefs as a mean for an end? Yes! Finally it is opportune to remember the thesis of Jean-Paul Sartre and Voltaire: The first thinker wrote in the work “Being and nothingness” (page 198) on the definition of perpetual life: the “eternity that we look for isn’t the infinite duration, but the absolute rest of the consciousness with himself”. Already Voltaire wrote that if we ask for the dead people if they want to come back to live, he will answer negatively.

§37. The senses organs as first “soul” or cause of animation. Although Nietzsche confused soul with consciousness and had privileged the instincts in detriment of reason, was from the reading of his definition of soul that arised our present thesis: the soul “… is the world that interiorize in us”. Without the five senses we believe that all our movements would cease - we would tumble on ourselves as a bag of meat and bones - or correcting what Saint Augustin wrote: “in interiore homine habitat viscera” (in the interior of each man it inhabits, not the truth, as he thought, but only viscera). If we are right, to the brain fits only to direct the movements in agreement with our internal disposal to the pleasant experiences and our aversion to the ackward ones. We go more far: it is just for the external stimuli that - as a effect of “snow ball” , we can realize move! It does not remain doubt and we will agree to who says that without feeding us we would not live; but, it is because the sensations that come from the world that give us a first movement, but, of course, its force is incapable to determine more intense movements. As the old locomotives: we need firewood -


foods – for with its burning we are able to move us. So great is the importance of senses organs that Aristotle in his work “On sleep”, speculated that we sleep to preserve the sensorial system; of the opposite, its uninterrupted use would destroy them! Another strong indication of that sensitivity is the first form of animation: the apparent coincidence between the period where sensitivity becomes functionary in the embryos and the moment from which the same embryo could survive outside of uterus: after second trimester. And those people who suffer serious burnings for the body, would not have its possibilities of increased life, if we kept them - periodically with the open eyes or stimulating their sensory organs? If it was not thus, how to explain the soul? A thing that occupies the same place than the body, thesis that Aristotle rejected? A soul whose nature is distinct of body, as water and oil, but that it would interact with it? A nonsense!

§38. Is the soul the cause of life? And do soul progress? René Descartes was who rejected, in his work “Passions of Soul”, the thesis that the soul was the cause of movement and the life, therefore, thus, it also would have to be responsible for the death - therefore, when leaving to cause these movements, it would cause, then, the death. Descartes, also, suggested a localization for the soul: in the pineal gland, in the brain. What was his mistake? If the soul is not the cause of life, then, the life is caused by external or internal stimulatons, of body. And in this, our thesis if is similar to the cartesian thesis. Now, when locating the soul in a gland, Descartes kept the dualism: how something immortal, incorporal, could affect and be affected by the remain of body, mortal and material? We decide the dualism, placing the consciousness in the limit between the empirical world – an illusion - and the real. The error of old idealists, however, was to try to explain the empirical world, as part of real world, as well as, to believe that the universe is a perfect order - an mistake! There is one another question: the development of consciousness as if was the development of a soul. Saint Augustin in his work “On the amount of soul’”, says that the soul only increases metaphorically, because it does not have dimension. Its reply it involves the belief in the theory of that we are illuminated by the divine ideas. These


thesis always seemed strange to us, because everything that we learn was resulted of an arduous study. And, in addition, why we would have five senses to perceive the world if we must renounce to them in the name of an introspection? If this was truth, then the existence of five senses is a false track, work of a deceptive god! This critics can be used, too, for oriental religions, as Budism. Beyond that, we call in our aid, the principle developed by William of Ockham (the Ockham’s Razor) – “between two hypotheses” we must to choose the simplest one, because all things in nature works thus. Recently we read the notice of suicide of a young woman of 30 years, who wrote the following ticket: “If i will come in coma, does not let those machines in me, because there will only be the body. Because the soul was stolen me”. A nihilist example, would say Nietzsche, of whom, unsatisfied with this life, believed to exist one another one. Deceit caused for the false belief in the separation of body and what they call “soul”. Until when we will accept this? Frequently we think that the body differs from the mind when we say that the body wanted to make something that the mind did not want; but this must to the fact that what we call body to correspond the perceptions that we are accustomed to follow in opposition to that present perception, that it differs in degree of accuity. And do the people who say to hear spirits? A good reply is that one given by Aristotle in his work “On the prophecies”: why God (or other spirits) would communicate with most ignorant and not with whom they are wiser? Let’s adds yet: (1) spirits would be pure form, but if the form is nothing more than when our mind lost of focus some material bodies and just see its external limits?; (2) if the thought, attributed as capacity of soul, is physiological? ; and, (3) if the life (or soul) to depend on the constant flow of sensations interiorized in us? What arguments will remain for those people that believe in souls out of bodies? None.

§39. The nonsense of a separate consciousness from the body. Henry Bergson believed this nonsense. Here it is his points with which we disagree: (1) we believe that “human being” is not to have a human consciousness,


who survives to the death with all human memories; (2) the consciousness is not distinct of body, but an intent portion of body; (3) to be a human being is to have a certain appearance given for an amount of substance; (4) when he wrote in the work “To be and moving” that the consciousness “goes on when we breathe the chloroform” do not make sense, because when we sleep there is a consciousness that it contemplates, despite only our dreams; (5) it does not have why to identify conscience with thought, for the same reason that, when we dream, we have conscience, but we do not think conscientiously! Nobody better that Bekhterev, as showed Vigotski in “Theory and Method in Psychology”, was capable to define the thought so well: an inhibited reaction. This makes sense: we were used to be censured because we spoke so low that only we listen ourselves. It does not remain doubt that the thought is physiological and that is a belief that Freud proved, maybe he didn’t have paid attention, when he showed that most part of human actions is involuntary (unconscious), as well as, we add, most part of times that we breathe, the breath is involuntary! Still on the thesis of Bekhterev: it has a inquiet and interesting conclusion that we can reach, which is of that also the images that we perceive in the brain they are sensations that if they were strong enough, could exteriorizing untill… to be seen for the other people or to materialize, what could explain observed events, as objects that catch fire spontaneously and move alone – called “telecinesis”. As much Henry Bergson, how much the defenders of dual existence of soul and body, had been, are and will continue being responsible for spreading the notion of a consciousness that he does not need a body: they invented, thus, the consciousness - or soul - “gaseous” in opposition to a solid body. Many films of fiction have worked with the thesis of this “gaseous” or “energy” consciousness. They give as certain without being certain - the transference of consciousness from a body for another one or, then, on the transference of memory of one mind or brain to another one. Would they transfer, also, the degrees of detail of perception? Difficult, because these are different and are modified to each individual experience! They are not rational arguments; they are insane one, fruits of laziness to think and the deepest and natural ignorance! And as a gaseous thing, as the wind, could intervene with the


substance, unless it had the force of an hurricane, but, also, a complete absence of intelligence. And the consciousness as energy of the eastern religions? This thesis contradicts itself when it defends that we are one part of something bigger, but we remain, as part, identical one in successive lives. However, it does not have in the world energy that remains the same one when it enters in contact with other energies; not even in the first life we would remain the same. And if everything are energy, why to distinguish the body from the spirit? And why the body dies and the spirit would remain? A nonsense!

§40. The consciousness differs from the ego. And do the subjectivity exist? At the time that we read the “Meditations” , of Descartes, we observe that we could not have his certainty: to be one “I” that thinks, because we observe that, when sleeping, they cease our voluntary acts (those acts that we made a mistake to believe to be effect of an internal cause called “will”, that would not be affected by none another cause) and has space the involuntary ones. By the way, must be a causal relation between the sprouting of automatic acts and the sleep, otherwise if not, when we sleep we would stop to breathe and we would die. Still on we are or not “a thing that thinks”: John Locke noticed that we would be, then, two souls, when waked up and when we sleep; but, he does not have thoughts when we sleep? Or we must call “thoughts”, only those volunteers ones? Already the poet Fernando Pessoa wrote “i am not thinking nothing”, what show us that we are not a thing that that always thinks or thought (voluntary) is not uninterrupted, rare original manifestation in Literature, erroneously said as twin sister of Philosophy, when it is only one distant cousin or a sister adopted for some. The true sisters of Philosophy are the plastic arts and music. But, it is enough that the senses are awaken so that voluntary capacity reappears! Which was the magic? When the senses are fully opened - in the truth, they never are totally closed, therefore, we believe, we would die -, the world it constitutes in the strongest stimuli to our consciousness. When the senses are almost closed, the strongest stimuli are those that are in our mind and they will lead us to observe the internal experiences that we call dreams or, exactly awaken, losses of


“consciousness”. Despite that, in dream, we live experiences with our own image, this elapses of memory of images that we have of our body, our voice, etc. Once, we were sleeping, when we were waked up by our own voice calling our name! Then, what is the ego? There are three alternatives: (a) it corresponds to a point in the head, where a vital principle exists; (b) it is in the same place that the body, thesis used to explain, also, the soul; or (c) it is the image or images that we memorize of own body on which we speak, as well as, of experiences of body with the remain of bodies of world. Thomas Hobbes said this. When we say “I make this”, we are in relating to the fact that “this body makes this”. Schopenhauer found odd the fact of that “I”, as someone that observes was contained in our proposals or was object of thought. Wittgenstein, in century twentieh, observed that use of proname “I”, when we say that “I feel migraine”, was redundant, what it confirms, in our agreement, that “I” is equivalent to the image of body. We cannot disdain that these images constitute in intense experiences and, still, that “we are” a sufficiently intent portion of world, what characterize us - effectively - as some thing. Something similar occurs when we feel that a multitude seems to be one alone body, when we say the “human being mass” or the “social body”, even so evidently they are not properly no alive entity. One proves that the existence of an internal consciousness does not demand the existence, also, of a “internal ego”, is that children as those wolf child, of India did behave as wild beasts. When we are conscious that we are conscientious of any object, happens that we see the image of this more immediate part of body and spacelly away from the others bodies touching an object any. After what we said, it makes still sense to believe in subjectivity and, also, the dualism between subjective and objective? We believe not. Except when our senses are partially closed, because in this case the internal images flow disorderedly, in contrast with the continuous images (persistent) that we receive from the world and which we attribute existence, reality. The mere fact of we have a portion of our bodies interiorized, does not mean, therefore, that we are subjective. Is a volcano subjective, because it has communication with the atmosphere and, still, with the layers deepest of land? Evident not. Why, then they say this about human mind? Who know us


better: when we perceive us for the side of inside or for the out one? Would not we have to substitute the analysis of a psico-any-one for auto-analysis, taught people to understand the method and the used instruments?

§41. What do occurs in the impact of sensations on the consciousness? One of most difficult questions, to the point we to speculate if in it would not inhabit the limit between this world and the unknowable world, that is, if we would not have that to accept that the sensations do not pass of illusions and that, in truth, the perception would be something internal to this enigma, called “consciousness”. So, when we see the blue color, in truth, a part of what we call consciousness would not be - for some internal process - revealing the memory of that it lacks to it? One another problem is that when taking the “consciousness”, as a focal point, we forget that it is not a sphere, but a substance that would disseminated for all the universe? Beside that, when each sensation leans (or it shocks) in the consciousness, it would not be necessary one third, fourth, fifth,… infinite elements for establishing a linking among them, without really get it? Hegel, who understood the consciousness as the substance of all the things and it took it as synonymous of thought, understood, also, that when we see an external object, in reality, what it just appears as external object and, but it is part of us, that is, it is not there is, “it” is in ourselves! This vision is an failed attempt of a finite being imagining to be infinite. There is an intriguing aspect: if we think the consciousness as one “arché” of old Greeks, a basic element, the minimum structure or the substance that base and constitute all the things, we see us in fornt of difficulty to explain how this “point” can be conscious of all structures around it; the only thing that it would see is the point that is to its side. Or, then, we would have that to imagine another more basic element than it has the task to take information for the consciousness. It would remain, thus, to believe that the consciousness grows of size, as, for example, when we see in a disarranged blanket where some parts are together, forming “mounts”, minors or greaters, increased or diminished.


Of everything what we said, we cannot affirm nothing in definitive on the consciousness, except that (a) it does not think, (b) it is not distinct of matter, (c) it is not active, but passive or contemplative, because it is not a physiological operation and (d) it is not physiological, because a physiological operation is, in the most part of times, involuntary, but, also, volunteer; the breath, for example, we can control, but we do not control to be or not conscientious: we remember the experiment carried through for Henry Bergson (work: “The creative evolution”: p.275), when reflecting on the nothing, he considered to eliminate all the sensations until eliminating its own consciousness: “I continue here with the organic sensations that arrive me of periphery… How to eliminate myself?”, therefore, in the instant where a consciousness extinguishes itself, another one already takes its place! And a master of ioga (that it means “union between the man and the deity”): he would reach a state where he did not perceive nothing around him or, as they say “a pure consciousness”? But, How he would perceive that he does not perceive more nothing? Impossible, because this already involves some level of perception! Then, is the meditation useless? Not! We become philosophers or yogis studying philosophy or meditation. It is the same that to raise weight: we become strongest when repeating exercises, but, before, it is necessary that we already possess some force! The contribution of meditation is to train the breath and the cardiac beatings, and, thus, we control our irritation! And we choose to control the breath, because we do not like the out of control, to be led for the “emotional river rapids”! The philosophy is a meditation of open eyes that pronounce sounds, the words, that they relate to the images of beings, objects and experiences. It seems apparently an opposing way to the meditation by means of silence, but that it has left of one same hypothesis: of that everything is part of one same thing. As well as the philosopher, also who practices meditation places in the fetal position and looks an environment without noises, like that where, we assume, our ample perception is based and organized in a way where it perceives diverse elements in harmony, without none prevails on excessively. The only essential difference is that for us the harmony is in construction and fits to the individuals realized it ; whereas, for them, the harmony is ready and is guilt of individuals if they do not perceive it, prisoners its egoistic necessities…



Once, when we went up the stairs in the university, we saw two professors obstructing the passage (i think that it is the only thing that they know do!). We try to cross the barrier for a small space that had there, but do not got it. Then, we only lean the hand in the coasts of one ofm to ask for passage and, for our surprise and of that man, he gave a jump and go to stop in the other side of stairs to the side of man with whom he was talking. This history could pass unobserved, but it shows clearly how much our actions depend on the detailing degree that the world printed in us: it sees that they are so was concentrated in the colloquy with his friend and, therefore, its degree of attention - of detail of his perception - in relation what the other said to him, that its reaction followed that one exactly way - or degree of perception - and because that it was fast! Another common experience is to put the finger in a hot liquid and to take it off quickly. Here we can observe that the pain feeling is very closed related to the thesis that we go to display in this chapter, of degrees of detail of our perception, ways through which we give to passage to the reactions - slow or fast. Traditionally, such reactions, are said instinctive. But, we believe that they have its origin in a not correspondence between a present situation and our fetals memories. We believe that the obesity and the anorexy, also depend on the degrees of perception that predominate in us, as well as, that the sexual habits as the explosive growth of population - with families of many children - either caused by people who have perceptions, or ample, or detailed, resulting impulsive actions and little reflexive activity, as to foresee the worst future life of its descendants. The diagnostic given to some children of whom they have “attention deficit syndrome” or are “hyperactivity”, in our opinion only means that they – adults, too have a predominantly ample perception. Because that one gives they, in extreme cases, drugs: so that its perceptions become acute, intent to the details, what, in principle would seem nonsense, because that they are known by its natural stimulation or agitation. They are not sick, but different. But, there is a second kind:


when the child already has an acute perception and in this case a remedy stimulant alone would complicate more the situation. By the way, those drawings of psychological school of “Gestalt” that show, under a perspective that we adopt, or the image of one lady, or of a vase - among many other drawings created to show that the mind is not a blank sheet of paper, as they thought the empirists thinkers -, nothing more evidences that the fact of that the human perception has a great diversity of degrees. The explanation of our actions does not differ from that one of empirists, only became more complex, because the mental functioning is complex. What we intend to show in this chapter is that what we call perception power it consists of thousand, perhaps millions, of structures - as nets - inside of our brain, capable to memorize experiences and, depending on the proximity or the distance between “us” of this net, what it will be memorized, it will be with more or less details. Also it is important to say that we could not assume that the perception constitutes only in an only structure that, sometimes extends, sometimes retracts, because while we were trying something with which we have ability, the perception would catch many details, but, when we tried something new, so that, then, our perception left to catch details of this experience! But, this seems impossible, unless that we believe that the perception possesss a will independent of our own will! It is interesting to remember that for Aristotle a virtuous person is the one that possesss a “disposal”, term that he defined in the book “delta” of “the Metaphysical” as an arrangement of a thing with its parts, idea that is similar to our present thesis, even so we don’t know it he related it to something properly physical.

§42. The emotion and the alteration of degrees of perception. We believe that the diverse degrees of detailing that we can find in our perception must vary, also, in agreement with the emotional intensity of experience; thus, we can have a degree of great detail for an area of our interest and not for another one, that not awaken our curiosity. It could have a remedy that broke these neurological linkings? And if this could be done, in an only dose, would interest the pharmaceutical industries? What we see are remedies - antidepressants - that they


cause a certain euphoria, however temporary. Freud, in his last work “Compendium of Psychoanalysis”, said that the end of psychoanalysis will come from the sprouting of medicines that resolve the neurosis that, in the psychoanalysis sessions, cost much money and delay much time. We do not agree with it: it is possible to have remedies that undo the neurological arrangements of our perception, but the “reordenation” ofse structures cannot be made, except for the own person, in the interaction with the other people! This everything can be summarized in famous sentence of Tales and Socrates: know yourself! It is opportune to observe that the depression is not a state that we must have aversion, except if the situation is not desired for the person. Because it can be understood, also, in its linguistic meaning: of point, physically, more deep inside of us, where our feeling of order (of fetal harmony) finds with an ample degree of perception, that gives to us a sensation of lack of disturbance or “ataraxia” of old stoics and epicurists philosophers. Depression could be understood, thus, as a mental state identical to what the altruistic people is these last ones worry more about to the other people that themselves, even so the first group that ask constantly on its utility in the world, does not have disposal enough to act! It is evident that it is more easy to define as abnormal those that they differ from the multitude or from the “cattle”; we remember a book of Brazilian writer called Machado de Assis, i believe to be the “Alienist”, where a scientist opens a hospice to deal with the people who are or very agitated, or very quiet, that is, the abnormal people. He finishes recognizing that they did not have any problem and decide to intern those that seem to be normal. Finally, he recognize that none of those two groups deserves to be in a hospice and… he decides that the only patient must be himself. But how to leave the depression or the altruism as we find more correct to call? Remedies? Perhaps they speed up new linkings among neurons. But and the events (painful, unhappy) that they had made to reduce the cerebral connections? From our part, we are making, in the last ten years, an effort to come back to feel the material world around us: we come back to watch for soccer, to interact with people, until I was run over, accidentally, perhaps a work of our unconscious! I have made a effort, not yet enough, for joining - mental - forces to open my school of Philosophy,


registering me as independent teacher, to register a trend mark, to rent a commercial room, to buy furniture and to make communication of it. I do not know if it willl get it! We know that to come back to have a more acute perception it will be difficult, even so still we believe that the disposal of structures that base our capacity of perception is cyclical – we were born with an ample one, that become acute, returns to the ample and, if we have a long life, them it will be started again. But, let us sincere, who wants a perception that we had in the adolescence, when we worried in buying many clothes, to go the parties, to be the center of attentions, etc, an egoistic vision of world?

§43. Practical examples of perception change. And the opinion of Science… We were seated under of a palm, and to the look for the gram and a doubt appeared: where were the ants? Immediately, we remember that the perception of gram would imply the perception of ants. Why did this occur? We believe that the sensations, received for the senses, are compared with previous memories. Then, the two perceptions are overlapped, producing a pleasure sensation, if it has the adequate correspondence or, of the opposite, pain. And why we feel lack of ants? When the detail degree that our perception of gram is similar to the degree of detail of that experience with the ants, the first memory leads to another one, as continuous tracks of train! Another experience says respect to the fear of height that we live for a period. They do not import here the causes that had originated it, except for ourselves. But, it matters to show the “treatment” for its solution: our first solution was to deviate from high places. But, from the knowledge of our thesis on “perception degrees”, we look for to face this fear: when we carried through our race for the streets, as we make habitually, we decide to pass for bridges and high viaducts. With the repetition, the fear that before in paralyzed them, now, diminished gradually. We are not saying that the fear finished. Who knows in the future we don’t inscribe ourselves in courses of descending of buildings or mountains? What it occurred is that we did modify the


perception related to see heights as fear sources or, more necessarily, to that memory that kept an ackward scene. One day a neighbor cried out with a my relative and as he already have had some time a behavior without of politeness, we beat in his face what, surprising me, because we perceived the scene in slow motion. While we saw that movement of closed fist we did can to think a complete phrase - “not, in the nose not”, because he would provoke bleed, even so, we believe that everything has not lasted a fraction of second! How was it possible? Perhaps, because our perception has become more acute and we did can perceive the thought words in a normal speedy. It is opportune to remember something that we listen once, on the explanation of science for the attention’s lack, that is, for the occasions where we don’t to perceive certain things, as when the husbands do not see that the wife changed the hair, what in our opinion discloses love’s lack, for the scientists is seen as normal: they say the “blindness of attention” does not depend on the will, to what we agree, because there isn’t this that we call free will. They say more: that they do not know because two people can have different capacities of attention. Our present work has the reply that they look for! Still: when we were in the college a colleague called our attention for the way as we wrote: the words were written with force, dark and in a geometric way that were spread by the notebook and not, as the others make, a line after the other. And this because our perception, we believe, is much ample, we perceives better what stronger and it is detached, as if we had difficulty to perceive in another way. It seems contradictory that a person thus rejects coarse pleasures, as food and promiscuity, but perhaps it is because something internal (my ideas) call more our attention that those external somethings!

§44. On the solitude, the pardon, the treason and the love. Sartre wrote in his work “the age of Reason”: “if you are alone is because you decided because… because you are proud”. Nor always. We can explain the solitude, as well as, its extremity, the easiness in the sociability, also, from the detailing degrees that the intense experiences - pleasant or painful - print in our


minds. A solitary person is that one that is incapable to establish relations, because it has an amount of questions that represent doubts: questioning on the diverse choices that it will have to make, what includes the behavior that will have to represent to be accepted in a group, without counting the frustrations, someone will prefer the isolation. And the pardon? In opposition of what we hear, it is more easy to pardon. Difficult is to remain without pardoning, affirming a belief that we understand to be the correct one. The pardon is the most easy attitude, once that an ackward event - after to be extinct - will have place only in the memory and, moreover, is always different to each space that we cover in our lives. Why is to pardon good for the health? It solves a species of short circuit in us, something that congests other thoughts. It was very curious to read in the “Treat on the women”, of Schopenhauer and in the “Civilization and its discontents” (chapter VI), of Sigmund Freud, the predominant opinion among philosophers, religious and scientists, that there is an instinct in the human being who guarantees the reproduction of species. We neither know what sex is or how sexual organs work until we use them. What there is, yes, a desire to imitate other people; when one has son, the others also desires the same. Beyond that, we are vain that the reproduction (with or without sex), means accurately what term says: “reproduction”, a repeated production, an activity that an individual (and not a species) carries through to perpetuate itself. It does not seem to be coincidence that this occurs when we reach the maturity and after to acquire a knowledge of world and everything around us to leave of being newness! Two thinkers see in our aid: (1) Aristotle, who said that the parents see theirselves in their children; and, (2) Nietzsche whom in his last writings, dated of 1885-1889, wrote that the sexual reproduction is the “true accomplishment of individual”, rejecting that in the name of a species each one of us would open hand of its own interests! We suggest, yet, a hypothesis on the origin of the sex: the bacteria as all the livings beings want to expand its borders and trying to make this, repeated times, it streched itself to point when occur a rupture, dividing itself in two parts. As everything that is repeated, becomes automatic, this process passed to be remade without end.


It awake our attention to the opinions of Schopenhauer and Hegel for whom the women did not have a disposal for the Philosophy and Sciences. For Schopenhauer the women were made more to take care of children, because they looked more like them. Already Hegel, in the work “Philosophy of Right” (§166), wrote that the women were, for its sexual characteristic, destined to watch over for its families and that this had to a “rational base”, that is, to the fact of that they of course are not made for activities that involve a universal perspective as the philosophy and sciences. We agree in part to them: (1°) because they had not been allowed these activities. The Brazilian writer Maria Lacerda de Moura - contemporary of poet Olavo Bilac - arrives to recognize, in the work “the woman is a depraved” (1924) that the women had become “infantilized”, for a species of natural selection, but that, if stimulated at the thought of universal ideas, then they would arrive at the same condition of those men - very little, it is truth - who philosophy; (2°) therefore, we believe, that the women have more pleasure with the facts of daily life than the men do. Sigmund Freud supplied us with a good argument to justify this thesis: the woman and the man have in the mother first “loving object” and, only after the four or five years, the woman substitutes its “maternal object” for the paternal one. However, this affects the way decisively how the men and the women see the world, where the sex, for the masculine sex, is learned simultaneously with the necessities as thristy and hunger - therefore, the men tend to treat the sex, as they were feeling hunger. For the women, the sex is related - first - with the necessity to establish social relations and,so, to accept the old theories, not conceiving new ones. Returning to the reading of “Treated on the woman”, of Schopenhauer, we read that he had affirmed that men and women choose a partner with those characteristics that lack to them, as when a man or a woman of high stature chooses somebody of low stature. But, this nor always occurs. There are who not looks for nobody, there are who looks for somebody similar and, still, who looks for - as Schopenhauer thought - somebody with characteristics that lacks to him or her - when a tall man looks a woman of lesser stature or vice versa -, to prevent critics from the others people for him had made a choice that is different that of average of society. The


difference inhabits in the layers of perception: deeper until most recent – since the celibacy until one with wich we look different people to love! What is the difference between passion and love? We think that the thesis of perception degrees could help in the distinction: passion is when we take the other as mean of satisfaction of our necessities and love is when we see another person as a distinct being, as a siginification in itself. While somebody gotten passionate perceives the other as the mere addition of its parts or a part specifically, who loves perceives the totality of other. The choice of certain person seems to be more difficult for the men: in general, we tend to choose the first person who appears ahead of our eyes. But, we must be intent for the fact of that for a marriage we must search somebody to love not only for the sexual desire, the passion. We think that the sensations are different: when we love, we feel a cold and sometimes a cold sweat in the body and when it is only sexual desire, we behavior as we were in fornt of a food dish! In a similar way that it is suggested the people not to go with empty stomach to the supermarket, we don’t must to go to know a woman being with much sexual desire. If the reader to allow a joke of bad taste: why men value the women who speak little? Why food does not speak! In return our inquiry, we believe that when an man live intense emotional experiences with older women in childhood, he will prefer women of same age and experience that him. But, if he lived experiences with young women, will not hesitate in thinking or same trair his wife, when these already will not have a body as that one that she had in the first years of relationship! Because we see this frantic race in search of potion of youth, that strains the wrinkled skin and returns – an illusion – to the years of youth. Men who had had experience with older women than them, he recognize the beauty of experience and accept the marks in the skin that years provoke as signals of that the person lived much e well! Of course that we are not talking about to the people who are not worried about its health and that they do not pass of lazy!


Certain time a psychologist said that the affection was a delayed concept; seem us the opposite: it is an expression that aims to reproduce the fetal condition when we were protected and immersed in the amniotic liquid. What do sex appeared first? How is in the bible, the woman descending from the man or as it sees science, the man from the woman? We believe that the sex appeared thus in the first forms of life: a being tried to insert its material in another one and after insistences the second had to accept a part of this material and reject another one. Because the sexs must not have appeared for mutual agreement. The reply approaches with the one of Church, but it happen because the natural egoism and not for a presumption love act. And which sex will remain? We hear that chromosome “y” is diminishing and is speculated on its disappearance, what they conclude that only they will remain the women. Seem us the one big mistake, because a moment would arrive where it would have beings with one alone “x”: they would be unable to make sex or, as we believe, in contrast, asexual, multiplying alone by means of making copies of itself? If this will be truth, without attracting itself by the body of another one, still it would feel friendship or love for the ideas and the mind of others? Yes.

§45. What are the restrained desires or “diminished consciousness”? And about dreams, that is, our thoughts seen for inside. Seem us evident that what Freud called “unconscious desires” corresponds to the experiences memorized with its respective percipient structures. A desire remains latent, because its degrees of perception - the degree of detail memorized - are insufficient to become predominant conscientious, but, at some future moment, such restriction will not be enough to keep that state of “hibernation”. Another aspect involved in this question says respect to the theory of Freud of whom these desires restrained - could be “energies” that suffer resistance of others energies. It does not seem that this explanation can be the correct, even therefore, for what we know no test - as magnetic resonance - proved that thesis. Our explanation is not related the energy flows, but to a greater or minor capacity of ways for where the sensations will flow inside of our mind, as a series of plumbings. As much bigger it is the amount of


ways in these structures of perception, more sensations will pass for it and more easily they will be perceived by our conscience. They will flow so intensely as a river that - without finding any resistance -, it finds easily some ways for where to pass. Most important is that our own actions are not, as most believe, the expression of restrained desires. It does not have as to satisfy a desire that cannot be satisfied, does not have force enough to be satisfied, but, so only the next desires that are similar to that one. Conclusion: the past does not return! About title of this §45: we believe that the correct one would be to say not “unconscious” desires, but conscientious desires “diminished” or a lesser degree of conscience, because when, for example, an experienced driver changes the marches of its car, makes this unconsciously, without conscience? He is obvious that not! And the dreams? We agree to the thesis of Hobbes, in his Leviatan (chapter II) dated of century XVI, that the dreams are caused by internal and external disturbances of body. When we sleep and feel some heat it will appear pleasant dreams; already, when we feel very cold, nightmares. Sometimes, different of what Hobbes thought, we live deeply nightmares, exactly when we sleep with many blankets. It does not have a simple cause for each kind of dream. But, in any way, without a external cause, it does not have dreams - nor good, nor bad. It is clearly that these causes will affect the internal perceptions - or what Freud called “restrained desires” - and this must to the fact that once the external stimulati leave of being strongest – because the five senses are almost closed - then, the internal ones are the strongest candidates to reveal and to affect the consciousness. To say, therefore, that the moral rules - of external world - castrates all of us, hindering the manifestation them restrained desires is a great mistake, because the causes are physical, even so we do not reject that there is an negative experience - or “restrained”, in the freudian term. Here Freud distinguishs of Darwin: it is a natural law of strongest stimuli on the others. We believe that most part of what Freud called “repressive moral” is, in true, a impression (a opinion, a momentaneous censorship) that someone with strong personality causes on the others! There is something that intrigued us: how the dreams have an order, as were a complete history or a real experience? And why we do not perceive the construction


of this imaginary history? We only can explain thus: our capacity to think has aversion to the fragmented images more fast than consciousness can perceive, so, it overlap an image to others, one focused on the others witout focus, as the diverse films of a film, what Hume called similarity and contiguity, to explain as the ideas are connected in the mind. Thus, the dreams show with more clarity what it happens when we think (waked up): a series of images goes succeeding others, as when, for example, ahead of a sequence “1,2,3 and 5”, the memory appeals to the previous rememberance, suggesting the addition of number 4. Another way to see this question: the images and the memories that chaotically go appearing inside of our mind organize as parts of a school of samba of Brazilian carnival one behind the other. What it determines this order? The fact of that the sensations of exterior world have more force on internal perceptions and, therefore, not only prevents that they are disclosed, but, also, it selects them and in it becomes us conscientious of some ofm. And how our perception constructs images as of winged horse, for example, if many thinkers believe that it is the consciousness just is able to unifies the sensations? Unless the consciousness also separates images, as of wing, and it glue it with the one of horse! Thus, the conscience does not unify nothing, it only contemplates the real world and the mental world around us! Still: it is necessary that we say that the dreams are involuntary thoughts that develop when we sleep, but, also, when we are waked up we continues having involuntary thoughts and we aren’t conscious ofm, except when they appear us for intuition, that is, immediately, or when a present thought sends to the rememberance of an old one. It occurs, thus, in the mind somewhat similar with what it happens with the light of sun dims and hinders us to see the light of stars; but, they are there and they come in our we direction even so they are not sufficient strong tobe perceived by us!

§46. On the habit. For Hume habit is a subjective mechanism that takes us to believe that future events similar to the last events will tend to repeat. According to our theory, last facts


similar among themselves would help us to become more acute our perception, as if we played finer nets each time, on the limits of that it is, for us, observed. By the way, it is opportune to clarify that the thesis that the cause and effect are subjective ideas and that it results of repeated observation of facts, is originally of Paschal; in his “Thoughts” (nº 91) he wrote: “it is part of nature human to believe that, after repeated experiences in which one exactly effect is observed, must have a necessity - as when we imagine that “tomorrow it will be day”. This belief in the existence of necessities, can be denied by facts - “not rare” - naturally contrary them”.

§47. The truth degrees. Protágoras. E the error. If there are different degrees of details through of which we can perceive the world, then it will have, also, different degrees where our affirmations and negations will express these details. Soon, it will have different degrees of truth. The two errors of sophists - professors of rhetoric in old Greece - consisted, however, in not perceiving that there are knowledge degrees and to believe that an absolute truth does not exist. The expression of Protágoras: “the man is the measure of all the things” not valley always, but, on the other hand, he can be valid, yes, in at least some degree of detail. For example: to say that a water makes well, is not an absolute truth, because salty water does not make well and nor water alone, for who does not know to swim! Thus, the truth is as the alignment of planets. Rare and when it occurs, it makes to appear a mental pleasure. It is consequence of an image that coincides with what it is there in the world. Already the error, corresponds to the lack of alignment and mental pain. We observe in adult people that they have difficulty to think and when they do, they do not perceive important aspects involved: (1) beyond the incapacity to perceive details, that we mention before, also it lacks (2) speed in the thought, that is, in the passage of an idea to another and (3) there is an aversion to analyze new ideas: once i suggested to cover the terrace of building where I live with my family with a plastic and transparent material (polycarbonate), what would have the same cost than to substitute the floor, where the water was infiltrating for the downstair


apartment and for decades the floor was substituted recurrently without definitive solution. Other time when i saw the image of my daughter’s dog in the mirror it seemed me longer than I found that it was, because when we see images in a distant mirror our mind was not prepared to perceive something familiar. This test, also, that the mind intervenes with what is seen, beyond that we can think without error that what the mind receives is a handful of points of exterior world, but has something there and from this something true we apprehend some thing, a layer, a degree. This experience seem us very similar to the Kantian thesis of hands in the mirror. There is something more to say: that the truth seems to be a average between the opinions, taking care of distinguishing when it depends on a simple opinion, feeling, or a specialized judgment or a average of both. We would have to add to the definition of Aristotle for whom the truth is “to say what is of what is and to say what isn’t of what isn’t”… if all people not to agree, even so exist here a risk of slowness in the decisions and to have that to conciliate an opinion of an intelligent person and of a donkey one!

§48. Do senses organs delude us? And is there a progress? It always called our attention the suspicion that the senses were error source. The old Greeks said that the sun seemed small, for guilt of senses. Our thesis of degrees of perception, lead us to the purpose of an new argument that “acquits” the five senses and makes to fall again the guilt on our perception: the sun seems to have a dimension lesser that real, when we perceive it as an element among others. If we perceived it separately, we would not arrive the error the same. Someone will can say that, under the microscope, the microbes are perceived isolated and however they are not gigantic as sun. But, an important observation inhabits here: we know of beforehand that in one and another experiments we leave of an ample perception - of a sky that seems infinite - for one more specific, for an element as the sun, that is, part of limits of that sky. Already the microbes belong to one other kind of perception, but of one it is sufficiently limited and, therefore, it would appear a contradiction if we believed that from something too much small, something could appear gigantic.


In the Renaissance, the most famous example of preconception against the sensations, can be found in the Galileo’s Inquisition Tribunal when the judges denied to see in the scientist telescope because they don’t believe in senses, but just in reason. Galileu, himself, attributed to the senses the error when we believe that an object, played of high one of a tower, would fall in straight line on the surface of Earth, when, the correct one is to believe that the fall folloies the movement of planet. But, here, it is not correct to put sensorial system against the reason, but, yes, in a degree of perception of world against another one! We do not agree to Thomas Kuhn and Michael Foucault, who believe that the progress is not continuous. Both the thinkers have predominantly individualistic and relativists perceptions and, therefore, believes that the life is made of singular experiences - typical position of “after-modernists”. Foucault, seen as a God for some, wrote that the schools are as prisons, but do ask for children what they think about? In the school time I did not feel as a prisoner, i only feared some more violent colleagues. They had taken the term “progress” as a series of rightnesss, that go adding some to the others. Will not be, also, a progress when we undoes a wall badly done? Does not use the scientists the common language of mathematics or do they creates others to each “revolution”? What is there in common between the of Ptolomeu and of Copernicus systems? They are both perceptions of world, some clearest, other little, one more detailed, other little. We are “clarified despots”: we accept the theories until the moment that we verify its imperfections and, not supporting them more, we look for to develop new theories that complete the gaps. By the way, let us see a good example of “after modernism”: my brother was used to take washed place setting off the washing machine and he put then inside of drawer, caoticamente, in one more faithful expression “after modernist”; tired to order each place setting with its equal and, more, for not having the habit and the feeling of order related to the tasks of kitchen, resigned to an organization for seeming to him, perhaps, useless or unnecessary. For one after modernist, the world is a great drawer! Is it useful and beautiful to think like them? Obvious, not.


In return to the central question: there is something that can occur, with more frequency that we could accept: that the cause of sprouting of a new chain of thought is the observation of inefficacy and arrogance of people who form the current chain of thought. This would justify, for example, why new theories are born without at least answering to all the questions the one purpose to answer! It is evident that the leaders of new theories are people who do not leave themselves to lead - as the great mass - for the feeling of a group, or as Nietzsche said, of cattle. Therefore, even so the majority is “son of its time”, in the expression of Hegel, has important exceptions that are parents of following time. Finally, there is a progress of thought, if we understand it as a sum of new perspectives and knowledges derived from the former, what includes a moral progress: fifity years ago to here we have laws for animal protection, something unbelievable centuries ago!

§49. Language and degrees of perception. In the “Seventh letter”, Plato wrote clearly that “no sensible man will venture itself to express its thoughts through the language, particularly with written characters”. Before, Plato wrote a long work “Teeteto” where, at the end of long searches, he arrived at a weak definition of knowledge, as “true opinion folloied of justification”, as he himself recognizes: how to define the knowledge using stipulated symbols? Let us catch the circle idea: one “figure whose points are to the same distance of a center”, can mean an asterisk or a series of dotted. We can think that somebody can by hand to draw a perfect circle or to present an well stoned object and to call it sphere, but with a hand glass, probably, we will find some defect. Then, we will search to produce a circle in an electronic printer, but, also, in it, with a microscope we will find defects. and if to develop a more sophisticated machine? Perhaps under the lenses of an electron microscope, it will not be a perfect circle. But, and using more precise instruments? Somebody will create a microscope, still, more precise to identify new imperfections! What it happened with our idea of circle? Let us not be pessimistic, saying that it is useless, therefore, as well as the the idea of “utopy”


defined by the writer Eduardo Galeano, the idea of circle, put us in movement, made us to develop technologies and, these, had facilitated to the life of all the people. It is evident that there isn’t how to communicate the idea of a circle, except from a mind for another one, but not for the voice or graphical symbols!

§50. Plato - the words as noises. And the Wittgenstein’s mistake. From the reading of “Teeteto” of Plato, we observed that words are as noises. Why a motor of a car must do noise? It does not need. An electricity motor has much less noise than the common one. Or, still: many times they are as arrows that we use to move away the others and at other moments are hurled flowers, when we would not need to say nothing! In twentieth century, Wittgenstein believed, for the analysis of language, to be able to philosophy, as, when he assumed - in his “Brown Book” - that if the used grammar to express the past and the future is not symmetrical to that that express the present, then, the proposals on the future would not be really proposals. But how the grammatical rules - or, perhaps, we had to say, the clutter of rules, so changeable as the customs and the heads of that they establish them - could reflect the world? And how “noises” would reflect the world? The noises have for backwards of itself images; already the graphical words, symbols, are images of noises, that is, images of sounds that express other images. To those that have the intention to make of philosophy a “analysis of language” or “the words”, they would have to correct the task for “analysis of mental images”, as well as, of detail degree that somebody possesss inside of its mind! Beyond that, there is an illusion belief that the language uses universal ideas in themselves (as a transcendental or supernatural existence) and in last analysis, they would have its origin and dwelling in our mind, as it wrote Aristotle, in the work Topical (VIII, 12): “it is impossible to think nothing without using universal”. Let us agree: the words are created by individuals, that convince the others to use them. Let’s observe day-by-day how many the expressions, as slangs, for example, appear and are incorporated the official language! But, it is necessary to notice that what has of generality (universal) is the perception degree and it is only this that we


could say as common in all of us, but not because it is of use of all, but because all can potentially use.

§51. What is the “reason”? And is there an organ of happiness? The scientist Boyle, in sixteenth century, defended that the reason was an organ that we share with God. Interesting to ask if, also, we would have an organ that is the origin of happiness feeling, an organ of happiness that, sometimes, we try? Obvious not. Now, it makes sense to call “rational” to a correspondence between what we affirm on the world or something existing in the world and the respective thing or being, real, which one is in relation to the other. By the way, reason in Latin is “ratio” that means relation of, at least, two things, where one is in a certain relation with the other. There is, still, asecond mean: the “reason” as the moral feeling, that is the internal sense of order (fetal) when folloied of an ample perception. After to write this book, rereading our fiches of philosophical works, we notice that Karl Popper had thought something similar to our thesis: “we do not possess “reason” and “passion” in the sense as we possess certain organs physically… It will be better to explain the rationalism in terms of attitude or behavior… a good will to give heard the critical arguments and to learn from the experience” (book: The open society and its enemies: chapter 24; p.169). Someone will can think that our thesis leads to believe in a subjective reason. We consider the following example aiming at to explain the reason as objective: in the Middle Age, when one third part to the half of european population died of plague transmitted for rats, they believed that the cause was of badly smell of air. It was suggested at that time to burn aromatical grass to finish with the problem. We cannot say that this attitude is rational. Only after the discovery of microorganisms, was possible to establish the identity between the degree of detail of our perception - the bacteria that we saw for the lens of a microscope - with the real being, existing in the world, that is the respective bacteria or virus in human body, in it, causing damages! From what we said until here, we are certain that the reason is passive - similar thesis of David Hume -, understood as a certain perception that produces a mental pleasure or extinguish a mental pain. First: in history of thought the thinkers always


denied that reason was similar to passions, however, how could reason to be active, if passions are active? Second: we will see later (in chapter 4, “Why we are not free”) that there isn’t something like “free will”, another signification related to “reason”; third: it is necessary for all human actions a desire - emotional condition - caused for an external stimuli that conduces to a perception degree, to memory and to similar reaction similar or not to anterior experience and for that, we need the acquisition of contents (knowledge) specific of each human activity. Does reason change with time? It is not because the fact that the world changes so drastically that we change too. What it occurs is that our perception changes: our perception restrict itself to our community and only when this linking is questioned, we pass in worrying us about the remain of world. Generations had accepted the existence of slaves as inevitable part of a culture but, so only, until the moment where, tired to obey a culture, we demand the end of slavery. We do not still speak on what historically - and equivocally - it was called faculties of mind, as reason, imagination, understanding and judgment. A classification like that not survive to the “paradox of third man”, because what it would establish the connection between the power of knowledge (Kantian thesis) composed for the judgment, the reason and the agreement - with the feelings of pleasure and displeasure or, then, with the power of desire - or will or, still, ofse last ones each other? Just if there is something in common between these faculties, but, if to exist, then we do not need to understand them as distinct in reality, only for pure convention. Well, don’t let us so intransigents: what we nominate as “perception degree” is similar with the “kantian understanding”, because it is in it from the sensations stimuli that appears of perception of forms. Categories as well as the kantians judgments do not pass of points of a continuous line of possibilities under which the perception degrees can be structured. The judgment as power that would express our freedom, is a deceit, because it is the predominance of one category (or degrees of our perception) on others, that they will determine (for natural laws) if we will see an object as singular (Socrates), or a part of a set with other elements (Greek people), or, still, a term that defines a more ample group (man). And what kantian reason it


means? There are two answers: (1) reason as moral action, when we are of ownership of sense of order folloied of an ample perception beyond our immediate needs; or, (2) when there is a correspondence between the degree of details of our perception and the real degree of something on which we affirm or deny something. We read in Kuhn that scientific discoveries are accidental. In part, yes, because we can literally, to stumble in a discovery, as of penicillin when they had left a sample of bacteria displayed to air. But, if we are not of ownership of a percipient structure that perceives a specific degree of detail of an object that is in the world, we will not, discover nothing! It is opportune to discourse on the utility of method considered for René Descartes: we believe that to divide an object to get a truth, it is a way (method) to make a mistake. When we formulate the thesis of that “duration” is pain in the memory, we do not divide initially the time to arrive at a reply. Nor when we formulate the thesis that the mind possesss a series of degrees (arrangements) of perception and that they are not equally available (in act) in all of us, we do not divide the mind in its parts. What it predominated was the use of “analogies”: when we compare the memory with the stomach and the mind with a set of nets. Maybe the analogy can be used in the research with virus and bacteria that cause illnesses: we would not get conquests if we stopped to try to destroy them similar to what armies make with its enemies and we start to think about our strategies? Maybe we did not use mcuh chemistry, but a little of physics? Or thinking “militarily”, we would not have more advantages if we changed the “battlefield”, taking off microorganisms for out of body with similar machines to that they make hemodialisis and, so, we bombed them? The division in parts is a task that precedes to an inquiry, for we reach that totality that interests us to search. When René Descartes defended that we would have to identify parts that we knew, implicitly defended the accomplishment of analogies, because to look for, in each new study, the “parts that we know”, they really are not known, but, are necessarily identical to those that we know in last experiences! We go far: we believe that the inductive method brings in itself the process to form analogies: when it is said that some people have a common


characteristic and, from this comparison, we arrive at a law, as of Aristotle who said that “all the men are mortal”.

§52. The “form” as a “myopia”. The “inductive method”. And is there a form of human being? A didactic example of what it occurs in our perception when to observe the form of objects and not its content, consists in comparing what it occurs in the vision of a myopic person: when it looks at with glasses, sees individuals, but, taking the lenses off, the images - at least, the those most distant ones - they are without focus. When the philosophers had looked for to deny that the concept of horse, for example, was not the horse, what is obvious, they had denied, also, that concepts were distinct things from sensations. There will be who ask us: which image? Of one that at the moment is the strongest stimulus. If someone ask us to draw any horse, maybe we remember someone near our home, but if ask for a race horse, so we can remember someone that we saw in television... Someone can to object that we do not need to lose the focus to know and to recognize the form of somebody. It is truth, the substitution of perception of individual for the its form, seems to resemble with the experience where we live days where we do not know how much clothes to dress: more, it will make us to feel heat, less, cold. Our perception of other similar forms of life to ours puts us in a tenuous limit where we perceive or the external limit (form), or the individual being. What we think that occurs in the mind is that there must be a succession of images – with and without focus – very fastly that we do not perceive that they are presented after to another one! Let us imagine that we are in a circus seeing a trapezist and, at some moment, our perception gives attention only to the form of artist. Soon, we can be thinking that who to possess the same form - human being - could, also, to be trapezist, what is not an bad conclusion. All effort - unfruitful - to try to prove how gives “transistion” - or passage - of observation of singular facts for universal statements and how a knowledge is possible is seated on absolute true, rests in understanding this


question: such transition gives itself for overlapping of, at least, two perceptions: one particular and itself, but wito no focus. When we see the trapezist and we recognize in it a human form and, after that, we recognize it in other people, then, we arrive at a valid law for them and, too, for all the other people. Is there a human species? Aristotle defined “man” as animal rational. Do still make sense to keep this belief? Not. All the animals are rational, being enough, for this, to possess memory. Obviously that the humanity notion goes beyond the ownership of a reason, even therefore, great part of people, is emotional. It inhabits, before, in the belief that we share one same form. We believe that was the philosopher Boecio who clarified this myth: if we shared of one same human form, , then or it would be distributed - incomplete - in each one of us, or would be entire, but only in an individual. Are we human because all of us have a genome with same number of chromosomes? This makes similar creatures. And if to have the same number of chromosomes makes us part of a species, then the white rat, the rhesus monkey and the plant oats are of one same species, because they have 42 chromosomes in its cells! Unless we had been generated for an only individual. What is, then, the human form? It is the limit of substance that our mind perceives, even so this limit could be different - molecular, atomic, etc. Copleston, in the work “History of philosophy” (vol.III, p.43-4), tells that one conciliate of catholic church in Vienne, occurred between 1311 and 1312, established that “the intelective or rational soul of man is “truily and essentially the form of body”. But, how is the soul existence if what we call “form” does not exist, except as an erroneous limit perceived for our mind? The theology would not have to try to philosophy! We do not invent nothing, we only observe something of common that seem exist in the people, that is, the likeness that seem exists among the limits ofir bodies. This is the essence of “inductive method”, erroneously rejected of David Hume and for Karl Popper. It is clear that we must be intent to know until point we will be able to say something of a person, but not of all. There is, evident, a limit to be identified. The example of white swans of Karl Popper shows us that is not enough the swans to


have similar form, even therefore, it, alone does not give to any certainty about if is possible or not another color than the white. It is necessary, then, to observe what factor cause the change in the coloration of feathers, as, for example, the climate, the feeding, the oxygenation, stress or the genetics. We will delimit, thus, the detail degree that the problem requires of our attention. It will not have more reason to leave to elaborate theories that are capable of forecasts with validity of one hundred percent, abandoning probabilities! One another way to decide the question of how we pass from the particular facts for general laws (universal ideas), is if we reject the belief that there is an “ego” (§40) inside us, then the habit to believe that from similar events must follow similar consequences, would be a subjective idea, but it discloses something true about world. But, it would be enough to say that the our understanding (or power of perception, where the passage is carried through) is an anomaly - distinct of nature -, so that our certainty collapse. But, who would believe in it?

§53. On the Genetics. Difference between form and limit. Plato and Kandinsky. We would like to make some observations and comparisons between our thesis of degrees of perception and the area of genetics: (1) We are not saying that the perception degrees are inherited, we are born with ample perception and, it, from experiences that to live deeply, she will be modified for degrees more detailed e, will be remained in them or she will return to a ampler degree; (2) many people believe that the form is inside (potentially) our DNA. We believe not. The gene determine which proteins will be produced, limiting the type ofm and its amount; thus, the muscles and the bones are as ducts of plumbings that will limit the amount of substance that will pass for them. Let us think about a plumbing that has taken water for the top of a building and let’s ask what will be the form of water that will gush out there from above? The form will depend on the look of an external person. It is evident that there is a limit that the water occupies, but “limit” is different of form perceived for a person. and each time that the water to gush out will be able to have different limits, even so it can seem us the same.


It is very curious someone can think that the genes can determine the human behavior and that we are not more than its container, not very different of the theologians who think that the body is the receptacle of the soul. Why do not to say that the genes are the container of atoms and why not to call them “egoistic atoms”? But, as, we believe, always will be possible to find a lesser particle from another, then there isn’t a elementary particle and just exist a universe as one one thing. A great discovery that we made: a thesis of Kandinsky, pioneer of abstract arts: he said who “the form changes throughout the time, but not its content”, supplying the arts a clear example of that Plato made a big mistake. We can add: the form is also the content (§17). How many people died, because some tyrants don’t have any consideration to individuals and only they support the species (or form). And how many books had not been published because they had been judged by its form and not for the content, as it happened when I tried to divulge my ideas after formed in the course of licentiate in Philosophy (to teach primary and secondary education): my books were done in an artisan way were envoied for more than twenty brazilian universities wasn’t put in most of its libraries. Plato opened in the human a crater separating the form and content, that is, an open and deep wound that goes to take centuries to heal!

§54. And the “force of will” or “ample perception”. Since we saw mentioning the expression “ample perception” is opportune to ask: what is “force of will”, that the common sense believes that each one must develop, as it was resulted of a personal effort? It is to be of ownership of an ample perception or of predominately ample perceptions; only one, maybe, won’t be enough, neither a combination of ample and acute perceptions, because it will occur a passive or very contemplative behavior. But, or we possess it, yet in a reduced intensity, or, then, it is useless to desire it! The effort to extend the ample perception seem us requires successive ackward experiences. In fact, it is not it that is developed, but, yes, we that get aversion to the other detailed perceptions. In paragraph 71, we will remember how we become vegetarian, experience that illustrates well what we said here.


It can occur that somebody that is born with ample perception, keeps it and it does not modify for other perceptions. And, still, that somebody that imitates or only follows what others order to him to do, without use of ample perception, also, is attributed a “force of will”. It is the case those people that awake up early, work hard during all day and when come back home is yet motivated and full of hope. In these latter case, the arragments of perception are very similar producing a very intensive answer; a water flows better for those plumbing that have similar diameter, not in which the measure changes.



The belief of inside us have a free will is one of biggest myths already created: or we follow the inclinations related to the necessities of body, or of social needs, or, still, we aim at to cease the mental pain that, in the chapter on the time, we identify to exist inside of our memory. Many philosophers had incurred into the illusion of that our “free will” would have in itself the freedom and the power “to choose or not” something that presented to it. Thinkers as Plato, Aristotle, passing for Espinosa, Descartes, Kant, Hegel until the contemporaries, as Sartre and Ponty. In Kant this belief reaches its apex: the free will could decide between following the moral laws discoveries for the reason or, then, to choose among others inclinations (all the corporal passions), these last ones submitted to the natural laws. Why the will assuming it as free - still thus would follow the wrong way? In this chapter we consider to convince the reader that freedom of choices does not really exist, but, most important, is that we must be tolerant with the other people, because nobody chooses to be what it is.

§55. What is to think? When we think, this occurs because the alternatives (and the degrees of details), ahead of us, are very similar and we can’t choose one of them. We believe that, physically, the intensity of sensations divides among the diverse paths, resulting in a lesser energy that is incapable to provoke in us any reaction. Then, we need to go to the world to search new experiences to carry through the sattle of matter and, perceiving new details, until then unknown. As more alternatives, more doubts will appear ahead of us! When Sigmund Freud observed that most part of our choices is resulted of internal and unconscious (or involuntary) operations, he showed that the thought is physiological (maybe neither he had perceived this) and he showed nothing more that we can compare our mind with the mechanism that exists in the airplanes: or we are conscientious and we act voluntarily (to decide among the possible alternatives)


when is necessary to decide on new things and situations, or we follow the memorized last experiences, as a “automatic pilot”. When, for example, we are hurry and, in these moments we accustom repeated times to lunch cereals, then, if tomorrow we will be hurry and to desire to lunch, we won’t stop to think that foods to choose: it will be cereals… of preference without white sugar! A teacher who says (repeated times) to a pupil who he is ignorant and that he will never learn nothing is “programming” or writing in his mind a strong message enough to be remembered and to predominate as his future choice: all the time that he needs to study, he will say exactly for himself that he is an ignorant and that he will not learn nothing! The mistake of Freud and, before, of Nietzsche consisted to believe that the involuntaries acts would be the instincts revealing itself… Reading Piaget, we know in a generic way the thesis of mathematic Gödel (or maybe an interpretation of it) on the impossibility of a machine to foresee any future fact for its own action, because it could not be capable to know the laws of its own determinism. We do not agree to this belief, if it is extended to the mind human, because in us inhabits an ample perception that originates the curiosity for knowing everything around us and inside us and, thus, we become object of our inquiries. Would somebody say that is impracticable to know the functioning of breath, because we breathes? Certain time, Hegel wrote that the Philosophy is as the owl “minerva” that handle flight only at night, that is, after the occurrence of facts that it investigates. For us it seems a sad end of philosophy, because it becomes incapable to anticipate any fact. However, we can accept what it has of central in this thesis: we are certain that it is possible to study to ourselves only after the occurrence of our thoughts, because a contrary decision to that we would go to take, it will seem resultant of a clear interference. Already if we analyze other people, the distance will allow a impartiality and, there, the hegelian thesis it becomes useless, because we will be able to know the choices before them arised! Interesting the passage of thought: since the vision that it is an divine element put inside us untill that it does not pass of a physiological process.


§56. What is this that we call for “freedom”? In old Greece, freedom was wroten “eleuteros” and denoted a feeling of not being enslaved. The word has origin from the name of a mount and the name of a goddess that would have helped the Greeks to banish the Persians. Already in old Rome, “liber” or free, was the name or honor that was given to the young romans when they reach sexual maturity and became incorporated to the adult community, receiving the “toga virilis” or “toga liberates”. Therefore, the free man was who had a condition such that he does not become submitted, nor enslaved of others. In a etymological dictionary, we read, certain time, that the latin term “liber” was used in a ampler sense of one another term, “ingenuus”, ingenuous. The best meaning for “freedom” was given by Thomas Hobbes and can be understood by any person: it is the capacity of putting itself in motion in the space, if it really exists. But, do makes sense to say that we are free to make choices? We can solve thus: we are free or not to move ourselves in space, but do we have thoughts that are free and others that are not? Not.

§57. An example of our determinism. Celibacy, taboos and guilt. It had an very interesting experience lived by us: coming back of university we every day saw a great poster with the face of a brunette woman. Some days, where we were feeling well, we saw it beautiful; others, we found it ugly. Why!? Different layers of perception were set in motion in the different lived experiences. More recent layers, more acute one, were used when we saw the face as beautiful; but, when tired, the layers in action were those older, next ones to the fetal period, layers with which we prefer less intense stimuli, preventing, for example, the strong contrast between the dark hair and the clear skin. This explanation will not be same for all people, requiring an individual analysis of last experiences. In our case we know that more intense affective experiences had been lived with brunette women. But, when we found us tired, to the end of day, and, more worse, feel us alone, this feeling of pain breached those layers of perception that was capable to perceive with great acuity the face of a brunette woman, but that if wasn’t present with the same acuity for women with other characteristics. Once


breached that layer, the sensations were directed, now, to the layers next to the order feeling (fetal perception). Blond women would seem more beautiful, with its color of hair and skin that are under a more harmonic composition, under the point of view of one kind of perception, in which the less differentiated or less contrasts somebody possess, more easily will disclose in us the feeling of beauty. Fromf what we said before is not followed that we choose a person for her are brunette or blond obviously. But, certain physical and mental qualities of other person will be able to affect more or to affect less our choices - since the color and the cut of hair, the form of walking, ability in expressing, etc -, as we already said, our previous experiences and the emotional intensity that they arise in us. If do love has reasons that the reason unknows? Ridicule! However it is not enough to make the right choice, if for the other person we are not the certain choice for her and this makes us believe that the success in the marriage seems like a lottery. How to explain the celibacy? It can result of diverse reasons: (a) few affective experiences, involving little emotion; (b) indecision on choices especially when someone is a lover of detail; (c) had a severe education, that disdain the sexuality; etc. Who possesss an ample degree of perception has an additional problem: he not only keep a distance of conviviality with the others and he does not understand how is built a relationship among the people, but, still, he becomes lover of detail in relation all the involved aspects in a relation, that is, he tends to want answers for all the doubts that to appear to him and do not take no decision while such answers will not be gotten. The cause of alteration of common perception for one - predominantly ample, does not constitute in illness, but it must, in general, the ackward experiences that we live with the others or, then, the very solitary life. People can remain bachelors, for example, because to find a partner requires to establish social bonds; the marriage has, also, an important social function. Another question on the celibacy: how to know that something is good or not, as the sexual life, if they do not neve tried it? And the taboos, as the consanguineous marriages? Our ample perception and that one directed toward the life in society (as looking for employment, to study, to buy foods, etc, stablishing relations with strange people in contrast that time in which


all these are made inside the family or in small community) constitutes, together, in an enough force to keep away eventual desires related to our more immediate necessities. In past made sense to write one commandment to forbid the incest; today is not, except in isolated groups very poor and without education, condition where perception can’t be extended. And the homosexuality? Also it can have origin in diverse reasons: disillusionment with the opposing sex, decline of physical vigor required in the sex, more intense experiences with the same sex or awkward one with the opposing sex, etc. In all the cases, we must be concious that the “structures” - arrangements, nets or degrees of details - of perception that predominate in these choices are always those that involve the most intense emotions, of pain or of pleasure. We remember of a personal experience: when adolescent our voice thickened and we was criticized for that; the consequence of this was that in the rest of our life we kept the weak voice of that time and frequently when we use the telephone the people with who we speak think that they are speaking with one lady. This is extremely ambarassing, however, it was insufficient for becoming us homosexual, but let us imagine if a person was called attention on its behavior permanently, what it would occur? We believe that this could lead - or, at least, to influence strong - to somebody to become homosexual. Something else that can be in the origin of homossexualidade: it can be that a man decides to be in the feminine role (and vice versa) because has little selfesteem, he feel inferior to the other men and think to be difficult to imitate the masculine behavior, preferring to imitate the feminine one. Someone can will ask, with reason: why must imitating? Because the majority of people follows the dictated behavior as the correct, defined for somebody able to influence the others, what includes reasons as the reproduction capacity, to generate descendants and to guarantee the familiar inheritance, only possible among opposing sexs, and the memories of sex, in the case of man, to be next to the first experiences with the opposing sex. The thesis of auto-esteem would also explain the behavior of men who believe to keep its masculinidade despite they become related sexually with other men: they believe that this does not modify its masculinidade, however, in the vision of others, he is also homosexual.


And on the guilt? Sigmund Freud was correct when he observed that the Christian culture put in each person a feeling of guilt for all the decisions that we take, because we think that we could to be of ownership of a free will, but this is impossible: we never see simultaneously the alternatives ahead of us, because if are together the alternatives would seem mixed, a chaos of images; they appear to be together, but they occur one after other and we choose the last one that appear! Thus, we must rethink the “guilt” as an illusion and to live understanding that we always have only one alternative!

§58. The cathartics effect. And how do we remember? There are two theses of Aristotle that are useful for our thesis of degree of detailing of perception: the first one says respect to the “cathartics effect” that the Greek theater with its tragedies and comedies awake on the auditorium in the measure in that the spectator involved themselves emotionally with that event. This occurred, because the perception of those histories lead to the rememberances of past similar experiences, with its respective lived and perceived details. It’s opportune, here, also to remember René Descartes, with its attempt to explain how we remember, making use of “animal espirits” or what we know, today, for electric impulses that would cover areas of memory, as somebody that enters in one room, raising the dust that is there has much time. Our explanation is better: we believe that the degrees of detail of our previous experiences works as “tracks”, in way that only the experiences that they will be similar - to possess similar degrees of detail - will be overlapped and compared with the first ones. Obvious that it will also depend on the dimensions of object, it to enter or not in the tracks. The word “tracks” appeared us of rememberance of a phrase of physicist J.T.Frasier, used to explain its conception of time, but that, seem us more adequate to explain our conception of degrees of perception of our minds: “the time would resemble to the electric, underground handles, that they make the trams of San Francisco to function”. Making the had alterations it is thus: “the mind if would resemble the electric handles, underground, that make the mind to receive and, also, to answer to the stimuli of world”.


The second thesis in in the work “on the memory”: in it, Aristotle suggests that to remember, for example, an image or one color of a house that we had observed before, we must look for in our memory, first, of involved circumstances in that experience and all that had preceded it untill forgotten experience. This “mnemonic” resource, that is, to appeal to the next memories that we want to remember is important, not only because the memories are in a succession order, but because the degree of detail of our perception of house, does not have to be so different of other events that had occurred before. Again, the degrees of detail of perception function as tracks, a time that lead immediately of an experience to the other. This thesis is equivalent to the one of contiguity of David Hume.

§59. On the aggressive behaviors. We would have, also, to make use of thesis of detailing, for become us more intent those people who can - potentially - threaten the life of others, but, also, more tolerant to that they are different of us. Two are the most critical conditions: when a person has predominantly ample perceptions or, when someone has a more acute perceptions. We would like so much that new instruments were discovered to investigate more deeply inside of our minds to verify if our thesis is or not correct. We could foresee crimes and elaborate medicines that change certain neurological links. It is clear that the two previous conditions are extreme points where the people can meet. In general, the people fit inside of extremities, in a normal situation: (1) they have an individualistic, immediate vision, aiming at satisfaction of its necessities; (2) they aim at to the necessities of its family or another group with which this person identifies; or, (3) they go beyond, exceeding all groups untill perceive itself as part of an ample totality, as a part of human beings, a part of living beings or as part of universe’s beings. It inhabits, here, the moral feeling. It is curious that Kant has identified to these three conditions (categories) as only alternatives, but they are so only points that more detach itself in a continuous line of possibilities. Already Hegel, believed that these conditions represented a progress of conscience, when they are, in truth, just of an alteration –progress or retrocession - of power of perception (understanding, kantian term).


§60. Jean Piaget and Howard Gardner. One year later that we develop the thesis of “degrees of perception”, we read the thesis of “genetic epistemology” of Piaget and we saw much similarity between the two thesis: he defended that our capacity to learn develops with our experiences and our interaction with physical objects of world. We do not understand, however, because Piaget don’t go more ahead in his discovery. Thus, he: (a) limited the interaction of subject to physical objects and not to the other citizens, as familiar, friends and strangers; (b) he did not identify those he called “structures” with no part of mental physiology - as, for example, the neurons - and nor perceived that these structures have the capacity of, as we said before, increasing and contracting the spaces among themselves, as a net of fishing where we approach or increase distance among its and, consequently, its vertical, horizontal and diagonal lines. When a child is born, its capacity of perception sees the world without focus or as wrote Freud, at the beginning of his work “Civilization and its discontents”, under “an oceanic” feeling, as if we were infinite part of something. In the truth, the expression is not properly of him - he opposed to it -, but of a friend who sent a correspondence; (c) did not perceive that it always has before the alteration of structures, an emotional envolvement, a feeling of “pleasure” or “pain” that precede it. Only with the succession of experiences, the perceptions will become focadas more in objects and particular beings. Again, then a contrary process will occur: ofse particular perceptions, we will pass for that if they relate the terms general. A good example of this occurred when a child asked our name and said “Antonio”. She did not believe our reply, therefore, for her, the only Antonio who existed in the world was her father! From that experience, or she could believe what we said, or would forget it. But, not for much time. Soon, she would find other “Antonios”, other “Joanas”, other “Pedros”, etc. There, disappointed - we assume that the disillusionment involves pain - she probably, then, will acquire other perceptions beyond that she already possesss ample and particular -, that they are related to the general terms, as species, genus, groups, etc.


From the reading of Howard Gardner, “Structures of mind”, we raise some questions: (a) he looks to offer a classification of intelligences and rejects the classification of philosopher Paul Hirst (Knowledge and curriculum, 1974), because is a priori work, without research. But, we do not believe “the a priori” term. All theory consists, in reality, the practical one that somebody lived and communicated to the others. It is evident that there is a risk of a philosopher to isolate itself and to think without going to the world. But, when observing the world, also makes research. The scientists are proud to make research, but they do not perceive that, as Bergson said, their hipothesis are given to them from philosophers, even because those that are evident error! (b) Gardner criticizes Piaget, because he would have studied only one kind of intelligence, the logical-mathematics. We disagree with Gardner, because we can observe development levels from sensorimotor (coordination of senses) until the abstract level, common in different “intelligences” that he had identified: musical, linguistical, spacial, corporal, intra and interpersonal. Although we do not know to play any musical instrument, we can emitting judgment if a music is harmonious, beautiful. Thus, in the bedding of “intelligences”, it would be a previous intelligence. By the way, is paradoxical that somebody writes a book on “multiple intelligences”: or he has all intelligences, what it seems impossible, or he has some another distinct type of one. Finally, it is necessary that we recognize his merit in disclosing the discrimination that we make to the people who do not have a raised logical capacity, restricting “intelligence”, equivocally, to a restricted group of individuals.



We must to detach the maken a mistake way that the racionalists thinkers had taken deluded that the reason could give moral laws to itself. Who more arrived close to an adequate reply was Hume with his “thesis of the sympathy” for the members of our species – and, too, for others ones -, but he limited itself to this level of detail and he don’t go, as our present thesis, intends to go, to the root, to the cause of the moral feeling. Therefore, if we could synthecize our vision on the philosophy of the Moral, we would say in a phrase: the history of the moral did not understand the moral of history!

§61. The moral and ethical feelings. And the customs, the religion and Jesus. For backwards of all our actions, always we find the order feeling (fetal completeness feeling). However, even so it is enough to be a guide of our feelings and actions, it always is folloied of some degree of perception. Our feeling of order, when applied to the interpersonal relations it can be called moral or ethical feeling. It will be moral when our perception to take the entire humanity - or, perhaps, beyond our respective species - as object of our attention and cares. It will be ethical when our perception will be restricted to our family or, in the maximum, to our country. Hobbes looked for to refute any internal moral feeling saying that we made a joke those people that have physical problems. This can be explained easily: we have the feeling of that the humanity is a beautiful picture. But, when our immediate necessities are more intense, we lose of focus the complete picture. Therefore, the man “is not the wolf of the man”, a always egoistic being. By the way, the previous expression was used also for Freud, but it is of the roman writer Plauto and was taken the context off: he said that nobody loans money to a stranger, unless that we know him, otherwise, in the opposite, the man will seem a wolf for another man. Who strap expressions of the original context does not demonstrate to have a narrow perception of the world?


Already Aristotle and Hegel had preferred to establish their theses on the moving land of the customs in the measure that we are members of a family and a society we must from practical experiences to observe which the rules are correct and which are not. In Aristotle there is a one more component: he believes that the virtue, the right or good action, is found in a calculation that we make, in a middle term (possible, according to him, to the majority of the people) between the insufficient actions and those that are extreme, as when we observe in the others or in ourselves, the cowardice when running away from something who never would put us at risk or the madness of wanting to fight against a multitude of enemies. The aristotelian thesis of the virtue as a middle term has certain similarity with the our thesis of functioning of the mind, because it places between the experiences that make to appear short pain (duração curta) and long pain (duração longa) in the memory. Why do we consider to follow the customs a moving land? This must to the fact that customs change and nor always those few people who establish the rules and impose them on majority of people are worried about the common good, that is, have an ample perception that it exceeds its more immediate interests. The customs are conventions of a people, aiming at: (1) to resist the influence of another culture - that it gradually goes suffocating the local customs, as the excesses of the North American culture, that awakes pleasure, but, also, mental pain, because although, frequently, to represent culturalscientific progress, its predominance is extreme, hard to be supported - and; (2) to exert influence, many times unconscious one, as a drunk who wants to share its joy - on the other cultures. Therefore, much early we left to commemorate the dates imposed for the customs. In general, nobody knows the reason of such dates and if they know do not practise it. In the Christmas, we eat until not supporting more while next to our houses people pass hunger. Few people know that, to the end of one year and in the start of another one, the Earth gave a complete return of the sun or, in the truth, its movement are of spiral kind and, therefore, it does not return to the starting point, because it advances in the space ahead!


We can’t

agree to the thesis of that is acceptable the existence of shocks

among cultures as part of the life of the universe. It is to take much far the belief that we must follow the nature and its laws, once we emancipate of it when we left nature and built cities. The most beautiful vision of a harmonious life would inhabit in that one where each family practised - as part of its custom - a little of each people, in a way that if could not more distinguish the origin. Let us think about a family whom it has in house a place for meditation, that is connected to the remaining of the world instantaneously through Internet, that cultivates medicinal plants, but that, also, it knows last scientific discoveries. A family who has in itself the past, the present and the future, in a balanced way. The adjusted life is this, without excesses or lacks. Hegel, in his “pedagogical speeches” defended that the school has an ethical task. It seems to mean that the school transmits the customs; however, more ahead, he discourses on the education of the different philosophical theses on the moral and is necessarily, for him, the task of the school: to show the plurality of moral theories. But, what would happen if the school did not exist? Nothing. The children would be educated at home in the contact with its neighbors, family, etc, and once having reached certain age, would look to instruction in similar professions of its parents or neighbors. The school, as seems us evident, cannot be to transmit customs, because these can be transmitted - naturally - in the daily life and not inside of artificiality of building. To the school thre is a higher task, the universal concepts, a panoramic vision of the world, that clearly, exceeds the customs. The problem that persists in the history of the education of humanity consists in: 1- to teach that abstracts knowledges come from empirical observations – how would be useful to us to have understood very early about people’s personalities and the professions most adjusted to each personality, includind for ourselves!; 2- to form teachers who are not mere parrots, but they have proper ideas and stimulate its pupils, also, to have them, exactly that they criticize the dominant theories. And the religion? Also it is a custom that instead of only come back toward the human relations, it is directed to a deity. A priest who believes to be the only person


that is capable to enter in contact with a God, creates a series of convention (one small ethics according to Hobbes), so that such communication (in the mass, the baptism, the confession) are made with effectiveness. Is it true? When we confess for the first time and we ingest a “hostia” we did not feel nothing! By the way, nor Jesus Christ could be had as perfect example of morality: he ate fish and vegetables and, therefore, killed livings creature and, moreover, when he said (in the form of an imperative sentence) to whom wanted to lapidate Mary Magdalene (as is in the official bible, differently as is in the apocryphus gospels, where Magdalene is had as the main follower of Christ) that who did not have sins, then played the first rock, show us, with this, that Jesus had sins, too, because if he did not, he would have to follow his own rule. Under the form of a silogism is thus: Premise 1 - who will not have sin, that (then) plays the first rock; Premise 2 - Jesus does not have sin; and, Conclusion - Jesus must play the first rock! Another fact: there is one text in Mattheus (12: 47-50) and John (19: 25) where Jesus rejects that Mary is his mother when they say to him that Mary wants to speak with him and he answers that his mother and brothers are his disciples. What does it means? That the universal love is not the same that the love for individuals. The catholic roman church took for itself the belief of that it is source of the moral. But, we show in this book that moral feeling is root in us. They say, still, that the Pope is symbol of who got to keep distant of the material life. But, he only moved away from the sexual life and he continues eating and drinking of the best foods and wines, includind meat of inocent beigs. Or do he and his pairs sleep on the soil, dress old clothes and eat any meal? Yet that we agree that monogamy is beautiful and better, that euthanasia and abortion don’t must be made we can’t simply order people to think like us. It is because church is aristocratic institution, it disdain democracy and their behavior with their followers like father-child. Do we really need that? Let’s open parenthesis here: what is our theory about if we agree or not to abortion? As a human being, a being that belongs to a collective, with the ability to communicate, exchange and build knowledge, we must respect any form of life called


"human" first and, then, other forms of life, even form is an illusion of our minds. But, can we think differently? Yes, we believe that everything is alive and yet this thesis can seem an absurd for those who are stuck in customs, we never can not extinguish the life, only to split into smaller pieces, too, full of life. Which of the two theories do we choose? The first one, whose rule is: a human being to protect other human beings, ever!

§62. The moral and ethical actions and feelings. Examples of the neighbors. Is there a list of virtues? Why in the time of our grandmothers or greats-grandmother the women had that to marry virgin? Perhaps their answers were: “the things had been always made in this way”. Or they would go, still, to answer something as “it was better in that way”, if opposing what, today, it would not pass, for them, “lack of shame”. Or, it was not allowed another behavior for them. They will be able, yet, to say that to establish as rule the virginity until the marriage will guarantee that the husband was not surprised by a woman with own opinion, that complains if he do not to give pleasure to her or changes for another one when she don’t accpet her husband with other woman. Any that was the reply, such custom implied that in the minds of our grandmothers, a perception was modified, to fulfill the rule, established for somebody and not for same them. What it seems clear to us is that nobody must affirm that the bedding of the moral or the ethics only inhabits in the search for pleasure and to escape to pain related to the most basic necessities, corporal: our grandmothers and greatsgrandmother had chosen to defend a rule against their corporal necessities, where the factor that prevailed was not their physical pleasure, by the way, ignored, but the acceptance to be mere objects of satisfaction of their husbands, in the maintenance of the rules with which they were accustomed and in favor of the order in the relations in family - therefore, a purely mental pleasure. Another important point: it is not enough to be of ownership of a moral or ethical feeling for that, alone, it would be the cause of our action. It is necessary that a first


experience is provoked by one another person, as when someone asked for our help. Let us an personal example: certain day occurred one discussion between two neighbors for an incompatibility of schedules in the common use of the garage and a aprouting of accusation that one of them run over the other! What do we made? Ahead of the threat of one of them to lead to another one to justice court, we prefer to believe that the fact was invented. Why!? Because we knew one of them and we knew that she would not make such thing, because she was always an introverted and very passive person. The first question that in we made them was: why we feel responsible in defending another person? A physiological (mental) necessity? Before it, we believe one social necessity: we always establish between our family and of her one, a reciprocity relation where we wait adequate behaviors and, on the other hand, we always look for place us to the disposal to help them. If we did not offer us to assist her, that reciprocal respect would be breached. What situation would predominate the physiological necessity purely mental in? For being very rare, we speculate that perhaps it appeared if the discussion if had carried through between two unknown people; but, we believe that we would not help none of them except if they asked for help. It is more easy to see the difference of reaction in simpler experiences: when we walk in a sidewalk, we stipulate, culturally, to walk of the right side of the sidewalk, although that we could walk in the left side; what the mental physiology influences is in the fact that if we walk in the same direction that the other person, will collide and, also, that all people have right to walk in the sidewalk! Either perhaps sad, but we have that to recognize that for backwards of the altruism has the egoism: a purely mental pain that cause in us a moral feeling. By the way, to live in a building, having that to accept opinions of neighbors to prevent fight is a test for the canonization and proves of the importance to stimulate the people to philosophy for becoming brain faster: in one recent meeting, they had decided keyed the external doors day and night, but had not perceived that never more they could to open the door from its apartment through a simple electric signal, what it makes difficult the life of who lives, for example, in the third floor or higher! In these meetings, is decided without thinking and for pressure of an ignorant majority


on that they think on the contrary. Fortunately, today the notion of minority come winning more force in our western society. Is there a list of virtues? Magnanimity, prudence, courage, justice, etc, seems names that we give to the action that they aim at to restore an previous order, as when we give back something to somebody that was taken to him or save somebody in a fire or, still, to modify an previous order (or disorder), when we live in a society where many earn little and few earn much. All these “swarms” (as Socrates would say) of virtues correspond to one alone type of action - restoration or alteration. Its difference depends not on the form, nor on the degree of perception, but on the content: the courage, involves physical dispute in inferiority situation, justice, in superiority situation, the magnanimity, is to distribute good for that they do not have them and every virtues nothing more are that some kind of distribution, of reordenation of the involved elements. Our reply to the initial question: the list of virtues is infinite and depends on the capacity to perceive a greater or minor number of differences and similarities (details)!

§63. Is there a supreme happiness? Aristotle had a definition of sufficiently enigmatic to happiness: it consisted of the activity of the soul folloied of the perfect virtue. Many quarrels had appeared and, still today, do not have a definitive reply: which virtue was that one that he had mentioned? Scientists specialized in ancient greek understand that the activity of the soul would be the exercise of the Philosophy, folloies of a virtue. But, there is stretches in tenth book of the “Nicomachean Ethics” that they would indicate this, even so that thinker understood that the contemplation, theory or Philosophy, were not properly an activity. About which virtue, we could think that he mentioned prudence or justice. Or, of one another way, the virtue of justice folloied for prudence in the case to reject that the Philosophy is an activity, but a passivity. Already in the work “the Politics”, he wrote that in the active life (in the businesses or in the war), we must make use of the virtues of the courage and moderation and in the leiasure, to philosophy (it is not by chance that the contemplative position, as it sees in the “Thinker”, of Rodin, is very similar to the


embryo’s position). And, he added, as much in the active how much in the leiasure, it must be present the virtue of justice, understood as the search for a balanced solution for a conflict and not a simple desire of revenge. Well, let us leave of side this question without end, worthy for our moments of rest. What it matters to consider is that when defending the existence of a supreme happiness, Aristotle established a preconception in relation to the many people who were not philosophers and citizens of greek city (polis). He, also, did not understand that nor all the people arrive simultaneously at a ampler perception of its life, of the universe or of the “polis”, degree that our perception will reach, more early or later. Thus, each one is happy in his way, or better, in the way as its perception predominantly is structuralized. What can make the people in which the predominant degree of perception is the amplest and, if we are certain, if such degree is that one that leads us to a more adequate perception of the life? It remains to us to be example for the people, assisting when they ask for our opinion. And intervening only when their action to invade the limits of the others. Even because a supreme happiness would have to consist of the balanced use of our intelective, irascible and concupiscible parts, even so Aristotle could not defend this, because especially the last part, was not, for him, so divine how much the first one. And the happiness, is it our only end? Somebody that has lived predominantly painful experiences, will be able to search to act aiming at its destruction or of other people. And if he is ownership of an ample perception, he will be able to conceive new ways to carry through the destruction. Will not be these people, also happy? We believe that yes, because they follow those stronger stimuli, repeating experiences whose degrees of perception (and detail) are strongest. It is clear here, also, that the happiness always does not walk side-the-side with the morality. Somebody that eats much and makes of this a reason of happy, in detriment of healthful life, free of illnesses, witout respect animals lifes. Another person intent and impressed by ills that affect who “live to eat”, as Socrates said, will prefer to eat healthful foods in adjusted amounts, enough to feed themselves and to make other things in the life,


because is more easy to get the satisfaction with little than to have a desire without end. We ask, then, are we or not happy? We believe that nobody is always happy, but is sometimes happy. The happiness, as all feelings, is express in a graduation. All we experienced will work as colors of a picture whose predominance or balance (in the vision of the set) will depend on the painter and the ideal (justified for imitated it or of the others) that he will formulate for himself. And about resented people, as Nietzsche thought on the inventors of the moral. We answer that the resentment is a first signal or desire of that exists a “Being”, a being that express itself as something continuous, permanent; in general, the people forget what the others made of badly for us, this because we are not really the same and there is just a weak memory for remember us the last experiences. Moreover, the weight that fall again on one “resented”, if do not kill him, become him more strong and more resistant the weighed obstacles, thesis that is similar of the hero of the tragedies that the proper Nietzsche believed!

Before locking up this stage, we would like to add our discovery on the essence of what we call historically “pleasure”, important to be capable to differentiate that when somebody search to its happiness, aims at to well-being and not properly to a pleasant feeling: (1° we are certain of that the pleasure is a rubbi sh (a by-product, therefore, ) accessory) of our actions - being it, also, a subtle type of pain - and, therefore, not being able to be the good that we search except when it is taken erroneously. We try, in vain, however, to identify the moment where we arrive at this conclusion. We are not certain on this. We remember that it was at the time where we read the moral theory of Moore and it impressed us the insistent distinction that that thinker made between the concepts of “good” and “pleasure”, that for him, they are real as the platonic ideas - one exaggeration in our agreement. Thus, if the good distinguishes from the pleasure, pleasure is something that it is added, but that it is not necessary, because superfluous, what it opposes the hundreds of theses written throughout last the twenty and five centuries!


However, it was not through of Moore that we start to believe that the end that we search is a neutral state: Plato, in the Philebo dialogue, displayed this, but he thought that pleasure and pain were corporeal and gods don’t have such sensations... a mythological explanation. Even because the argument of that is necessary to have memory before pleasure for that this last one be deeply lived, still seems very limited to motivate the reader to believe in the superiority of a “neutral state”. (2° Let us see: what it would be the pleasure, the n? I believe that in this stage, ) it came to our mind the experiences where we feel pleasure and this pleasure was so intense that it caused us… a pain. Who already did not feel similar experience? To eat excessively does not provoke pain? Or, then, one intense orgasm leaves - for fraction of seconds - of being a pleasure sensation and it appears as pain, even so ephemeral! This, by the way, remembers important Greek philosophers to said that there was a limit between what is pleasant and what becomes painful: simple question of a fragile limit. Without speaking in the old practical actions of not to ejaculate, proroguing, thus, the well-being sensation. Another example, we believe, more common: when somebody approaches to our feet a bird feathers: in the start we laugh, but if it reaches a very great intensity, will appear in us one malaise, an ackward sensation of pain! If Pleasure is a subtle pain, that kind of pain is it? Another one, beyond mental pain that we call “duration”? It seemed improbable and nonsense to be speculating on many other pains, if already it was not enough to offer to the history of the philosophy a pain that just I had only given account - what we describe for “duration”. Then, without knowing why reason, we did think about the necessities human as empty buckets to be filled. The water - or another liquid - could be rank in bigger volume, making with that it overflew. Here is the pleasure! In truth, a kind of pain short duration - for insufficience of sensations. (3° In return to the Moore, we think that another error that he had committed ) was to believe that given the perception of that we have a necessity, the memory of the pleasure would appear in our mind when the necessity is satisfied and, it would be this, for him, that would put us in movement to cease pain (necessity). Before of


Moore, Kant thought in the same way: in the work “Critical of the practical Reason” (Prologue, note V, 1788) he wrote that the “feeling of the pleasure” serves as “base of the determination of the power to desire”, that is, as a carrot that we puts in the front of the donkey. But, from our discovery, we see that it does not have this task. The pleasure is a simple rubbish (a residue)! An mistake that had incurred as much Kant how much Moore, because the own necessity puts us in movement, once it is an emptiness to be restored. It is evident that we have, yes, the memory of the completude. But, to assume, that a memory of the pleasure is always for backwards of our actions is another nonsense! Exactly, therefore, it is enough to think that the first time that somebody had pleasure, it did not know this sensation, nor had any memory of pleasure! How we would have knowledge of the pleasure before having tried it? A nonsense! At last, I think to have finished with the quarrel if the pleasure is the end that we search; it can’t be. When the endorphin goes off inside of us and the sensation of pleasure arise, it nothing more is that a subtle pain, of very difficult perception! It is opportune to remember a sentence of Kant (Critical of the Practical Reason) where he wrote that “the man only feels necessities because belongs to the sensible world”. However, the activity of the apparently pure thought (formal) nothing is - as we said before - that the image (or another sensation) take it off focus of the “sensible world”. And in this activity also has mental pain and this pain is the cause of this activity folloied one perception degree. There are not two worlds; but, only one! Surprise us to find a thesis of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica: Part I, question 10, art. 6) of that in the perpetual life (or the “æviternity”, a life that has start, but does not have end) there is duration, thesis accepted for Kant (duratio noumenon) and, thus, if the duration is a pain located in the memory (to see our thesis in §8), is followed that in the eternity also we will feel pain! (4° - Finally, it is necessary to observe that in this present work many stretches ) keep the dualism “pleasure in opposition to pain”. It is important to modify such point of view, once that pain not only is what is positive, real, but, still, that what historically was called “pleasure” also is a pain, even so of a reduced intensity. After to write


these lines, we read a sentence of the German poet Heiner, who in nineteenth century wrote, before us, that the pleasure was a pain “extremely candy”. A made recent research in a Brazilian university showed that in a group that still made physical exercises that when the endorphin production was inhibited, they did feel a well-being sensation; this example shows that the pleasure and well-being are distinct sensations. We cannot forget when we saw, certain time, a youngling dog to swallow a meat piece great, without chewing it, came to our mind that the pleasure that it searched did not inhabit more in filling an emptiness, a necessity, but to perpetuate the sensation of pleasure in eating without stopping. Once that such action will not lead to well-being, it - and all the ignorant livings beings of the end the they must search, what includes ourselves, at least, at some moment of our lives will look to eat more in an increasing and more destructive way. If you allow the irony: the dog had become capitalist! Another example of become attached to material goods in excess: I remember I was the focus of my parents and relatives from my father, because i was the first grandchild. After that came the brothers and cousins, I was left aside and it caused in me a serious emotional problem: I used to for several times to hold the stool. Often I did not got to hide the stool and then smelled very bad! I vaguely remember that my parents took me to a hospital to remove the feces because of the amount of time and quantity that they were inside my intestine don’t permit a normal flux. Because that, I took the material objects to replace the lost affection. I remember, too, even children, have disturbed my parents when we spend some days in the house of some relatives (my mother's brother), because I did not want to borrow my blanket to a cousin. Certain time, when I accompanied my parents to Rio de Janeiro and we were in a restaurant we just wanted to eat “guisadinho” (fried ground beef). How do I bother them! And even after I was yet grown i involved frequently in fights disagreements with neighbors, in part because they were boring with their acts, but I believe it was my way, perhaps, to seek affection from me, to become closer to my parents.

§64. Which virtue: aristotelian or stoician? The definition of “good action”. And against euthanasia.


A question important to decide: who is certain, Aristotle when defended that the virtue is in a middle term or the stoics that said that there isn’t a meddle term between the certain and the mistake? And if we say that both are certain? Aristotle is certain because in a society where all have similar behavior, the middle term is the common behavior and the exceptions are very rare, but when in a society it detaches a extremity, of corruption and poverty, for example, the stoics are certain when they defend that the moral action is the opposing side of the action to be prevented. It is as a balance: when the dishes are already in equilibrium the correct action is to keep them thus, but when only one dish hangs for low, then we must put all our force in the opposing side! One another way to see the question: it is that the stoics had not given account to that moral feeling involves a graduation, as the aesthetic feeling, when we judge that a thing is more beautiful than another one. If in a fire we know that there are ten people waiting for aid, but we can only to save one person, we act morally, but not in such a way if we saved all people! Already George Moore, English philosopher, contemporary of Bertrand Russell, affirmed something unusual: the good not being able to be decomposed - because it is elementary - could not to be defined. We reject this opinion, therefore, we understand that good that we search is state (corporeal experience) that it reproduces that memory that we had in the intrauterine life that is not simple, but composed of different stimuli. Exactly the life in society also consists in a diversity series of involved elements, the people. Of another part, we agree to Moore that the good that we search is distinct of the pleasure. We remember the thesis of Peter Singer who, even so shiningly defends the life of the animals, is favorable to the euthanasia. We oppose us to any induced death, because as said Epicurus, it does not have unbearable pain. And, he adds, when it is beyond our capacity the life ceases immediately. A person that is many years old, is in a stream bed without being able to leave, still thus, could share of experiences with the people that they are in its return or, only its presence would serve of example, a stoical resignation and, probably, forgot its physical pain. Any decision favorable to the euthanasia is taken from an limited and not ample perception. Therefore, we must


always keep the life until natural death and, in this case, it will be as an old friend has very waited or an emergency exit when all the other doors already had been closed! Before de Albert Camus (in twentieth century or, as we prefer, in twenty four century after Socrates), Epicurus (first century after Sócrates) already had said that two were the problems that took the people to philosophy: the meteors and the death. But, until the last instant and with the weak breath or gasping the most of us keeps the hope of that the universe will saves us! It is opportune to explain, still, that it is not the death that the men fear, nor there is a pulsion (instinct) that it leads many to the death: we remember that in infancy we were for the first time to a burial and after closed the coffin, we ask for them to open it and they left that person to leave, as if that did not have more reason and the trick needed to finish. And the good and the evil? They are names or qualities that we attribute to the things that we perceive, things or experiences that present to us as something harmonic or disharmonous, that is, whose parts lack of proportion, been, thus, only sensations produced by our mind. Depending on the perspective under which we perceive an object or an experience we will define what occurred as good or bad.

§65. Is there moral principles? Is there a evil innate in us? Kant believed that the good action caused for a will good would be one “must”. His categorical imperative said that we would have to act in way that our action could be worthy of being practised, also, for the other people. Where is the kantian error? He did not understand that his “categorical imperative” can be applied for the good intentions or for the bad ones: a retailer of drugs, for example, would agree to Kant, about to become each of his actions an example for other people also act in a similar way. A criminal can act in the way as he would like that the others acted for him; it is enough that he has accepted violent and competitive world where he lives. The “law of strongest” could be enclosed among the principles of a person, what it includes the dispute for the survival, despite that put at risk the life of its own relatives and children. It is clear that we do not agree to the “law of strongest”, but exist people who make it as an universal principle.


What more surprise us is an important consequence: when we refute the kantian imperative, we show that does not have formally one evil inside us and that it appears from the content of the experiences, of disharmonous situations that we live and that make us to perceive and to act taking them as reference! Still on drugs: Edward Schur, according to Peter Singer, was who made the expression “crimes without victims” and is accurately this that occurs, except when children consume drugs. There is not reason for State to be between the producers and the adults consumers of drugs. We believe that this occurs because the fact that the greaters producing are not the countries of the call “first world”; let us see a fact occurred in the United States, the decade of 30 or 40 of the last century: Al Capone commanded a net of traffic of… whiskey and drugs! During the prohibition, the prices were highest, the violence was unbearable and the drink was mixed with harmful substances to the health beyond those that alcoholic beverage already have. Today, world lives a new race of the white... gold, the cocaine and other drugs. We can arrest all the drugs’ dealers, but in the next day they will appear more! And why? Therefore, unhappyly, there are many people to pay for them! And, more: for having much money involved, they buy many weapons and these generate much violence. What would be only one severe problem of health public, becomes, still, a problem of security public, threat for all people that not has any relation with drugs, that is, because of one percent of chronic users (adolescent and adult whose families do not receive affection), we put our life at , that is, of the others ninety and nine percent of citizens! The States spend millions with arrests, where half is drugs’ dealer. Why don’t we arrest, also, the consumers? These millions could not be destined the schools or remedies? In our opinion, sales of marijuana must be liberated in the same places where tobacco cigarettes are sold. Already the weighed drugs, would have to be sold in specific houses, hindering adolescent to get inside them. In first the six months it would be a monopoly of the slum quarters and, later, it would better allow to plantations of Cannabis Sativa, its improvement for the tobacco industries and, to the pharmaceutical industries, production of drugs as cocaine or, best, researches to develop superdrugs that do not have the effect of the current drugs. We want to leave


clear that we never consume nothing of these drugs; but we cannot continue seeing the incapacity and ignorance of the governments in dealing with this question, without speaking and making nothing! Two other good arguments to legalize the drugs: the beer and the wine are drugs, because the alcohol also vitiates and the alcoholic person destroys itself (liver, heart, brain and sexual life) and to others to around (familiar union and victims of drunk drivers), but just because it is part of the social life is not forbidden, because there are campaigns and some help those chronic dependent users, even so many lives are lost in this battle for convincing them to stop to drink. And although the sales of beer and wine are allowed, this did not take the societies to the destruction! It is surprising that the masculine sex (corroborated for doctors) say that the sexual capacity declines with the age: obvious, they ingest alcohol, they feed badly and they do not practise exercises. There is one another aspect: nor all the people - in truth, one very few one - in which we would include Socrates, Buddha, Christ and Kant - have predominant in their perceptions, those ample structures, responsible to produce in us a moral action or according kantian “categorical imperative” under a perspective in which we would see us not as a central element, but an element in equality of conditions, part of a universality - the human society or beyond it. It is interesting to remember David Hume who rejected the formularization of “principles”, because they would only serve so that the “cheater” - without abandoning the advantages to continue to live in society - could exceed the limits of the principles, without being discovered. Of our part, we believe that the only acceptable principle is that one that says that we do not have to provoke no disorder, despite if we the objective to establish or to reestablish an order. We prevent ourselves those tyrants who justify his action and accept as inevitable a certain number of deaths. About the implementation of the communism, Stalin, thought thus, when he ordered to fusillade who thought different of him. Karl Marx, as Engel counted, had affection for the ideas of Darwin, of the natural election, where strongest imposes on multitude. When we search a reason for the millions of people who nazism assassinated, we must search the answer in the darwinian theory of the natural selection of strongest, a nonsense,


because in the nature, one species never extinct another one. In the book “Descent of the man”, Darwin ask why the human being help the weakkest individuals, accurately as nazism thought! We could same believing that the natural selection among species was substituted by one selection inside the human species (intraespecies selection), because the fact how people are egoistic and compete to knock down the others, symbolically or physically, but as a species reallly don’t exist, what exist are individuals that adore to imitate and to surpass ones to the others, when they could create or do unknown things! By the way, I do not buy and never I will buy dogs or cats of race, because I don’t agree to an absurd belief: of that there are beings that are better of others, while I only observed deficiencies where seemed to have reached the perfection. And, from where we take this principle of the “order yes, disorder not” off? From that more raised perception degree - ample -, that we bring with us since the first moments of life. It is equivalent to the feeling of tranquillity - the “ataraxia” - of the stoics philosophers. But, this principle isn’t always valid: to react against some error involves a clear disorder, yes, as to fight againt nazism in second worl war, for example. Specially Karl Marx did not perceive that the history of the humanity is not the “history of the fight of social class”, but, the history of the fight among degrees of perceptions, degrees that are given and not chosen. The difference, for example, with that western world treats with the religious questions and how the Middle East do prove our thesis: they have distinct perceptions on same subject; it is as if they still lived there, today, in the Medieval Age, time that the occidental people already had lived between seven hundred to thousand and five hundred years before, because they have the limited mind about being tolerant and critical to its own religion and of the others. Although that it was the intellectually advanced France that was forbade, recently, the use of religious symbols in schools! Another difference of perception: Nietzsche observed that it does not have a scarcity in the nature as believed Darwin. And when Marx said that the spirit doesn’t imposes itself on material, but the opposite, he didn’t perceive that material conditions depends, yes, on our capacity of perceive ourselves and the world around us!


There is another principle: “not to kill”. And this justifies, because if somebody dies, the ample perception - in which we identify the moral feeling - loses one of its elements perceived and, this generates purely mental pain. Recently, about January of 2006, we think one third principle: that we must be made use to dialogue with the others, common act also in the wars and, understanding that in all the dialogue, we must have a desire that the parts, with, many times, distinct perspectives, look for to arrive at a middle term. When a neighbor asked for we locked the two doors of the building, we accepts only to lock one of them and only at night.

§66. How to teach to be virtuous. The difference between “is” and “must”. A difficulty raised for Plato in his “Menon” dialogue, when he speculated on which would be the origin of the virtuous man: if the virtue would be born with the person or if it is taught to him. He was arrived conclusion that none of the answers was the correct one. At that time, Socrates defended the idea that the ownership of the wisdom is the same that to possess the virtue. Later, Aristotle contested him: it is not enough to know to define a virtue, but to possess it. However, Socrates - that defended that the life not examined, did not deserve to be lived - would not be left himself to lead for separately gotten concepts - therefore, theory is the name that we give to the experience of ourselves or of the others -, but, we believe, he related to the ownership of a “ample perception” in whose maximum degree under which we would search the causes of the things and would find the feeling moral. A happy life, as well as an efficient education, must be a compound - as Plato well said, in his work “Philebo” - of water and honey, of pains and pleasures, of challenging and painful experiences, but, also, pleasant ones. But, an education will not be instructive if it inferiorize the pupils. To educate a person only with punishment, will make with that it rebels, or, then, becomes emotionally fragile, with fear of the world, incapable to search justice, what requires certain force and courage. It is necessary experimentation of pleasure, for us have some reason to fight for equality, truth, justice, whose resulted makes to appear us, well-being state. We believe that the reply to the question of Plato, can be answered better thus: we must stimulate


early since the children - and without ceasing, throughout the life - for the experiences of much affection, but, also, of challenges and restrictions - that, of course come to occur -, with a predominance of the first ones on the second experiences. For all that we wrote, we desagree with Jean-Jacques Rousseau that believed to teach virtuosity just let child live experiences, isolated from the others children, but secretly guided for his preceptor, that make events to child learn with them. We think child will become unprepared for future social relations, one Robinson Crusoe, example given for proper Rousseau. It is necessary to live strong emotional experiences to make a strong character, because it is not enough to have an ample perception (as when we live alone or distant of other); for moral action we need to have in memory strong memories that will be reproduced latter. The difference among our child and others will be that he will be more altruistic than them and this won’t be the best world, because he will be one among many egoist people, but it is task of education: to educate great human being, one diamond amon ton of sand, as a work of an artist, not a product left from a mechanical prodution. Useful to remember to the English thinker Edmund Burke who said that the evil exists because the good ones allow, even so inhabits here one exaggeration, since nobody is always good or always badly. What we have inside us they are disposals ways to perceive the things our return - and memories of good or bad experiences that will make us to act in a direction or another one. Plato taught that exactly most unjust needs to be just with its partners of crime. The following question is: how much are we good and bad, 80% and 20%, 60%-40%, etc? When a child says, angry, that it would like that its father was deceased, really wants this, at that moment, but this desire is weak to become fullfilled itself, for the most part of the cases! The scholars of the morality see difficulty in explaining how we pass of proposals that say that something “is” for “must”, relating to those reasonings (syllogisms) that they intend to lead the general conclusions related to the principles of moral action, from particular facts. We believe that the simplest way to explain this passage consists of saying that “must” is an used term to suggest or to command that others make despite with sacrifice and immediately what we already made, before, without any imposition or sacrifice; the difference depends of degree of perception:


accute in the first case and ample, in the second one. Let’s exemplify: for me, everything what is harmful to the health is dispensable. Once that we understand that to smoke is harmful to the health, the two proposals will take us to the conclusion that to smoke is dispensable. The “must” seems to be an annex, or better, an additional perception: a general law to all or a familiar one, for example, that it is forbidden to continue making that, that is, destroying itself.

§67. On the suicide. We are convinced that suicide has social origin - cultural - when we are discontent with the world or our relation with the world, when, then, we do not have a harmonious perception of our presence in the world. We see us as an element that would not have to be there. We could speculate that a suicidal can see itself or superior or inferior to the world, as wrote Aristotle: who does not live in society, or is a god, or an wild animal. But, we believe that it is secondary; what is central is the fact that the suicidal to possess a perception that he is different, is not fit in the world “this world is strange to me”, not the physical world, but all the nonsenses customs established for the people. But, how other people would understand this, if they call the suicidal cowards? Perhaps because they confuse those that really do not want to kill yourself and in the last instant give up and ask for aid. What does a suicidal feel? It is as if it lacked air, when we are with something locking in the throat, a pain that is bigger than to jump of a building or to press a trigger. Ahead of so great anguish, the suicidal spends a precious time of its life thinking how it will be able to commit suicide! The suicide is an act that whose cause more by our imagination - false the belief of that we are useless - than for our lucidity, otherwise, the simple observation of the real world would brake this desire. In this sad experience, we can observe the illusion of the “ego” that mysteriously disappears - it would be impossible that “I” decided to destroy “me”, affirming and denying itself. It does not remain doubt that it is an act of violence produced for an individual that lived predominantly disharmonous experiences - painful. Through this, suicidal only has force to destroy itself; in a bigger degree, would become a psychopath who


kills others. We do not need, however, to see the suicide with a crime, but, certainly, as Kant said, a suicidal leaves to fulfill a duty: to remain itself alive, because he is citizen of a society with his obligations in relation to it.

§68. Do the moral feeling aims to reproduce the embryonary state? When knowing the origin of the moral - in the harmony between our present perception and the fetal memory -, we would not be condemning all of us, in the absence of enough a strong cause, for hindering us - and others - to make bad actions? At a first moment, yes. It would remain to accept the customs and the laws instituted in society and punishing who to disregard them. It seem us that the only way to prevent these tragic conclusions is to prove that we are not a consciousness that remains same for all the life and, thus, we can extend this feeling of order to any portion - exactly miniaturest - of substance. During centuries we were led to believe that we were resulted of a conflict between instincts and reason. We are, today, convinced that we have, in us, three and not two instances (or natures): (a) of fetal origin, that determines all the actions. When folloied of detailed perception, it produces the instances (b) and (c), as well as, the sensations of pain and pleasure and, when under an ample degree, it produces the feelings moral and aesthetic; (b) instinctive - the first experiences learned with perceptions centered in our more immediate necessities, when, for example, one object come in direction of our eyes and we close them is can be explained thus: the presence of any object near our eyes does our eyes to close as what occurs in fetal life in presence of amniotic liquid; and, (c) cultural - the customs and positive laws. Thus, it is “instinctive” to want to dominate the world to any cost for itself; it is “fetal” to want the harmony of all the involved aspects in an experience, before thinking any action. “It is civilized” to make use - always in bigger amount - of all the technological instruments developed in society and to follow the customs. It is “fetal” to make as Socrates did, when passing ahead of luxurious merchandises in the streets of Athens, said: “how many things of


that i do not have need”, because for him the social norms already had lost the influence on his choices and, thus, he reached what he has of basic in his mind, a state of almost absolute completeness that needs almost nothing for the preservation of the life. We are convinced that only in “fetal” sphere inhabits the harmony that we will only find divided, in the spheres “instinctive” and “cultural”. It was not by chance that intuitively - Hegel believed that the absolute (God or the universe) was a synthesis of the nature and the spirit or - as we said before - of the spheres of the “instinct” and the “civilization”. For that thinker, the absolute was reached by means of the internalization of the natural sphere in the spiritual one, through a - not destructive suppression. Finally, it is surprising to find expressions as “in deep that person is good”, as if we knew that there is something of more basic inside us, the moral sense.

§69. Are we born good? Are we born good as believed Jean-Jacques Rousseau? We prefer to say that we are born neutral, complete and in the measure where we try the world, in antisymmetrical, irregular way, we tend to prefer distinct objects for distinct necessities. In part, Rousseau is correct: babies and children are good, calm and receptible to affection. However, when they are immersed in the life of the customs, become imprisoned to the most immediate, egoistic necessities, or, in the maximum, obedient, as members of a familiar, religious or professional group. Let’s exemplify: when a man passes for a woman, in general, he looks at her, respectfully; already two or more men when they pass for this same woman probably would make tricks, whistle and, in some cases and depending on the place and the hour of the day, worse things would pass for their heads! But, how to explain that a alone person does not have what only appears in group? It must have something, at least, in power, something of worse and that only later it will germinate? A radical evil? It is not necessary to appeal to this belief. The question is simple: being in the presence of a group, modifies the perception degree, making with that the people feel motivated to satisfy its more individual necessities. But, nor we could think that evil


inhabits in following the strongest stimuli, because the nature does not give us alternatives: it remains to follow such stimuli. Did not reader already repair the pleasure in the face of that he bakes a meat, without giving account of the corpse that is ahead him? However, close to the death, all of us we become saints, angels, heroes. It is evident that when to be stimulated to reflection and practical philosophical, we will have good possibility to understand causes that are for backwards of our actions and, then, to conciliate “animal” with “deity” that the world became us (or the dove and the serpent, according to Hume, despite, as others thinkers, he believed that they were innate in us), getting a balance between our egoistic necessities and altruist ones. Remembering again Rousseau: he said that the young human would must to remain themselve good as the nature made them. In part it makes sense if to observe that in the children there is a predominance of the ample perception that goes being reduced with the addition (and overload) of many useless knowledge; but, he would not must to call this condition as “natural”, because we know that the animals kill others, in natural state.

§70. “The strongers” and moral ones. For the Darwin, strongest it is what it survives and reproduces and for Nietzsche the strongest does not leave descending and, still, the religion and society dominates him and it hinders him to realize himself, because it becomes limited for the dominant morality. Where is really the true? First, which is the definition of “strong”? Let us say that it is: “one that imposes on the rest people”. And on this would have to agree Darwin, Nieztsche and, too, the nazists. Then, that Afro-American athlete who gained a competion in olimpic games - and Hitler not gave prize to him - was, also, a strong. And, also, the religions are strong, because they impose on that people that do not have or believe in moral values or who has its own values. That man that Nietzsche considered as “strong” is not really strong - except in what it makes better - but, in true, he is weak, if we observe that it is nothing than an exception and whose existence is ephemeral.


And this strong characteristic that detaches, depends, as we saw before, in the chapter on “Degrees of Perception”, of many experiences that involve a certain emotional intensity, and, for that reason, it provokes in our mind an alteration in the way to perceive the world our return. If we limit the “strongest” to the muscular capacity, then the leadership of the nations would have to be at the hands of the fighters of free fight, what is a joke! We do not have doubt that, treating to human beings, the term “strong” cannot be mentioned only to the muscular capacity, but, specially to the capacity thinking. Thus, strongs will be those that to detach themselves for one or more factors, as beauty, persuasion, wisdom, physical force applied to some objective, wealth, etc. When we say that strongest leave descending, are we relating for what? The capable to reproduce? This is obvious, if did not reproduced it would not leave descending. That most beautiful people have greater possibility to leave descending, we agree. But what kind of power do they have beyond their the own image? And in matter of reproduction is the poorest layer of population than have more children: what force do they have that moves them to put in the world beings that they will not be able to take care? Only the force of the ignorance! It is evident that we give more attention to the strongest stimuli, but this does not want to say that the external appearances are always decisive, because of ownership of a ampler perception loses the interest in the world and concentrate in the “force” of the abstract concepts (differently of the animals, that is stimulated more for the satisfaction of the hunger and the sexual desire, this last characteristic that Darwinand Freud prioritized) and under the point of view of other, that is, of the majority, we seem weak. Perhaps the challenge of the education is, as Jean-Jacques thought Rousseau, to form men in an ample sense, capable to have interesting for everything, despite superficially, what it will make them morally complete and not citizens to fill vacant, specialists in some function, incomplete beings. And this, for him, was done in the interaction with the nature, what would become us strongs and would prepare us for a world in constant change (he wrote this in eighteenth century!), different of what Darwin thought, who saw the strong as a ready element, given for the paternal and maternal descendant. By the way, the


strong under the rousseaunian point of view, being that one that can everything or, nothing needs or has few necessities and, therefore, he does not practise the evil, thesis also defended by René Descartes. This reached force is resulted of a painful learning, whose effect will not be of becoming somebody arrogant and violent, but somebody that knows to moderate the necessities of the body in favor the mind! We understood what Rousseau wanted to say when we were run over by a motorbicycle: the impact provoked in our arm a swell of size of an egg in the local impact, what makes our imagination have induced us to believe that the bone is broken, but did not have reason to see in that a tragedy; it wasn’t the swell that ached, but the imagination of a possible effect, extended beyond what it was real and, thus, through we start to see the body not as center of our life, but a small part. And this is the force that we conquer: the wisdom and not a material force! By the way, we order the motorcyclist go away, because it would not make sense punish him or to conduce him to a law process; nothing of this it would educate him, except, as Rousseau suggests, our example to go alone to the hospital to examine the arm, although the pain! I gave account that i am Emilio of Rousseau, even so i want to be the superman of Nietzsche, perhaps one is the continuation of the other! Another example: we believe that we must, sporadically, not to do a meal (a short abstinence of food), therefore, thus, when feeling the empty stomach, we will understand the necessity that we feel, the hunger, and how much it must satisfy it without excesses, differently of most of the people who eat in excess, without giving account that the body will not digest completely the meal!

§71. The morality in the animals and our care about them. And the mineralism. Certain time occurred that we need to take a shoe off the mouth of the dog. It was, then, a fierce battle. We had that to place the dog on a table to remove more easily the object of its mouth. Something unexpected occurred: our cat came help us: it set on the two back legs and started, with one of them, to beat in the dog! Thus, if we accept definition of moral as a feeling that appears and aims to harmonize the


behavior of the beings, we can affirm that the intervention of the cat nothing more was than a moral action. But, why do we distinguish the domestic animals from the savages? will can be possible have morality among them, inside their species? Perhaps yes and, in this case, we had to call ethics, not moral. Aristotle thought like us: he believed that animals have costums, too. But, hardly between species. Now, when the animals are domesticated, we will observe moral acts - before only attributed to human being. It is not rare to see a cat suckling a dog or vice versa. Is these world chaotic when the proper nature is modified so drastically? Not, simply, because in the life with human people, the animals do not need to fight for their life and - because of this - to have a very acute perception! It comes growing the movement of defense of the others animals, traditionally calls of “inferiors”. This movement leads in such a way to the sprouting of the vegetarianism, how much to the prohibition of the use of animals in scientific experiences. This because does not have justification to limit the morality to the human species, because there is not a human species and, also, because all being who possesss memory has a internalized in its mind a moral sense! What do differs us from the other animals and vegetables in? Plato already had perceived, second Diogenes Laertius tells in “Life of eminent philosophers”, that also the animals perceive form of the similarity, what it would make they live in group. Thus, the animals have the abstraction capacity, a primitive “us”. Primitive, because it seems that its capacity of organizing do not advance - as in us, “human beings” - until the limit to modify the nature, constructing cities and specializing themselves in tasks. We had thought about the possibility of that the perception in the animals functioned as an umbrella that is opened until a limit without being totally. But, if this was truth, would not observe - as frequently we observe - moral acts, when, for example, a dog defends its owner, nor they would be worried in constructing its nests in geometrical form. Or when our cat did pronounce a sigh when we said that it would not go to leave in a certain night or, still, when it touched in the keys that were in the door, as it knew that with it that the door opens. In any way, we believe as acceptable the thesis that it starts to become strong in Biology and, yet, of the common sense of that the


animals have an intelligence, but with a infantile mental age and that they do not very exceed this condition. We believe that it is not opposed to our thesis of the perception degrees, that there are knowledges that was discovered for Neurology on the most primitive layers of the brain that would be involved in acts called instinctive. This would prove what we saw saying: such layers would give us and also to the animals, an limited vision of the world our return and would determine “egoist” acts, as the satisfaction of our physiological necessities. In return to the initial question: we remember that we realized two attempts to become vegetarians. In the first one, the new diet lasted one year. In second, we are until today, since year 2002. In both periods, the cause of the change of alimentary habit inhabited in the reading of stories of maltreatment of the animals that emotioned us – it is like to concentration camps of nazism. Another reason, not less important, is related to the extreme expense in grains, water and space and the damages on nature, as extreme emission of carbonic dioxid in the criation of millions of cows. But, if the movement of the vegetarians seems to recognize that all the livings creatures must be respected, rejecting that we feed us with oxen, swines and chickens, still thus, why would have to kill the plants? Because are not they animal? Because do they not have consciousness? Who can prove that they do not have it? Thus, they would remain minerals, as only acceptable food source. It does not seem that a rock has consciousness, in the sense that we attribute the capacity to perceive the world its return. But we know of researches with plants and their reactions when displayed the fire, for example, they react to the imminence to be burnt, same before being it really. We are not speaking, is necessary that we distinguishes, of those plants that close its leves after the touch of a finger, because this reaction depends on a external pressure. Perhaps it has not taken much time for happening an alteration in the way to see this question and that world starts to produce synthetic proteins from minerals. We read an article on the artificially production of aminoacids; however, it seems that its consumption is useless to form muscles. Someone could to say that it does not have difference between the protein that comes from soy of that it


comes from minerals, except that the last one will be more expensive. But, we are not searching difference in the form, but in moral aspects! It can be one excess for those that are accustomed to eat extreme amounts of meat and they do not see enough reason to open hand of this pleasure. It is truth. They had not found reason to leave to make this, as to have a good health, to reduce bad fat in the blood and to diminish the weight, because meat causes cancer and makes us to swell. Perhaps if they visited a slaughter house, they changed its alimentary habit. Anna Kingsford wrote that she did not understand how we can serving dead bodies for our friends, educated and refined people. In 2006, we read in the Internet a text of John McCarthy and, we believe that we must attribute the expression “mineralism” to him, even so we thought to be its inventor. John believes that people must substitute vegetal foods for minerals, but as until that moment was not produced mineral foods thus, he tells that some people had died for trying to eat only salt! He suggests, also, two moral principles: (1) to eat native fruits and to plant its seeds and (2) to eat animals that eat plants without seeds, as punishment for them, what seems us very strange, since that is something natural for the animals! In a site in Internet, we read something yet more stranger: people who define as “mineralians” say to be possible to eat glycerin! Recently, we try to organize a diet based on minerals: we start to ingest synthetic vitamins (, B1, B2, B3, B12, B5, B6, C, D3, and, K) and minerals (calcium, magnesium, zinc, iron, manganese, copper, molybdenum, chromium, silicon, iodine, boron, selenium, most satisfy 100% of the daily necessity), everything congregated in an only pill, aiming at to substitute the vegetable consumption, especially those that violently is pulled out of the soil, but we did feel a sensation that is between the headache and a vertigo and we abandon those pills. We remember, too, our dificult to explain my family that i am not kill myself with those pills and i had good intention. And, most important, to feed just with pills can be only a provisory feeding, because even so they are functional to take the nutrients until the cells of the body, however they have horrible taste, they are not aesthetically appreciable and they finish with the meals that the beyond the nutrition function, also is a social moment where the people find themselves. Perhaps one day we can eat a


mineralist food that is very seemed to the Japanese one (beautiful and healthful, except there is a excess of soy sauce that has much sodium), that have solid, liquid and like-paste food and can also use hashi, rods of bamboo, used in place of the knife and yoke, that, for them, remember weapons. About protein and carbohidrato, we prefer the vegetable sources: we are buying protein extracted from soy (50g or one cup of tea satisfies about 52% of the daily necessities). Beyond that we buy two other products: (a) “Taffman E”, made up of vitamins, B1, B2, B6, B12 (not found in plants in enough amount), and, nicotinamida and pantotenato of calcium, but that backwards in the composition products as honey of bee, guaraná, grass-candy, cravo-of -indian, ginger and cinnamon; (b) seeds of Quinoa (From Bolivia) rich in vitamins, iron and others minerals; (c) we do not forget the we are 70% water, a mineral! By the way, we suggest a water’s diet, always that we feel hungry for candies or beverages: we must to drink three or four cups of water for our desire to be extincted. It is useful, too, because our body needs water! But, we do not give up: we will order letters to the government, the universities and the companies to produce foods from Co2 of the atmosphere. A product that we desire to try is the nitric oxide, a gas that widens the arteries allowing that more nutrient they arrive until the cells! On the health: I do not consult doctors frequently, because I believe that most of the specialists nothing discovered alone, only memorized techniques that another person discovered. All sciences nothing more are that a bedspread of remnants, where each one of them is a theory that an individual (more curious and courageous) discovered and taught to the others. Let us see some of its practical: Why to give points if we can cauterize a wound? Certain time a veterinary doctor when removing a tumor of my dog, that had breached, made it to lose much blood, what it took it to the loss of defenses and the death. And if she had cauterized the part of the skin that bound the tumor (external) to the body, despite it has left of the cancer remained there inside, it still could live a little more, even so already had 17 years! The educational system very specialized makes them to have fear or shame to dialogue! My critical extends to all the specialists: will they be experts really of some thing? Or everything what do they know had taken loaned by some illuminated genius, that is,


of a dedicated generalist? Of this follows another nonsense: the monopoly of the specialists for discoveries that had not been made by them and that must be available for all people. Yet, why to pay for a knowledge learned in one or two lessons, what frequently happens in universities, temples of divine windom, as said Hegel or temple of parrots? Jean-Jacques Rousseau was certain when criticizing the medicine, because he saw in it a element that become individuals weak, treating the patients as children and pardoning their excesses or lacks: to ive the life with no rules, because your body destroyed they will always have a treatment to save them! But, astonish the reader, we read in a book of Bioethics that the doctor can’t have own ideas! It must “apply the particular cases, the laws discovered for other people”! How nonsense world!


§72. the origin of the societies. The main cause of the origin of the life in society inhabits in we recognize ourselves as equal. Being equal, there sin’t any justification to live distant. Except if the material resources will be scarce, then, we will start to think about our more


immediate necessities. Now, is necessary that we explain that the human form appears because our perception is limited and ahead of external objects we perceive under certain degrees of detail its limits. If someone ask us how are occurring the subatomic relations, for example, we will not have conditions - without instruments to answer. But, it is necessary to add, there is, also here, a mental pain that appears when beings so similar each other find physics or culturally separated.

§73. The origin of the governments and the leaders. Is there a monopoly of the force? How do we explain the origin of the States? Different of the origin of the societies. Hegel, in our agreement, was correct to identify an importance - for him, gigantic – of what he called “souls of the world”, leaderships that transform the world its return and that they lead the people for social changes. Thus if they were not these leaderships the human societies would remain passive ahead of attacks of other ones. What it will make with that the attacked societies leave this sad condition is the vision one or more leaders. Why? Because there are people that learn how other people behavior and use this knowledge to manipulate them or to free them. The leaders are, thus, as cement that keeps the united bricks, forming a strong work: the country. Inside of certain limits, Hobbes was certain when he observed a central paper of the sovereign linking all citzens. However, the societies exist before the States. But, to say that the States appear of a contract seems to go beyond the limits, as well as, to believe that from the elaboration of the laws will arise moral or imoral acts, good and evil. Also was Hobbes who defended the thesis of that the sovereign never can be died. Let us agree, only in primitive societies, it could believe that their problems finish when they cut heads. But, we believe that it is possible to take the power the sovereign off in the measure that he loses his power to keep the community congregated, once that the cause that made the union - his capacity of persuasion does not exist more or is too much weakened. Does make sense the thesis of Max Weber (for us, only one disciple of Maquiavel) that the State has monopoly of the use of the force, so repeated by many,


that we find that its veracity was unquestioned? Well, if the State need to use a force to impose itself is because what it established goes against what the society waited of it, or in relation to all society or on some individuals. The error of this thesis is to see the State as something distinct of the society. We are the State. When is necessary to arrest somebody, for example, this would have to be understood as the defense of the own life of that person that committed an immoral or illegal act and of the others, innocent people. Here is opportune remember Jean-Jacques Rousseau: ... the force does not need any law to be imposed! That is, force is contrary to State and law. A last thing: we would like to see State not to use letal weapons indiscriminately as what occurs today, but replace them for, for example, tranquilizers darts.

§74. On the ascension and the decline of the nations. Saint Augustin wrote the “City of God” to refute critical to the Catholic Church: of being the causer of the decline of the Roman Empire. His reply consisted of saying that the Romans had dedicated to cults to others deuses and, still, that they had been led by the ambition and by concupiscence, the love to the physical pleasures. We could speculate, also, that if the governing have a - predominant - ample perception, they will have a behavior excessively passive, what it would provoke economic and politics consequences for a nation, as the roman, that needed to impose itself on the others ones to keep its empire. However, it must not have been this the cause of the decay of Rome, nor, as believed Saint Augustin, a excess of concupiscence, but, yes, in our opinion, the irascibility; it is that produces the egoism. We remember that when we were president of the Alumni Society at High School, we had commited excesses, we were very autocratic leader, but, adolescence is the right age where we can make a mistakes, not in the adult life. Since there we are satisfied with our experience with the power and we don’t desire it more! That is to come to maturity! We don’t see it in the most part of politicians and in of the Brazilian people (we are at the beginning of century XXI); in other countries if one politician makes something illegal or immoral, he knows that nobody more goes to vote in him, remaining, thus, that he renounces or comet suicide!


Will Durant has a phrase that synthecizes the passage of life of the nations: “they are born stoics and die epicurists”. Except for the exaggerated interpretation of the school of Epicurus – for whom happy consisted in a simple life in the company of his friends -, we understand that what Durant wanted to say was that the decay of a nation is produced from the preference in satisfying its more immediate necessities – concupiscence or irascibility - in an extreme way. To have grown in an environment, as Plato would said, full of honey, but with little water, excesses of pleasure and absence of difficulties and rules. The same Durant told a thesis of a very interesting biologist that, unfortunately we do not remember the name, but that is in his book “Mansion of Philosophy”: from observation of bacteria, it it established a law that understood to be universally valid, which is of that the genetic load of the peoples gradually goes weakening and the nations that characterize for creativity and enterprising spirit is those that had received genetic influxes from other peoples. However, we do not agree that creativity can genetically transmitted, but is clear that the nations that had reached a standard of living tend to want to only keep it and diminish its spirit of competition. More adjusted is to think that the transmission occurs through the culture. Here, it is opportune to remember the research of Piaget with a species of clams - Limnae stagnalis: the experience consisted of taking the clams off with long shape of a calm lake and putting them in one of agitated waters where they had taken the rounded form as protection. Later, they had been returned to calm waters and was observed that its descendants had kept the rounded form of the previous generation without any influence of the genetics or of environment, but…. surprise, in our opinion, from influence of the culture! All the history of the domination of the European peoples on the Asians, the center and South American and, also, Africans, was caused not by genetic superiority, but, only for the fact that as they lived in a cold climate - that it represented the constant risk of death and restricted the pleasant experiences to a minimum -, they had to choose work much and together, thinking beyond of their individual necessities. Of another part, peoples who had lived and yet live in tropical climates don’t had and have great necessity to transform the nature its return. That is


enough, we think, to explain the cultural differences. What it occurs, today, is that human being having created a new habitat distinct of the original - the nature -, and an instantaneous communication of a point to another of the planet, it remains that each family, each society, watches over for passing to the descendants a perception of world ampler than a individual one.

§75. Constitution or declaration of the human rights? It always called our attention the fact that if only one law was not enough to command the social life, no one more, nor many ones would be enough. We find, years later, in Epicurus - Greek philosopher of century II B.D. -, similar argument, but related to the necessities of the individual life: “to whom few is not enough, nothing is enough”. Why would not have to be enough the existence only of the Constitution, the “Magna Carta”? Or, maybe, of only one law: “respect each other”! If in one side, we believe that only the ownership of the feeling of order (fetal completeness) would be enough for the majority of the people to live in peace and to progress in society, harmoniously, on the other hand, there are a minority of people that, for not having reached that feeling, would make a bad use of a total absence of written laws. It remains, therefore, that executive power can fix rules - not laws - and that keep the law codes in validity even so allowing that the Supreme Federal Court can decide contrarilly and same to modify the law! Each people has its set of rules, as the Hebrews who had received from Moses ten commandments. If an already limited number is fulfilled, let’s imagine what it would occur if they were thousand of orders. Maimonides, Jewish thinker, of century II A.D., in his work “Guide of the perplexes”, expose hundreds of orders, not only ten, as, for example, to forbid that the men use feminine clothes! We do not see reasons that justify a text too much long, if we can enumerate general rules in a summarized and complete list, such as: (1) the rights to the one worthy human life, extended, also, to other species; (2) to command the structure of the State, in the three powers, detailing the rights and duties, as well as, the requirements so that the citizens can be elect and to vote;


(3) to determine the attributions of each one and its instances federal, state and municipal, as well as, the budgetary division, a system of register of private companies and simplified payment of tributes - with a sole tax, preferential one that uses computer science, as what there is Brazil, even so it is one among sixty tributes! And, also, central questions as the one that restricts the new cities, limiting only those that can with respectives taxes keep its administrative structures! We could speculate, also, if the would not be enough to adopt “Universal Declaration of Human rights” as Constitution. Declaration this that is product of the deepest feeling in us, the feeling of order, exempt declaration of any natural and cultural particularity, without, however, to curtail them or impede them. We have seen the increasing search for making to take advantage a feeling of humanity on the laws of the countries, as the international courts who judge the “crimes of war”, genocide of peoples or disrespect on ethnic differences. And this because the increasing fortification of the belief - despite unconscious - of that an internal moral feeling surpasses any formal law, as the sovereignty of the governor to make what he want to do. Nor we see reason for defending that the central task of a Supreme Court is to guarantee that the laws do not confront the principles of the Constitution of a country, therefore, in general, they protect stretches put there usefulll just for the opportunists. By the way, the legal system says that all legal process must follow a series of norms and if one of them not to fulfill the process must be annulled, because it would violate the Constitution. However, the Constitution orders that the minimum wage has a value that it offers to the worker a worthy life, but the judiciary does not order to increase its value! What we wait that occurs with all the international law is that it does not have to zeal for the fulfilment of the law and, yes, for the internal sense of morality. Of what we said before, does not mean that the Organization of the United Nations is the adjusted agency to decide on the world-wide problems, because the diplomats always to defend in first place the interests of its respective nations. It is necessary that moral people with ample perception and moral experiences in favor to those people that need more and in favor of world peace and progress, occupy the chairs of the “ONU”. Of the the opposite, we will watch horrified the acts as the economic


sanction against the Iraqian poor people, taking the access off to foods and remedies, even because the objective is to dismiss its dictator.

§76. Most of us prefer a bad government than its absence. It is interesting to evidence that, in general, we prefer a bad government than absence of it. When only we has evidence of corruption or incapacity to govern is that the people will leave to the streets to demand that the government leaves the power. Why? Because our mental physiology prefers repetitive perceptions than chaotic ones. And this occurs therefore, even so both experiences produce pain in the mind, the pain of the repetition are minor than that of the desorder. Such preference, evidently, will only be occur if we will not have the possibility to choose a good government.

§77. The death penalty. And self defense. For us, Beccaria finished shiningly with any doubt on this question. Its reply is a vehement “not”. He wrote in the work “Of the delicts and the penalties” (§III) that we yield only one part of our freedom, sufficient for the life in society. Beyond this portion, there is injustice. Beccaria with wisdom remembered that the laws are born from conventions of the passion of a minority. The posterior notion of the philosophers Rousseau, Kant and Hegel, of a general will that elaborates the laws, does not pass of “a romantic” vision, typical of their time, because all action involves some passion. More ahead, Beccaria locks up the question asking if it makes sense that, to prevent that the citizens commit murders that the proper State commands the death? A last possibility of refutation was presented by Kant and ratified by Hegel: to believe that all of us share of a rational will present in the human beings, such notion would legitimize the laws and, also, the capital punishment, authorizing the punishment of those that to disregard the laws. Still more: they, as well as, Hobbes, appeal to the Bible to justify that it can kill, since that the law command, that is, the rational will command as God commanded in the Old Testament. But, what is this reason that we did discover not to be free? It is a arrangment of neurons that, in an


ample perspective, will allow us to see the world as a whole harmonic, not having space for death decrees, of one of its indispensable elements, as colors of a picture. However, it is important not to forget that the proper Beccaria accepted (Of the delicts...: XVI) an exception which if could condemn somebody with the death: if the criminal action to threaten the freedom of the nation. As the people who could put at risk the freedom of all a nation they are in small number, the death penalty would be, thus, applied in very rares cases and not spread to the all crime of murder, or same, to other crimes, as we see in many nations. We can’t forget, also, that the death of someone is allowed mostly of the laws, but only in the cases of self defense.

§78. Why the anarquism is a lost fight. Will the anarchic doctrine reach triumph one day on the organizations politics, religious and economic? Not, maybe, it will extend the people conscience about not to exaggerate the construction of a swelled State with a number of institutions and functions beyond those necessary ones and, thus, preventing the asphyxia of the individual! Why won’t never there a society without institutions? Because the human physiology has aversion to the desorder to a social life in which is absent of any rules! The anarchism alone will conquer the world in an only way: extinguishing the human species! What frankly… it would be to take excessively far its utopia! And if were we substituted by another species? Negative. Any being with brain also will have aversion to the desorder, therefore, as already we speak previously, it hinders us to recognize any object our return!

§79. Revision of the term “Democracy”. The scholars. And about the equality. When the last vote is counted, the politicians, in general, leaves to hear the people with the attention degree under which they heard them before. It does not remain doubt that the position demands a concentration, an introspection, but the task is not private, but public. Beyond forgetting the demands of those did choose them, the politicians are unaware of more serious something, when become


governing: that a democratic government must be a “government of all”, where exactly the minority must have participation, at least, in its proportional participation in the last election. We must rethink the democracy as a government whose existence and maintenance depend on one continued approval of all the citizens. In this form of government it is only possible to carry through the internal feeling of order, that perceives all the individuals as necessary parties of the social life. By the way, the democracy never could have been definite as “government of the majority”, because if during decades the minority to lose the elections and will not have possibility to participate of the governmental decisions, then under its point of view, this government is a dictatorship. We discover, later, the surprising phrase of Edmund Burke, in his “Reflections on the Revolution in France” (1790): “In the Democracy, the majority is capable to exert cruelest of the oppressions on the minority”! By the way, for us, dictatorship is synonymous of “civil absolutist monarchy” and unacceptable for whom say to be republican. One another difficult question to understand: how democratical would live in the heaven if the government there is a monarchic? Why government does not belong to the scholars? First because they do not have a perception with enough acuity to the details of the life in society and how to convince the people to the adequate ends. In second place, we disagree with the platonic belief of that the people does not know what they need and that it would fit better to the scholars to decide. For living next to the real problems of its city, the people knows what it must or not be priority and, the specialists, in general, only know the solutions techniques. This does not mean that the thinkers must not have voice: the present book has this intention, to offer arguments that improve the relations among the people and among the powers of Democracy. And, mainly, to make them to think on this. And, from where did we take this belief that we are equal each other? First, of the feeling of order folloied of an ample perception that includes to all of us as part of a same society, untill exactly of a universe, contemplated as an only being. Second, the equality feeling is born from observation that “in the average we are all equal”,


because if some are very good in an activity, others are good in others ones – a good philosopher can to teach people to see question under ample point of view, whereas a expert in electronics can decide questions that they demand a very detailed degree of perception - and, thus, the life in society would make possible the “interchange” among these different degrees of perception that predominate differently in us. And, third, we recognize as possessing of a human form understood - illusorilly - as common to all. And the optional vote? Is there an argument in favor of it? Is the voting place far from its house? When we saw that in the United States the majority of the people don’t vote, we pay attention about the big shame that the biggest democratic nation of the world suffers in front of the others peoples and we saw this as a good reason for the vote is obligator. There are a few things that must be obligator: (1) not to kill, (2) infantile vaccination, (3) taxes and (4) to vote.

§80. The advantage of the three powers of a republic. We know that our percipient structure has, in short, three degrees (even so, in reality, it deals with a continuous line): an individualistic, a group - particular – and an altruist – universal vision. We believe that in the sphere of the life politics these levels, also, are reproduced. Hegel said that the monarch would be universal - an evident nonsense, because he is only one person and, we adds, too, in the natural world the bee queen limits its care of only of its respective beehive. Someone could object that occured a series of historical examples of that the monarchies had pacified peoples in civil wars and, because this, the sovereign seems to have a universal character. In any way, they restricted to its interests and of the ones of the people. Hegel said, also, that the Executive Power would be particular view, other error, because it is not more than an individual and, saves rare exceptions, deeply egoistic. It is opportune to remember Tocqueville, that in his visit to the United States (in nineteenth century), surprised himself that in that democracy was delegated an extreme power to the president and that finishes for stimulating egoistic people to search that position of prominence.


And, still, he said that the Legislative is the individual view – what is, tôo, na nonsense, because all legislative decisions aren’t individuals, but particular ones, a place where interests are localized, as of agriculturists, bankers, etc, and is the vote of majority that imposes on the rest groups. About this last power we need to say one thing more: it is necessary to stablish a equal number of vacancies for each group and that each political party does a (open or closed) list with its candidates for not prevail, for example, as it occurs today in world democracies, lawyers and businessmen, because the first ones will think legally (formally, without give attention to contents, an absurd) and the second ones will think about their own investiments. Another important element is to know from where a congressman came, in stead of a dispersed votation, without representing anyone and free to do what he desire. It seems that we are looking desperately for ways to prevent the corruption of the politicians, as to choose parliamentarism instead of the presidentialism or, then, to index the wages of the congressmen to the minimum wage that the workers receive, for example. But of all the ways, only one seems efficient: to allow that one politician occupies only once one same position, thus extinguishing the professional politician and, with him, the madness to take the way as one end in itself! They will can to say that good politicians will be hindered of reelecting. However, are only they alone good enough or they are so rare that don’t exist others like them? One prove that the re-election is bad for a democracy can be seen in the Executive Power: at least, president, governors and mayors, despite without intention, finish using their position for their own candidacy, a disharmonous situation for the other candidates. And, in the maximum, some can use with intention, buying, with public money, support for the re-election.

§81. The master and the slave and the degrees of the perception. Example used for Hegel (and, before him, for Jean-Jacques Rousseau) to show the process of sprouting or discovery of the self consciousness or conscience of yourself, incurred, however, in a serious error, because he confused the structure of the perception with consciousness. To explain why we treat the other people as


objects - as Aristotle who, in his work “Politics”, wrote that slaves was alive tools -, is enough that we understand that, in these cases, there is inside our minds the predominance of a perception oriented to our more immediate necessities, physiological ones. Just when between Master and the slave happens a recognition of weaknesses of master or the manifestation of power of slave is that the relation will be perceived as different and they will extend their way to perceive the world around, looking for to include what, before, it met separated, when, then, they will recognize that master needs same or until more of slave than the slave does of other! The example of Hegel is useful, especially, to extinguish unjustified social differences, but useless to explain “self consciousness”, because: (1°) we only know yourself externally, for more surprising than this can seem, (2°) we believe that the “consciousness” is only one focal point (or perhaps, more than one), where the sensations are perceived and, (3°) the perception is physical process, because it requires emotional envolvement for the alteration of its degrees and it seems more with what Kant called “understanding” than “consciousness”. Something similar occurs in the thesis, also, hegelian one that the marriage is an spiritual union: we only can approaching us to the idea of what it is to be other. How can a man understand the penis penetration under the feminine point of view? Or hearing of her impressions or for analogy, when we did try, for example, in an ear examination, the doctor puts inside of our hear a instrument for extracting the wax excess. The nature is really imperfect: the union between man and woman alone would accomplish if both were physically and definitively united and they became only one being, joining memories and internal organs!

§82. The cooperativism as third way. And twenty hours per week! We believe to be it the third way so looked by intellectuals in the end of twntieth century, between the capitalism and the socialism, because through it, becomes all as participant proprietors and, at the same time, workers, without the conflicts that did exist when two functions were in distinct people. But, if the capacity of entreprising is not awaked equally in all of us, the State must stimulates the association of the


people, under the supervision of managers, for that, together, they can have the same enterprising capacity - ideas, projects, tools, financial resources, ability to produce, to negotiate, to motivate the team, etc - that, sometimes, we observe in only person and that, to the first sight, seem to us to be one natural gift, but is an ample degree of perception, not really biggest one, but enough to perceive oportunities to make money that others do not. There isn’t nothing more unjust that the people who have three jobs speak on how much the unemployment is serious problem: why they do not open hand of one of the jobs for another person? If they worked less, other people could work. Therefore, we defend that we must to work just twenty hours per week, also, for the people can live more for themselves: do we live to work or do we work to live? There is a clear disharmony when the people work five days and rest two and when the eight hours of leisure are squeezed among the moments where we wake up, the hour of the lunch and a little before we sleeping!

§83. The wars as infantile or youthful act. And the art of the peace. The wars occur at the moments where the feeling of to belong to a humanity was overlapped by the individual (physical) necessities, of power, of wealth, etc. Seem us the correct our conclusion that the wars are caused by memories - or percipient structures - appeared still in infancy, when the children in its first years develop the curiosity for destroying what is aroud them, for the curiosity to know the elements that compose the objects that they manipulate, beyond that that is time in which they only think about its immediate necessities, what is not missed. Better it would be to say that wars are youthful acts, because is in the adolescence that, as Rousseau said well, appears the force capable to take the individualistic desires ahead; a child, said him, “only thinks about what to eat”! We have, however, to differentiate the generals who watch over for the security of a nation from those butchers who had learned to like blood; but, evidently, the difference is clear. The biggest nonsense is that if we imagine the planet as an orange, we will see that just only in its rind exists organic beings and exactly thus the few that exist fight among themselves!


Seem us clear that there was a previous time where the concupiscence and irascibility were predominant. What we see today is a sprouting, still incipient, of the intelective part or, precisely, of the feeling of order that exceeds the limits of our culture and language and extends for the whole world and all the species. While we do not eradicate the wars, we must search ways to diminish and to prevent them. We do not have doubt that the commerce is the most easy way to this, but to make possible the progress, too. It is not treated, however, any form to make commerce, but, obviously, one that watches over for the balance of profits between the parts. Of the the opposite, it will only incite the hatred of a nation for the other. But, even so, we do not reject this way to fortify common bows, it seems - today – that such way will stimulate the desire for the wealth, as if it was an end in itself! There are, still, others ways to establish cooperation among nations, that bring in themselves a much more ample perspective: (1) scientific and cultural cooperation and, (2) the stimulation of the migration between the nations. These are much more strong and more lasting bows. Finally, it has to be distinguished the importance of the pacifist movements: they are not only successful when they make the governments to stop to fight. They are successful, also, when their manifestations reduce the level of aggression of a government on the territory of another one. When we saw that a group called “human shields” would go to Iraqi as an obstacle to North America invasion, appear us the a idea of that it would have more success if famous people were part of it, as singers, artists, writers, religious, etc, not anonymous people.


The present chapter resulted of a choice between two alternatives: (1) to accept the system of laws without questioning its beddings and its defects, accepting it as something permanent in our lives, therefore, as well as, we accept a bad government because we have aversion to the absence of government - and to


the social chaos that elapses of this - also we mus prefer slow, inefficient and not rare unjust legal system under which we live; (2) to recognize that we arrive at a situation where the legal system presents more defects than advantages, compromising a happy life that is the basic desire of the citizens, a system in which we can perceive clearly the abissal difference between the legal and the moral. To choose the second alternative, however, does not mean to prefer the absence of rules, but to consider a way to apply what is of deeper in each one of us: the order feeling, as we said before, another name for the moral feeling when applied to the interpersonal relations. In sixth century B.D., the Chinese philosopher Lao Tze already had said that “the intellectual is a danger for the state for the fact to want to legislate above all and prescribing about everything; his idea is to construct a geometric society, not perceiving that this geometrization destroys the freedom and the vigor of the social components… one big plague for the people” (Durant, Will: History of the civilization, Part I, p.183-84). Montesquieu in his work “the spirit of the laws” (chapter IV) wrote that “many things govern the men: the climate, the religion, the laws, the principles of the government, the example of the passed things, the customs, the styles, resulting of this the formation of a general spirit”. Why then must we give predominant importance to the written laws and not more to the deeply taken root feelings inside of our minds? The same thinker (Book 19, Chapter. V) recognizes that if existed a nation “with a social temperament, a sincerity in the heart, a joy in the life, we do not must to embarrass it with laws”. Beccaria wrote (“Of the delicts and the penalties”: §VII) that when the laws are good they hinder abuses; but, also, that “is enough the simple common sense: one guide less deceptive” to establish justice. But, as we display until here, the “reason” is not more than an internal feeling that appears when we are ahead of a social harmony or we desire one.

§84. The legal system is potentially infinite.


Aristotle believed, as almost all the greek thinkers, that the infinite is an imperfect characteristic for that was attributed to the universe or to a God. For him, “infinite” denotes what, by its own definition, “can not be crossed”. One of the most definitively proof of this, consists of the proliferation of the laws that tend to reach a always increasing number in the direction to become the legal system potentially infinite. Potentially, because always it will be possible to add a new law, detailing the previous law or adding a new law among the existing ones. One another example of that the search of the infinite does not characterize the essence of the life and the universe: the cancer, where the modified cells have the potential to grow infinitely, aiming at only its existence and not of all organism in which they are part, these cells are a threat, an abnormal and unacceptable situation that puts on living being at risk. The system of justice characterized through laws and codes does not lead to a harmony among the individuals, but to a disharmony, because it will always have a detail that was not foreseen and, it will see as a chance to the opportunists while it will represent one loss for the remain of the individuals. Without saying in the new philosophical reflections and scientific discoveries that bring to the quarrel, in a rhythm each time bigger, a significative number of new questions that they will need legislation. Examples as, crimes in the Internet, the clonning process, etc, produce discomfort in the societies, for having that to wait for a code or a new law, knowing that for a long period the people will be forsaken. A judicial system that detaches the moral feeling - perpetual, objective, valid in any part of the universe - and not the temporary written laws -, is, without doubt, the more preparated to face the changes that appear without acknowledgment.

§85. On the natural law. Another question that is pertinent is asking us if are there natural laws? Piaget called, prejudicedly, the natural law of “supernatural one”. Giorgio del Vecchio wrote that “the positive law nothing more is that the accomplishment of the natural law” (ARRUDA, Robert. Introduction to the Science of the Right. page 420). We agree to him. But, as we must to use correct terminologies, we want to leave clear that for


“natural law” we want to presently denote simply a feeling that the humanity - and, also, the remain of the beings and objects of the universe - are seen or in a next future as elements of a harmonic picture. We do not see reason because to understand the natural law as laws that the reason discovers for itself, but, yes, a pleasure feeling that can appear when our perception contemplates the world its return. Already Kelsen in his “General Theory of law and State” (p.18), in turn, wrote that “in case that we could have knowledge of the absolutely joust order..., the Positive law would be superfluous, or better, unprovided of sense”. But, it is exactly this what, in this book, we want to show: a thesis that points with respect to the existence of an order sense - internal in us -, capable and enough of, by itself, approving the jousts actions and disapproving unjust one and, thus, to fulfill the prophecy that Kelsen waited not to see fulfilled! It is terrible that Jean Louis Bergel and Kelsen - and before them, Hegel - have distinguished Right from Morality and, still, have given to extreme importance to the customs, inverting all the order of the truth. It wrote Bergel, in the “General Theory of Law”, (page 49) that the Right and the Moral “pursue different ends”: in the first one, it searchs a “socially organized sanction”, while the second one, the sanctions are in the “consciousness of the individual”. It does not see the thinker that is the order feeling - internal in our minds that originates the feeling of morality and from it, the customs and, later, the laws. Kelsen, to the similarity of Bergel, also affirms the distinction between Moral and Right. First, he recognizes the incompetence of the right “to answer if each law is unjust or joust or in what consists the essential element of justice”. Later, he denies the existence of an unjust order, because the happiness of a person always will enter in conflict with the other people’s hapiness. We do not know why Kelsen defined the happiness as the individual desires, perhaps because he is unaware to recognize the moral sense that we bring inside us.

§86. The law of the divorce made weak the marriage and the family. Nothing is so clear to us the fact that the origin of the violence in the cities was caused because the destruction of the families and that the main cause of this social


tragedy is found in the law of the divorce. Been born with the objective to harmonize conjugal relations and, also, to legalize the children of relations made out of the marriage. As if the marriage existed only for two people, thesis that Saint Augustin was the first thinker to oppose to it. The divorce authorizes the destruction of an indispensable institution for the formation of the character of the children. It is not by chance that the papers of the father and the mother had existed for thousand of years: it must to have a balance between affection and obedience. Functions that can’t be accumulated by only one of them: how a son will obey a mother whom need always to yield for not to lose the guard of the son? Or to a father who see children few times a month! By the way, there a thing that left intellectual and left political does not realize, that is, that population control should be an instrument of progressive planners, because when there is a small population, there is less competition for job vacancies and thus lower demand for labor will result in more deals favorable and higher wages! Neither we can attribute the violence to the poverty, because when the agricultural area was more populous than the cities, the people lived precariously, without basic sanitation, without treated water and malnourished, but there wasn’t much violence. There are frequent cases of adolescents that have the satisfied basic necessities, but do not have the affection and the control of its parents. The education of the children is so important that future parents would must to do Psychotechnical Examination, similar what is required to drive cars! We prioritize the amount of human beings (as an industrial production in series) and not the quality! If we think about the cause of a series of violence that we live today, we will regress not to the drugs, neither weapons easily acquired, but a destruction of familes and because that one woman has children of many men and let to the world take care of them!

§87. Rights and duties: a physiological explanation. It is opportune to define the meaning of the terms “right” and “duty” in a simpler way. Hobbes, in sixteenth century, understood for “right”, freedom, that is, the


capacity of not being limited in its external movements. In contrast with the right, there is “law”, an obligation, established for convention for the sovereign power. We consider, ahead, to become clear these same definitions: for “right” we relate to a situation, object or condition that make to appear in our mind a “pleasure” and for “law” or “duty”, pain or pains. But, there is a question to detach: nor always a law will produce pain, even so generally this occurs. We remember what Hegel said, in his work “Principles of Right Philosophy”, when he pointed, correctly, that nor always we fulfill such obligations, without a resistance inside of us. What does it happen in these situations? It is that most of the people searchs its more immediate pleasures, related the limited perceptions and not to those ample ones. Because that, for these people, it arises a pain; but, if they had a ampler perception, they would feel a pleasure, therefore, there, they would recognize themselves as part of a family or a country. The newness of our thesis is that we had discovered a pure mental pleasure in the place of the old belief that there would be only a physical pain, when we follow the laws of the government or when we follow our internal sense of morality.

§88. On the legal principles. Jean-Louis Bergel when deals with the general principles as “baking powder of the evolution of the Right”, inquires if they would not originate in the tradition? Our reply is “not”. Such principles originate in the order feeling intern in us. Or better, they are expressions of the feelings and they would not exist case the order feeling did not exist. Bergel when believe that such principles arise from the customs, he did not give account that the respective customs arise, before, of a deeply taken root feeling in our minds – of order, that is, the justice. We want to add a new reasoning thought about the end of August of 2005 about we said before: it is ilogical to say that there are many principles, because “principle” means one “start”. For that, the law just have one start from racionality, that is, in our order sense. Who says that there are many principles are maken a big mistake, because he is saying that there are many starts or distinct starting points that base


the laws. It follow that: there can be only a principle, but, while purely formal, is the same, but when applied the distinct facts suffers alteration for the customs, contents. In relation to our thesis that for backwards of each law principle there is a feeling, it elapses of the fact that a feeling only can confirm if the chosen principle is the correct or not or, of the the opposite, we would have that to appeal to one another principle and, thus, we would prove that what seemed to be a principle is not, because there is a principle that precedes it. Beyond that, if one principle precedes other and this another one in the infinite series there would not be a start, nor a principle. To those that collect principles they would have to include this: “to prevent is better than to remediate” or the principle of the prevention. A good example of its application: dogs that run away from the patio are a threat to the people, but as thre isn’t a specific law, the executive and judiciary powers do not make nothing, except if occurs a bitten. We must waiting for the bite, is not enough the psychological effects?

§89. The non-retroactivity of law. The social welfare in Brazil paid 17 millions of people - that they had worked in private companies - an amount of R$ 20 billion (of “reais”), whereas to one another group of 2 million people - public pensioners – R$ 50 billion. It is an evident injustice. Recently, the judge who presides over the Supreme federal court opposed to the alteration of the rules of the Social welfare, saying that only it could modify such rules in a revolutionary State, but never in a State where there is law, where the conquered guarantees are preserved. But, why do to protect unjust guarantees and arrest us to the artificial principles (small laws) as the non-retroactivity of the law, that bring inside the notion of irreversible time, but do they know what time is? The argument of the judge of this puts at risk the “rule of law” is adjusted, but just if it was unquestionable; however, we know that the laws do not express a pure reason. And which State is being threatened? That one that under which are particular interests. Recently the judiciary punished with the loss of the mandate those legislators who had changed of political party, without exist a specific law on


this question, signal that the function of the judge is not alone to follow the law, but to reveal one feeling ahead of immoral fact.

§90. Do nobody can allege that unknow the laws? We do not accept the thesis that nobody can, to defend itself, to say that ignores the laws. We identify it, first in Hobbes, but this notion is related to the fact that, for him, the nature laws are identical to the cardinals virtues, that all the Christian must know and bring inside itself! The maximum that we accept is that nobody can say that does not recognize himself or other people as part of the humanity, condition that makes us to live together.

§91. Jurisprudence, interpretation of the law and the feeling. Principal source of the Anglo-Saxon Right, consists, according to Bergel, in a “paralegislative power”, different in France where they avoid to use this (General Theory of Law: p.81). The French people seem to feel that if the existence of laws by itself already is enough to generate many controversies, image to allow that add more rules or interpretations! In our opinion, all these arguments alone strengthen that being Law insufficient and the jurisprudence unacceptable, follows that we must defend the suppression of these two instances. In the same reading that we made of Bergel, he writes: “when applying the rule of the right, for definition general and abstract rule, assumes in the passage of the generality for the particular, an intermediate stage, the interpretation of the law” (page 322). We do not see necessity of any intermediary between a general perception role attributed to the laws - and the particular facts. Of what we discovered of our mental physiology, this transistion only requires that our brain overlaps to the general perception, the present particular perception, that is, of the case or of disputes in question. This would be a good argument for who defends the existence of the positive laws. However, the central difficulty is that: the written laws - as we saw saying -, open breaches exactly when is looked to make them simple, allowing its nonfulfillment for opportunists. Kelsen affirmed (“Théorie pure du Droit”) that “the interpretation does not depend on the knowledge in Positive law” and not even “is a


problem of the theory of the Right”. It belongs, we affirm, to the sphere of the internal feeling of order.

§92. On equality of the penalties and its reductions. And what is anger? There are reasons for Beccaria (Of the delicts and penalities: §VII) to have defended the equality of the penalties: he says that “each man has its own way to see; and the same man, at different times sees same objects diversely”. Beccaria believed that it could not wait that by itself the men were capable to judge justly and, would prevent, thus, “pernicious reasonings” (§IV), as somebody punished differently by the judge or the king - when they take “the freedom to the enemy” off and leave “free the ones that they protect” (§VI). But, if we lived in a period as of Beccaria, nothing it would hinder that the laws were nonfulfilled! But, do we treat our children equally? Not. We give more attention to that, at a moment, they need more help. We are certain that, if we give to the vacancies of judges to the elect people and with recognized experience of life, dedicated to the social causes, will not have excesses, nor lacks, in their verdicts! One another cause, for Beccaria, would be that one that would allow the citizens “to be able to accurately calculate the inconveniences of a forbiden action”. That is, we would not act aiming at the good, but, until where we could continue committing abuses! One another problem says is related to the reductions of penalties for good behavior or the fulfilment of a part of the total time: who does interests these benefits for? It is, also, a way coward to promote a new judgment, only that, now, without promoter, defense attorney and jury, just with the solitary presence of a judge, who adds all the previous functions! And how to solve the problem of the prisons? Nowadays we do not accept that nor animals are kept confined, why to accept that men are? It does not make sense to punish almost all the infractions with arrest, when it could punish with pecuniary penalities - is not the pocket the most sensible part of the human body? And if they can’t pay? Maybe realize a forced work in which generates electric energy walking in a bicycle. We read that would have two different treatments, one for rich people, other


for poor ones. It is simple: we can charge the double or triple of one rich person had stolen and for a poor person, exactly the same value stolen. And on the duration of the punishments by confinement, when they are inevitable? We would have to calculate in accordance with the time of the life of the victim that was lost (or the suffered psychological damage) and to punish the criminal with the same number of years. Untill science can to erase memories that they originate anger in criminal or reduces amount of linkings among the neurons. But what is anger? It is a vulgar mistake to think that philosophy came from the contemplation of death, if we were eternal, we would writing thousand of pages about it, we would hating gods for having given us eternity, etc! We began to philosophize when we observed incomprehensible events, often very unimportant ones. Once our cat had an urinary obstruction and each time he tried to urinate he did an expression similar to that he did when he was in front of other cats that invaded his territory. Thus, we concluded that the anger is another name for pain! When someone hates us or someone hates entire nations is because we or million of people cause pain to someone!

§93. We want an elected judiciary Power and whose access is universalized! Our central argument is the following one: if the judiciary is a power of the republic and lives under a democracy and in the democracy all people have right to vote and to be voted, then it must have universal suffrage, also, for judiciary. It is a nonsense to imagine a power restricted the doctors or engineers. Why for graduate in Law? Nothing hinders that they are assessors of the judges, but not necessarily to be judges! It would be a nonsense to limit the functions of president, governor and mayors for graduated in business or public administration, but it accepted without questioning that a power belonged to a professional class! Without speaking that we see, still today, one clear limitation of the access to judiciaries vacancies only to the middle and high class that had access to the instruction, what it does not mean wisdom, as well said Heraclitus, in century sixth century B.D.. We do not see reason, also, for lifetime positions in a democratic


system where the alternation of the power is so healthful. Aristotle, in the work “Politics” (book VII, chap. 1), already defends that “all the magistracies (must) are elective… that all the judges are taken of all the classes off”, so that “they obey and they order alternatively”. Why do we reject the public competitions for the ingression of magistrates? Because a competition only measures the capacity of the memory and not the sense of order that somebody, throughout its life, has developed. Development - or, better discovery of something taken root in our minds – that we observe with more intensity in the people who give more to the society than receive from it - to the prudent man (or woman), wrote Plato, it must give more force than to the laws, because he (she) knows what it is certain and what is just! And if the judges will be elect, who will pay their campaigns? Our more immediate idea is that the political parties can suggest names, as they make in the campaigns to Executive and to Legislative. However, we think that it would be more adjusted that the indicated never had made fiche in the parties or that, in the measure they had already become elected to one Power they are automatically forbidden to be elected to the Judiciary Power or vice versa.

§94. One magistrate or a plurality of them? And about the popular jury. We see as indispensable, also, that a judgment is not under the authority of only one judge, because it does not must to submit an important decision to one alone person, without speaking in the corruption risk that, for this, would be enough to buy one alone man. Montesquieu wrote that the unique magistrate “only can exist in the absolute government. (We) see in Roman history untill what point a judge can abuse of its power” (The spirit of the laws: Book VII, chap.10). Therefore, the judgments must always have the presence of a group of judges, in a number not superior to the ten, because it is necessary that we can list the votes of each one, for the society judges them in the next election. A great number would make easily possible that somebody hid among the multitude. Of what we said until here, seems evident that we reject the institution of the popular jury, because they bring in itself customs and it does not have guarantee that they judge with exemption. It will fit to the voters to


choose who deserves its confidence to make justice. In a popular jury, it does not have no guarantee of this.

§95. How to modify the justice system? A good start, with respect to an alteration of the judiciary power, would be the president of the republic to consider a constitutional alteration aiming, at a first moment, to review his task to nominate the judges for the Supreme Court and, then, to call direct elections. Made this, we will have given a safe step in direction to a gradual democratization of the judiciary power, whose alteration will continue in the other levels, state and municipal.

§96. Judiciary and the others Republic Powers. It is essential that the act to establish rules - not more rigid laws - allows the mutual cooperation between republic Powers as previous consultations to the Judiciary on a rule that is being planned (for planning we understand to imagine something future), thus preventing one future rejection and the consequent involved political defeat. The Judiciary, in turn, will be able, also, to offer suggestions of new rules before exactly that the Executive perceives the necessity of them. Already the Legislative must have as task to fiscalize the actions of the Executive, controlling the accomplishment of the budget and the public politics. It is not by chance that in the origin of this Power, we do not find to legislate, but being the voice of the diverse social groups!



It is opportune to remember the opinion presented for Sigmund Freud, in chapter II of the work “The civilization and its discontents”, published in 1930 and that synthecizes the view of that thinker about aesthetic studies: he wrote that everything what it had been written on the beauty had been so pompous, how much hollow. The proper Psychoanalysis, he added, little had contributed for the question.

§97. Pain and pleasure for backwards of the feeling of the beauty. And what is the aura? The origin of our aesthetic feeling rests in a very subtle pain not identified until today, except for this our present work. A pain related to the capacity of the memory to hold back the external stimuli. It does not make, therefore, any sense to say that the art is a “gratuitous luxury”; it is expression of the feelings more internally taken root in us. It is evident that it can use works of art to gain money, as well as we use other objects, diamonds, cars, houses, etc, but, in this in case, the art is a way to satisfy another necessity: financier; somebody will look for to awake the ambition for rare works, whose artists are pioneering in a style, or it can, still, deceive the others saying that a work is art - a repeated lie will seem a truth! Another problem is the craze fashions: somebody leaves to put in the wall a picture with a figurative art, because it is in fashion to put there an abstract picture. To be or not to be... different, that is the question!


Of our part, we understand that all the artistic expression is (or must be) a search to make to appear a mental pleasure, from those scenes that present chaotic or monotonous. The aesthetic sense is, therefore, a vital necessity, what it guarantees our health, a mental hygiene. It is not by chance that psychiatric institutions and penitentiaries stimulate its interns to making art, for they can have a chanel of expression of its internal structures and yet to develop a ampler perception of the life, especially in the case of the prisoners, once that their crimes are committed when we prioritize our more immediate necessities, without thinking about the others. Someone will can to say that the duration is a subtle pain that easily is dimmed by other pains. It is not truth. The pain of the hunger, for example: it is perceived by a person instantaneously, but, one second, third, etc, perceptions will not be come from the emptiness sensation of the stomach, but of the pain that the repetition of the sensations and, therefore, it will pass to the scope of mental pain, of pain for excess of hunger sensations in memory. For us, the mental pains are most intense and more basic in us, even so normally we don’t perceive them. And what is the aura of a work of art? Walter Benjamim presented an incomplete definition: he said that it was as the leaf shade on our head or the image of a distant mountain. Seem us that the aura is related to the feeling of the beauty (the absence of that mental pain) when it we annex all the historical information of the produced work. If somebody saw the David of Michelangelo and did not know its origin (sixteenth century A.D.), would not find it beauty? But, and if the time do not to exist? Then, when we say sixteenth century, we only can say that the work was conceived some thousands of kilometers ago! But, an important aspect in the thesis of Benjamim is that the capitalism (or the reproduction, mechanics copy of the works of art) separate in parts what is more beautiful when is contemplated entire, as an artist who constructs alone an car (or imagines new dishes for a restaurant) in contrast with laborers whom they deal with specific parts and ignore all (or a net with thousand of stores, all repeating the same menu and the same ingredients). Moreover, it contributes to destroy the new ideas and the artist, almost a divine being is substituted by some workers who seem robots! The


capitalism when expanding its borders to profit more, also standardizes products, limiting the diversity of ideas; producing an car, a meal, etc, for all the world!

§98. It there a sexual desire for backwards of the feeling of the beauty? Freud wrote that the feeling of the beauty is derived from the sexual feeling “the love of the beauty seems a perfect example of an impulse inhibited in its finality”. And he continues: “ ‘Beauty’ and ‘attraction’ are, originally, attributes of the sexual object. More ahead het contradict himself: “(it is opportune) to observe that the respective genital organs, whose vision is always exciting, hardly are judged beautiful; the quality of the beauty, in contrast, seems to related to the certain secondary sexual characters”. Or the beautiful binds to the sexuality or not. What are they secondary characters? Sex is a necessity as another one and any need is better or has more priority than others, beyond the fact of that all actions are product of the internal feeling of order. It is clear that if our history of life lead us for intense experiences to the sex - or, at least, to the affection -, the perceptions constructed in these intense experiences will lead us to repeat them in a similar future stimulaton. It is not rare that when we know a person, let us see it as gorgeous and, only with the succession of the experiences, we observe its defects. This must, we suppose, to the fact of that when of the presentation, we were nervous, unsafe, ahead of an unexpected, chaotic experience, that we would live, what provoked an alteration in the percipient structure. It was the case treated for Erasmus Roterodamus, in his work “The Praise of Folly”, when he said that a married man can find his woman the incarnation of Venus, goddess of the beauty, exactly that she is ugly.

§99. Dressed beautiful women. And the golden ratio. The French poet Boris Vian wrote: “we must recognized, with sadness, that the pretty women, when they are naked, never coincide with the pretty women when they are dressed. He has some exceptions, my woman of course… yours also, if you are writing these lines”. This poem supplies some “tracks to us to philosophy: although


we do not intend to argue on the beauty of a body, we want to identify a situation that, we believe, many of us already must have evidenced, the difficulty to recognize, in a person, where it finishes the coasts and it starts the waist, for example. And this can be decided or be brightened up if she wear a chain or a belt… Soon! Here it is an artistic object that allows us to recognize the limits where, before, did not have none. Then, pain has end and the pleasure has place. Without counting a long ornamental objects list used to establish limits of the body that of course do not naturally exist: necklaces, bracelets, clocks, chains in the hands untill the ankle, etc. Of the use of accessories we pass to the clothes. The humanity did not start to use clothes when did felt shame of the sin that had committed in the paradise, but, simply when they started to use - exactly primitively - the thought. We were not banished of the paradise (another myth); we leave because we feel tedium of that place, contemplating the same landscape, repeated times! It is clear that it can have had other causes, as the sensation of ownership of the man in relation to the woman - the use of the clothes as a way to discourage polygamy. And for which another reason would use make up in the face, except to enhance, better to be identified the limits of the lips, the eyes and the contours of the face? And the hair? They are, also, elements that compose with the remaining portion of the body an expression of our aesthetic feeling. We believe that a predominance of a perception degree, makes with that somebody choice a more specific details, as short or long hair: women whom prefer short one, seem to give to more attention to the ratio of the hair with the face and the ones that they prefer long one, to the ratio with the body, what seems to indicate that the part of the body most beautiful is, respectively, the face for first group and all the body, for the latter one. The ones that uses short hair, seem us more intelective people those ones that use medium irascible - or long - concupiscible, even so in these last ones can occur a balance of the three parts. But, it is not enough to have one of three hair length; it is necessary that the person has chosen himself. We read scientific research that identifies as beautiful faces to those where it has symmetry, where a side of the face is similar - almost identical - to the other. These researches put in evidence that the sense of the beauty is not subjective - an


objective root has evident - contrarialy to the “common sense”. But, even so a symmetrical object immediately is taken as beautiful, it, also, is more easily discarded, once it becomes repetitive! Sciences have for centuries look to the ideal measures of the human face for the discover what it is the beauty - is enough to see the study of Leonardo of the Vinci on the human proportions, in vain, because (some times the common sense is certain) “the beauty is in the eyes of who sees it”. Our present thesis defends that the elements of a face, must be perceived in one same duration, for to be considered beautiful. Thus, it will depends the perspective that someone adopt. When Kant says that the individual aesthetic judgment is related to a personal taste, but seated in universal base – that can be transmitted to others people -, only we can to believe that he is speaking of a related to a beauty for a specific culture in which somebody is inserted, but, not of the sense of order folloied in a maximum degree of perception, ample, condition this is, we believe, in the base of the sense of the beauty in an objective way, when each element of a work - natural or cultural must be perceived, or instantaneously, or each one of these elements, in one same duration that the others. It is clear that such perceptions are unconscious and alone we are conscious the final part of the process, which is, the feeling that something or someone is beautiful or not or, then, is more beautiful than one another one. And the golden ratio? From the sequence of numbers conceived by the Fibonnaci mathematician, 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55, etc, where the addition of two numbers gives one third, has observed that dividing the following number for its previous one, it would get one same value: the “gold number”, except in the divisions 2/1=2; 3/2=1,5. But, it will be the same number? When we divide 5/3 gives 1,66; 8/5 gives 1,6; e 13/8 gives 1,625, that they are not equal, but similar. And if they were exactly “1,6”, we could, still, with a necessary ruler distinguish differences in hundredth or millionth of millimeter or still, it would be constructed inifintely a new ruler each time more detailed and, thus, we could not arrive at one definitive measure! Because this, the order that the golden ratio seems show us in the objects and beings of the world, depends on the way as our mind perceives standards, or better, in the way as the exterior world conforms to the measures of our own mind!


Still: we saw in the television that in plants petals sprouts according to golden ratio in such way that no leaf appears to do shade for another one, but what the mathematician did not see is that they are born, yes, making shades on others and what it occurs is that the leaf of low, with little luminosity, turns yellow and falls!

§100. The beauty in itself. The world of the ideas of Plato and the test of the retroprojector. The beauty in itself seems to be a middle term between two extremities: nor the sun with its maximum brightness, that blinds a person, nor the closed night where we do not see the stars, are beautiful in themselves. Now, under the point of view of a deity, that we assume to see everything without distinction and instantaneously, the closed night or the blind light is beautiful. But, it is under our limited point of view that we must treat the “beauty in itself”. Plato, in “The Republic”, wrote, in its fifth book that the brunette people are “manly” and, therefore, strongs and expressives; whereas the blond ones, are compared, for him, to the “sons of gods, although pale”. We are committing an error when limiting the relation color of hair and color of the skin to the brunette and blond people; better is to imagine a world without colors: it will have diverse other combinations that will be had as beautiful in itself. And when the color of the hair contrasts very strong with the color of the skin, or vice versa, it can be said that the person is beautiful in itself? Not. The contrast makes to detach an element, that, then, is contemplated and judged beautiful or not, but, only, separately. We can be here taking the reader to an mistake: to make to believe that, or something is beautiful or is ugly. It is not about this, but, yes, of degrees of beauty and, we must add, that our capacity of observation of more or less harmony among the elements of the face, the body and, in a more amplest attention, of the mind, as temperament, personality and the character. There are other involved aspects in the choice of the hair: (a) the trend of the women for smooth and not curly hair. This has root in the physiology: it is more easy to identify the first type that the other one, that is, to apprehend the image in a lesser duration; (b) in Brazil we see a great number of brunette women to change the color


of their hair, becoming more clear or blond; but, the inverse is not seen in great profusion. Will someone not to say that the animals as the cats or dogs are beautiful, but in them we can observe the same coloration from head untill feet? It happens that there is a significant difference: the coats in the animals cover the body all, but this does not occur in our bodies, where the hair is an element separated of the skin of the body and must be distinguished equally - as the others elements. In the animals, the coat spread for all the body serves as screen on which the nature paints certain contrasts. In the same “The Republic” (chapter V), Plato also treated on the “beauty in itself”, relating to one another world - perpetual - reached by means of the intellectual activity, differing very much with our thesis that explains the experience or the access to the “beauty in itself” in the physiology of the mind. In at least a aspect, he is certain: it is necessary a certain distance of the customs and established standards for our culture. But, what is the “intelligible world” of Plato and of many other philosophers: it is the cerebral world; nor superior, nor inferior to the remaining portion of the world that our senses receive and our memory holds back. Neither this world is incompressible or unattachable. If someone asking us where are the eternal beauty idea, we will say that the only difficulty to represent them is to draw or to think the elements of a face without none of them predominates excessively. In truth, it is possible that one of the elements predominates. In this in case, the perception compares this with the sum of the other elements, emitting an sensation of pleasure or welfare. We would like to prove that the “beauty in itself” appears inside of our mind: let us catch a retroprojector device, instrument that projects in a screen or wall an image printed in a transparent paper. We detail the description, therefore, maybe, a reader in distant future can to read this work… Well, let us place the paper with an image of an apple, for example. Gradually - and slowly -, let us take focus off of it. What will it happen? Gradually, we will go to observe that, in first place, the colors will disappear and, finally, before all image to lost its focus and to disappear, will see the form, not more irregular of the fruit, but a perfect circle. Simple physics or specifically… optics!


Here it is the world of the ideas of Plato, twenty and five centuries later! How many confusion was produced from there until our days… Schopenhauer wrote in the work “On the sufferings of the world” (page 153), that the art was a “ephemerous libertation”, while the ascetism, that is, the unfastening of the material things in favor of a rise of the spirit, a “definitive libertation”. What do the contemplation of the beauty frees us of? We can only say that it frees us of a chaotic or a repetitive perception, both causers of pain in our memory. We do not see any rising of the spirit. Even therefore, if the beauty could lead us to an experience with something divine, then, we must ask if the ugly one would take us to a experience with demonic something, what sounds completely nonsense! However, we cannot disdain such internal sense of order, because if there isn’t an “ego” (self) inside us, then all that we see is an objective and all that we feel reveals a behavior that is in each portion of matter. If we search for a sense of our life is because there really is one. Let us see some classic artistic works and let us investigate if they are “beautiful in itself”: (1) when we look at the “Gioconda”, of Leonardo of the Vinci, we see that the human body occupies a portion of the slightly bigger picture that the landscape. There already a problem inhabits, because the image of the woman will demand a bigger time to be perceived, occupying - we assume - a bigger space in our memory or, at least, provoking pain for perceiving more times than the landscape. A magnificent work is the “Saint Ana”, where the tones of blue, the sky and the vestment of the saint, balancing with the colored tones of the soil, the bodies and the clothes. And his “Last supper”? It seems really beautiful, because the artist divided in two equal parts, one above of the table and to another one below. That the low part what it includes Christ, place setting, apostles, etc, seem fuller of elements than of above part, what it will require more time to be perceived that the time of perception of the ceiling; (2) we had chosen to analyze “Birth of Venus”, de Botticelli, as an example of the “beauty in itself”, but there is an excess of sea’s image and, beside that, there is an artist that deserve more our attention: Renoir. When we saw pictures of his works


we perceived how beatiful they are: “Le Moulin de la galette”, with its wonderful light on people, “Lady Sewing”, as well as, “Dance in city” that seem both that in some moment will talk to us! And the work “Lise ou la bohemienne”, don’t have it more “soul” than “Gioconda”, of Da Vinci?; (3) let us see the “The Scream”, of Edvard Munch: what parts can be perceived? The bridge, the three people, the sea and the sky. We ask: do these elements seem to occupy same space in the picture? Not. The bridge is excessively long and could have more people for exist a balance in the relation the busy space for these elements; (4) Kandinsky has a painting - “yellow-red-blue” – that is not “beautiful in itself”, because it has little “yellow”, almost nothing of “red” and an excess of “blue”! By the way, it was not contrary to the conceptions of Kandinsky, as he himself wrote, that a art work could be disharmonous and, according to our thesis, not arise a mental welfare, but, yes, a purely mental pain, rejecting the character “instantaneous” of the “beauty”; (5) Another excellent work is “The dance”, of Matisse. Seem us a complete work, even so the green color could have occupied a slightly bigger area; (6) and the works of Picasso? Gorgeous. It did seem us that he wanted to destroy beings and objects (even so the cubists had for a philosophical base the thesis to show in picture diverse perspectives and almost instantaneous), because we know how many women had succeeded his life, how dismissable they seemed to him and how much he was insensitive to each separation. What do perception had predominated in him? A series of acute perceptions that cause a violent curiosity for all the things of the life, leads us worrying little about each one of them and that, it leads, inevitably, to the gotten passionate decisions, not thought ones; (7) and the work “composition with red, blue and yellow”, of Mondrian? We do not see it as “beautiful in itself”, the percepção of red and white colores produce a similar duration, but the blue ad yellow colors are in minority. If blue and yellow were painted as they were for backwards of the other colors, we could image that both have same size than others colors. We could affirm, still, that the figures of blue and yellow colors have the incomplete form, harming, thus, an objective judgment for the


beauty of the work, but, we believe that exactly an incomplete image can be beautiful, in opposing, thus, to the belief that comes since Aristotle of whom something beautiful must have start, middle and end. We would like to talk about sculptures, even because paintings nothing more are than “false windows”. It happens that is more easy to analyse two dimensios than three ones, one we just saw this art works by way of pictures. Someone will can say with reason that we are very critical and we are not capable at least to imitate the great artists: we believe that the art is made, or without reflection only with feeling, or is consequence of the a previous philosophing, after to reflect on the life, we decide to intervene in it, what we did in topics (1) a (7). They do not make sense books, for example, on “Philosophy of the art” (a philosopher analizing the art in itself), but of “philosophical Art” (one artist that makes art after having philosophied), because Philosophy, for requiring an ample perceptions, is not predicated of any human activity, these last ones are predicated of it, as the aristotelian definition on the essence or forms, more external limit perceived by us. Thus, we can’t extracted the all from one part!

§101. The “beauty in itself”, “pixels” and the criterion of the “isocronia”. On the “isocronia”: it is a criterion for which we can conceive something as “beautiful in itself” and occurs in two types of experience: (1) instantaneous, when, ahead of something, we do not feel the sprouting of duration; or, then, (2) when a duration perception appears, but it is identical in each one of the elements of an object or being, compared among them. If we could be so or faster than the functioning of our mind, we could recognize that, in a certain work, the colors red, blue and yellow, for example, are perceived in frations of second. If a color predominates then it will produce in us a bigger sensation of duration and, in this in case, we will perceive this difference. Thus, even so a picture or a sculpture has diverse elements, is the totality that we will perceive first (we will be conscious) and, only after, its parts or some one that have detached more. Therefore, we believe that, if a picture have three colors, inside of our mind will perceive each


one of the colors separately; later, they will be compared and, only then, will be conscious of the object that affects us. It is not difficult to believe in these stages, therefore, of the the opposite, we would have that to assume that we perceive the three colors (three sensations) simultaneously. But, the simultaneity is an illusion, because it would imply to perceive each one sensation, to recognize it individually and, also, not to perceive them individually, but all together. Thus, we would fall again into the principle of the notcontradiction: nothing can be perceived and, in the same experience, not to be perceived. Or in the old formularization, nothing can be and not to be at the same time. But, and if the work have only one color? There, we believe that the analysis will be made only on the forms and the ratio of them not in the screen, but in our mind. We have to consider that the criterion of the “isocronia” alone makes sense for the people who have a predominantly ample perception; already those with narrower percipient structures, need to be informed of the historical context of the work and of the reasons that had taken the artist to produce a work, therefore, in general, the criteria, for them, used, will be the references of its culture and if both criteria combine, they will say that work is beautiful. We will not offer resistance to who to speculate on the possibility of a computer to judge, in future, works of art. It would be enough, we believe, that the image was divided in lesser parts, parts that correspond the colors and, then, if it could calculate how many “pixels” - measured used in screen of computers as minimum unit of image - corresponds to each color. However, this is not enough, because is necessary to identify forms – and a form is built with diferent colors -, depth, perspective, etc. Exactly the degree of perception with which the spectator perceives the work, will can make that different colors seem as identical ones.

§102. The origin of the ugly. Plato defined the beautiful as being the opposite of the ugly. But, if a beautiful object has for backwards, a memory - reminiscence - of the perpetual idea of beauty, that our soul contemplated before coming to the body or that, by intellect, it has


access, the ugly one then would be an access to another world, not divine one? In accordance with our thesis on the origin of the beauty, its opposite, the ugly one, can be an object, a being or a situation that can be fit: (1) in a set of sensations in a insufficient amount and it becomes impossible to recognize what it is affecting our perception; (2) something that affects repeated times our perception, that is known by us e, whose repetition, if becomes, mentally, painful; or, (3) something that has one of its parts predominating excessively, as a very long leg or a great nose.

§103. The unaesthetical and amoral art. And the false “paradox of the art”. Salvador Dalí said that the art could be “unaesthetical” and “amoral”. We do not have any problem in accepting that the art - as much the form, how much the content or, at least, one of the two - not only expresses an instantaneous experience - of the beauty -, but, also, painful - mental or physical. The “unaesthetical” art has a function that remembers us the thesis that Aristotle displays in the book “Poetics”, about the “cathartic effect”, when provoking in the mind of the spectator a pain - to feeling and to living as real that history - making with that the most recent perception layers are as that “breached”, leading, then, to the deepest layers of ours mind - where it locates the sense of order -, provoking a sensation of relief and welfare. About the “amoral” character, we agree in part with Dalí: we accept that the aesthetic sense can be independent of the moral sense, but from this it is not follows that they always must be distinct, that is, that they cannot be identified together in any experience. It is enough that the observed elements, human or others creatures of other species, are in a situation where they are ordered harmonicaly - aesthetic and morally! A paradox seems to appear: it is that we only have perception of the existence of something - ourselves, another being or an object -, when we perceive its images, sounds, etc, many repeated times. If an instantaneous experience occurs just once and never more is repeated, it is not something in which we can believe. The expressionist painter Henry Matisse suggested that we always have the sprouting of a duration as condition of the aesthetic experience, in which, he adds, we can recognize in the work some experience that we already live before. It is evident that


the expressionists had mixed and loaded in their analysis the physical pains of the World War I. Initially, we look for to explain the question raised, thinking that new perspectives would always appear in our minds or the “thousands or millions of perspectives”, according to Henry Bergson, provoking one continued pleasure, purely mental, bigger than those pains that would appear due to the repeated perceptions. However, still it would have pain, otherwise, we would have to perceive art’s work as something always new and, for that, we wouldn’t have an instantaneous experience of the beauty. We believe that the certain answer consists in showing that the analysis of the painting techniques, colors and drawing - so important for the critical of the art - describe only parts of the work and not under an ample perception, in which we observe, yes, the parts, but almost extinguished or without focus, in whose perception what it matters is if one part detaches in relation to the others. Thus, it is clear that Henry Matisse confused the instantaneous sensation of all work with the perception of its parts, seen separately. But, the difference between who sees something instantaneously beautiful and Matisse is only one: the first one perceives some elements, while the painter perceives a bigger number of elements, because the painter is able to perceive more details. We read that the works of art are almost all false because the successive restorations that they suffer as the temple from the Partenon that receives new marble rocks or the “Davi”, of Miguelangelo, when received a external cleanness recently. In our opinion, the who say that made a big mistake - and they, too, to reject “beauty in itself”, because not even original materials would remain -, but they do not perceive that the beauty is a feeling, where, as we saw before, the form detaches, as well as, its parts, but these only slightly. Thus, it does not have importance the marble of a sculpture; the material used at the time is an accidental characteristic, except when it symbolizes rigidity, for example, but this does not hinder that it is restored and when necessary, either substituted for something of similar rigidity! We remember the thesis of Hegel who saw in the heaviest materials a distancing of the concepts of the spirit, defining the Architecture as the most inferior art and the poetry as the the most raised one. We do not believe this, but after to


know this thesis arose us the a idea of a sculpture made with solid glass, material that it would be come close to the hegelian thesis: something almost incorporeal, almost spiritual.

§104. On the fame, the styles and the perpetual return in the art. Why do we treat the artists with if they were members of our our family? It is that when we see repeated times a person, this modifies our cerebral conections and it makes with that we prefer to choose them and not a strange person: each one external stimulaton will take us to the memory of the repeated experiences, as a river that flows better and faster in a wider area and not in a narrow one. These celebrities, however, even so possess unquestioned a moral character, in reality, also are able to make mistakes. It occurs that in relation to the strange people we do not have any information. We have similar behavior with the pioneering people in any activity, because they are the first ones to become something more clearly before ignored, that is, unrecognizable. But, we can follow other influential and persuasive people and to give value to them that they does not deserve, for pure craze fashion. It is opportune to say something on styles: the plurality of existing styles is not something harmful. As much more styles to exist and as much more they to reveal themselves in a way that none of them predominates, the life not only become more beautiful - harmonic -, as well as, it will be more easy for an artist to keep away from any “tradition” or school to which could demand that he belonged. He will be able, thus, in a more easy way to keep away of this chaos of perspectives and the possibility to develop its own style will be very great. The problem is that, in general, the young feels the necessity of tying themselves with a school and, in this in case, they feel, evidently, pressured for all the sides. One another important question: we agree to Eugênio Of Ors that believed that the baroque style was not limited to a phase of history, the Renaissance; he found baroque traces in other historical periods, as in the prehistoric painting. Is not it fantastic? Without speaking in the other styles that, in general, it assume, they are surpassed, by the way, a great deceit. We must remember the thesis of the perpetual return of Nietzsche: world is cyclical, without start, nor end, or better, with


interminable starts and ends. We, however, desagree to the belief that each time is always the same, because this would be repetitive and, if we will be able to extend our discoveries, too, to the universe, we believe that even in the cosmos - as well as in our mind – exist a rejection to repetitions events.

§105. The other causes of the beauty. Interest us reproducing some theses of the Scotish philosopher David Hume that did suggest other causes, apparently, different of our thesis: (1) he says that for backwards of the feeling of the beauty is a search - or necessity - of the people of to feel insurances, as when we prefer the solid foundations and more weighed in the base that in the top, because knows, for previous experiences, that this relation will prevent futures collapses. Our thesis does not differ much, because the possibility of accidents, involves the hypothesis that somebody think about a possible chaotic situation and we knows that we have - according to our studies in the mental physiology -, avertion to the chaos. But, nor always there is an interdependence between the beauty and the safety, thus, as it does not have, also, between the beauty and the moral. Therefore, we know that the buses and the airplanes are safe, but, in general, uglies - they are prolongated and “swelled”, obviously to hold many passengers, to the exception of the elegance of the Concorde; (2) for backwards of the beauty, there is a search for creation or perpetuation. For backwards of the feeling of the beauty and the process of artistic creation, there is, evidently, a desire of extending us to the infinite, surpassing what it already happened. We want, in the truth, to extend without end our life, space and time, because we are thus not surprised at unexpected situations and, therefore, disordered under our point of view.

§106. Kant and the sublime one. And the degree of the “beauty”. Kant called “sublime” a being or object whose dimension exceeds our capacity to perceive it, causing in us a “sensation of inadequation”. But why do not to call “sublime” as something that possesss “a very great degree of beauty”? His example, of the cathedral of Rome, seems to indicate this: a cathedral is composed of diverse


elements that we wait are in harmony. Therefore, we oppose to the kantian definition of sublime that, for us, it corresponds to an image - or another kind of sensation perceived under the maximum degree possible, in way that the image of the object is almost completely without focus. Artists and critics will say that a screen with just one uniform color will not be beautiful; we agree, because the correct term is to say “sublime”. But, when Kant wrote that the night is sublime and day, only beautiful or, then, that the man is sublime and the woman, beautiful, he only presented his perspective. Led for his subjectivity - that dominated almost all his work - Kant committed many other similar errors as we saw in part II (§59), of his “Critique of Judgment”: he remembers that the violet color can differently be felt by different people; for some, it is “soft and amiable”, for others, “dull and weak”. It would not have, for him, any possibility to analyze the violet color, objectively, as when we observe the space that it occupies in a screen in comparison with other colors - what we call “isocronia”. In return to the question of the beauty: we can find, for example, that a black woman is so or more beautiful than an Asian one, but, both, in lesser degree than the beauty that we attribute to a brunette or a blonde people. And we are not relating to the sexual desire, that depends on other experiences and that let us use detailed– acute - perceptions. But, someone can, also, ask us, if we will be able to feel an object or being as partially beautiful? Yes. A building, for example, can be beautiful in a restricted area of its side of the front. How does this work? When we are of ownership of a certain degree of detailing, the perception can focus a part of the building and to lose focus on others. That is very common and we try this with our photographic devices, for example.

§107. The beauty in rare things. Our thesis on the origin of the beauty sense can be, also, proven in the observation of the extreme value that the people give to those rare objects, as gold and diamonds. And this must to the fact that what it is rare, presents to our perception as something new, gaining our attention and surpassing the perception of objects or


livings beings with which we are accustomed or boredom. This preference can be observed in the union of couples where, for example, the man is black and the woman is white, the man is white and the woman is black or among others ethnics groups, as European that are married with Asians, Asians with Americans, etc. There is evident, here, the fact that the beauty can be in that it lacks to us, what we do not possess. It can be said, still, that the gold and the diamond are looked by other reasons: they do not lose its composition and they do not react easily with other substances. Already, in these cases, it is not treated to choose what it is new, but to prefer - to the similarity of the example of Hume, of the foundation solid - to prevent surprises, as not to have – futurely - money.

§108. The physiological and the cultural beauties. Hume and the enemies. Something needs a bigger clarification: which is the preponderant factor for the feeling of the beauty: physiological or the cultural one? In general, what it matter is the cultural aspect. Here is useful the same relation that Plato and much other philosophers had made when had analyzed the human societies: in a large extent of the human groups predominate the irascible and concupiscible parts of their souls; just in few rare examples, the intelective one. The culture is so strong that we still believe today (in twenty and first century A.D.) that we are part of a human species, as if we shared of one same form. The culture is as a third skin, the fetal is the second one, both them are added to the original surface. When we are dressing many clothes, ones on the others, on the original layer it goes being deposited an increasing number of layers or cultural experiences - gotten in the interaction with other people. This is not bad: what we would make alone, if all the economic progress, of public health, the ways of information, gave, exactly, in the exchange among people and their different degrees of perception! But is clear, for us, that the physiology is in the bedding of our choices, including those decisions oriented by social culture. What changes are the degree of our mental percepient structures. An indication of that the pleasure of the beauty is,


before everything, mental, is given by David Hume, in his “An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding” (Book III, part I, Seç.II): we can find beautiful qualities same in our enemies, even so we do not like them, not even their presences are pleasant. Here, the physiology is determinative on cultural values.

§109. The development of the aesthetic sense. Will Durant defended in his “Mansion of Philosophy”, that the children are taught to appreciate beautiful objects, inside of their culture. To it we express our ideas and feelings, we make, first, through known objects. Therefore, we do not reach the capacity to express the figurative art without the first sketches of faces, human hands and bodies. And only later, we can dare to go beyond, for example, in the surrealism art. For a progress of our perception, we express us in a more complex way, from the mere reproduction of one object until the abstract art, where the most external limits the forms - and the colors (that also they are forms) are only detached. When we accumulate knowledge on the art styles, but, also, on the reasons that had made an artist to choose a certain technique, we start to see a workp with other eyes. When looking at the work “Guernica”, of Pablo Picasso, without knowing that it relates to the Spanish civil war – it counts that a nazist officer asked the Picasso if he was the author of the picture and he reply that the authors had been the nazism -, will produce a diverse feeling of that it would appear if we had the knowledge of the involved cultural aspects. But, it is necessary we attempt about the fact the perspective in which we observe only the elements of a work, the ratio among them and the duration that will produce in our mind, is very difficult to be reached. We tend to perceive a work according to style that is more familiar or, then, we relate to the culture in which we were educated and to the more common experiences lived byus, in a imediate and limited way.

§110. Is there rationality in the beauty? The beauty: a mystical experience? First, we want to remember that, for “reason”, we understand, not an internal power, but a feeling of mental pleasure annexed to some degree of detail with wich


our perception perceives of the world. For this definition, all senses of the beauty are rational. But, there is another answer: in an ample degree of perception, the sense of the beautiful is equivalent to the moral sense, this last another name that we give to the rationality. David Hume and Benedito Croce have in common the defense of that, respectively, the moral - for the first philosopher - and the aesthetic - for second - is established in feelings - passions - and not in the reason. However, Hume revealed in the work “An Inquiry on the Principles of the Moral” that the reason corrects the feeling of the beauty, as when we learn to appreciate the beautiful-arts, for example. In our opinion, we do not have to attribute this task to the reason; the proper Hume, understood it as “inert”, but he saw it, here, as active. To say that the “reason” corrects the sense of the beauty means, in truth, that when acquiring knowledge on arts, schools, styles, techniques, etc, we construct many ways (structures in the perception) that none of them will have condition to do any choice and, therefore, we will be in a condition to carry through a exempt judgment, with our sense of order. Certain time, when we decide to make alterations in the garden of the building, our family suggested that this was a task for a specialist. We continue the task, without giving attention to the suggestion. Intuitively (unconciously), we believed that the aesthetic sense inhabits in all the people – more in some than in others. A neighbor, in the start, distrustful of the holes that we opened in the gram and, later, observing the results that had appeared five years later, she said that we had “gift” to take care plants. Nor reason, nor dom, only the sense of order - aesthetic - folloied of an ample degree of the perception that is reached when we breach the most recent layers, cultural. In fact, we do not breach all of them, because we observed frequently other gardens to see the form of the seedbeds - that we choose one different, halfcircle, beyond to copy those species more used as ornamental plants. There is something that we believe to be very important to say: when Plato wrote that the beauty is good, he did not see that exist things that are beautiful, but are not moral, as a weapon. He made a mistake when did think that the beautiful things were part of the group of the good things. We suggest, pioneering, to invert


this phrase: the moral things are part of the group of the beautiful things, that is, the moral sense nothing more is that the aesthetic sense and the harmony that we search in the social life it is not different of the harmony that we search when we paint a picture with diverse colors; thus, the good is good, because it is beautiful! An addition that we make to the reasoning of George Moore (§63, [1]): the pleasure is desired by being good; but, the good is not the end, because the good is beautiful and, thus, the beauty is the end! It is opportune to remember Nietzsche (“Human, All too human”: §174-77, §122): he saw in the art the great “stimulant” of the life, “the only force that can resist the pessimistic views of the life”, he believed that the scientific man is the continuity of the aesthetic man and that is the art and not morality the supreme activity, “Metaphysical”, of the human being”. That is, we are born to make art, to search harmony in everything and to create and to transform the world!

§111. The propensity to the art, the Philosophy and the architecture. We remember a poem of Cândido Portinari, known Brazilian painter, that we read in a universitarian thesis of Ângela Anchor: (page 119): - “I was always different; I was always surplus. In everything. What all had I did not have. Sometimes I think to have come by mistake, the material used to manufacture me, there in the infinite, was destined to form tree leves or… water. Why did you came if you nothing feel”. The previous stretch could indicate that the good artists, as the good philosophers, both rare ones, would be insensitive to the world. More ahead, Portinari writes: “the artist in the solitude… sees anima (soul) in inanimate” (...) “I saw a tree giving concert and i saw the sands dancing. The waters of the sea crying and beating themselves. I heard clouds to talk”. We are not here for knowing if the waters cry, because this is poetry! But, if we are conscientious and parts of a universe, is because the universe is something alive, fact that, the people in general, do not perceive. Before we fall in another paradox, we think that the artists are sensible in an ample degree that predominates, for the most part of them, in their perception, whereas most of the people, are sensible in a more detailed degree of the perception. While the people of the first group ask - how


Cézanne made - “where are we useful to the world? ”, of the second group asks: “where do the world can be useful to me”. This sends us to the similar phrase pronounced by North American president John Kennedy; however, we distrust when the politicians ask for us make still more sacrifices … Of everything that we said until here, it is evident that we reject that aesthetic sensitivity is genetic: children who are stimulated to draw, will be candidates, at least, the good artists, saved if an ackward experience or the lack of some stimulaton, to make them to keep away of the arts instruments. Thus, pain and pleasure, more or less intense, will affect more or, then, less the degrees of our perceptions and will determine our future choices. Already the education, it avoids to repeat the errors that others had committed and to usufruct of the rightness.

§112. Why do we want to surpass the nature? We read in Hegel that the humanity rejects the nature - “the worse work of the spirit is better that the best work of nature”. This is not correct, because the nature delights us many times and help us in our inspirations. Inspirations that, and in this Hegel is certain, will lead the new discoveries and creations. There is a clear in progress a deep alteration in the nature, destruction if the reader to prefer. And, for backwards of this, there is a mental need that we come speaking in this book: the rejection to the disorder, or more specifically, to the impossibility to recognize objects that present to our sense. Because we construct roads: to recognize easily for where we must pass. Because we dress clothes: they prevent us to mix our corporal smells with the others ones that are in the world and facilitate the identification of the divisions of our body, what it becomes pleasant to the senses. Then, which will be the future that we reserve to the nature? It will be modified completely, because - unfortunately - it is not possible to carry through the romantic vision of a life integrated with the animals. Will Durant remembered, in “Mansion of Philosophy” that the apparent harmony among us and the nature hides a prehistoric fierce fight of our ancestrals and wild animals, fighting for the life and disputing the space and the food. Thus, only remains us to reconstruct the world to our similarity or, more necessarily, in accordance with the physiology of our minds. But, of this, this


is not followed that we must agree to the extinguishing of the species, because also provokes in our mind, a pain, because the ample perception - present in all the people, but even so intense in some one - is taken offense when it perceives the loss of some of the existing elements in the world. For example: to see dolphins and whales died for fishing (practice for nations advanced cultural and economically, as Japan) in the beach, to know that animal as chimpanzees are used in laboratories or that use poisons to kill rats dry its blood, provoking a violent death, instead of to observe them as livings creature and integrated in the nature, as an inseparable part of the beautiful picture that is the nature or same the entire universe. That substitute the animals for voluntary human beings in scientific researches! Maybe we can preserve the genetic inheritance of lions, tigers, sharks, elephants, etc, producing, from them, dwarfed specimens and, thus, being able to integrate them in our life. But, we believe that is too much extreme desire to preserve current species; first, because there aren’t “species”, being that the correct one would be to say that each individual is its respective species. And, second, why do not to think that genetic engineering can develop total diverse beings of the current ones? Why not a herbaceous whose caule has the texture of the marble rock? Or, then, one plants with transparent stem with the gene of the sea jelly? Or one plant that blossoms all year and has varied perfumes? Who would doubt the utility of having trees - with modified genes - what grow quickly and consummate many times more carbonic gas that its sisters? Perhaps the most radical ecologists (echo terrorists) do not like the idea, but what to wait of people whom reject to plant exotic trees, what it would be the same that to forbid foreigners living among Brazilians in Brazil! And what will come after the human beings? We thinks that we are the end of an evolution, the end point, but we are a “comma”. Would not like the reader to have four arms to make more things that we make or that its descendants reach the size of planets or galaxies? I would. And the fingers of the feet and the hands that we do not use much, will not they disappear as everything what is little used? Of what we said before, is not followed that we defend the end of the ecological reserves and the destruction of forests and the diversity of vegetal and animal life contained in them. But, we must be conscientious that they are created because of


our feeling of guilt for invading the natural environment and they will only hinder harmful human contact with the fauna and the flora. And if the growth of human population will be controlled, great areas could be preserved, as a saving on that if it can count in the future. But, exactly that a people little grows - close to the zero - in some centuries or thousand of years, the green areas will threaten! All our efforts of the ecologists (including the echo terrorists) will only aim at to be slow, to impose a slower rhythm, the transformation of the nature for human. It is possible, also, after some thousands of years of protection of certain ecosystems, we observe an evolution of the other animals and in millions of years, significant advances as those for which we pass, as “human species”. There are others questions to consider: (a) our mental structure does not understand why we would have to accept the separation (and the distance) of the unbroken nature and the “anthropic” influence, as the ecologists say. Therefore, we agree in part to Hegel for who saw the human activity on the natural was not a destruction, but an internalization and posterior transformation, even so we know that the limit between “destroying” and “to interiorize and to transform” is effectively difficult of being observed; (b) we will not be able as species to give place the other most complex ones, new forms to replace the old ones? Maybe living beings that reach the size of the planet! Exactly that it has taken millions of years, if this to occur, we ask: which will be the place of the forests? None!



By no means we believe that the logic is a myth. There are physiological elements in our mind that we call operations and logical principles. What we affirm with certainty is that the logic would not exist if minds did not exist. It is product of the sense of order folloied of certain degrees where our perception is structuralized. Some had dared to go beyond and to say that nor a God could violate them. Wittgenstein, in the work “Tractatus” (proposal 3.031) recognizes that, in general, we believe that nor God could oppose the logic and, this, because we cannot conceive a “illogical world” or, we add, a world without minds! Good part of the justifications for the question why we learn logic, rests in the belief that it deals with the laws of the thought, some says that it shows correct reasoning and, others that it exercises - as a gymnastics - the brain. In general they prevent to see the logic as the search of laws of the thought, because this would put the freedom of choices at risk. Of what we discover for our reflections, is that we are determined and the mental functioning can be explained. In any way, the laws proposed for the logic specialists are incapable to explain the mental functioning. Already the notion that there are correct reasonings, assumes a path and on this, also, we disagree, because it is not the path - shorter or long - that it matters, but if it has a correspondence between what we say and what is in the world, if the degree of our identical perception and to the detail degree that is in the world. But, the biggest error of the logic specialists was and still is to develop more complex studies each time, without answering, before, to a first question: what are forms? We


said, before, that forms is sensation - or set of sensations - that our perception is capable to apprehend of what is there in the world. It can’t be folloied of its content, but when this occurs it is because a mental process that the take content off of focus. It is as if our brain was composed of a series of lenses, that approached or moved away ones from the others, makes focus or not on details that are in the world. Without speaking that we only place the ideas under the form of a silogism (premises and conclusion), later that we discover some knowledge, as well said John Locke, what becomes the logic useless. The logic as taught in the schools seems the definition of pig sausage: you take guts off the pig and put the pig inside of the guts, that is, you take logic off the human mind and try to put mind inside of this logic.

§113. What it is the “form” and the nonsense argument of the “sorites”. However, if the form does not exist separate of the substance, then why to believe that exists the possibility of previously, without going to the world, being able to say if an argument is valid or not? The so basic unfamiliarity of something as this, lead the logic specialists the great errors as the paradox of “sorites”, of origin in Ancient Greece, but that was in twentyth century rethink: the paradox consists of asking how many grains of sand we need to take it off a mount for leaving of being a mount? It is necessary to distinguish that the form of the mount is distinct of the sum of the grains. And which the amount of grains that will make difference? It will depend on the capacity of our perception to perceive the mount of grains, from the addition or withdrawal of a certain amount. There are other paradoxes, contemporaries, as the conceived for Hempel. Although he do not given account of this, show us that the problem inhabits in what it is understood for “form” and not in the procedure of confirmation of a theory. The paradox consists, in short, given a law under the general form “∀x (Fx Gx)” (that is, for all element that is part of a certain class, if the element, “x”, belong to group “F” or have a predicate “F”, then it belongs to group “G”) and since a certain tested empirically element “x” discloses that “x” belongs to that law, then, it also will confirm a law equivalent, as the following one: “∀x (¬Gx ¬Fx)”. The paradox that appears is the following one: if “all the trees have cellulose”, then it is equivalent to “everything


what it does not have cellulose, is not tree”. It would be enough, then, that any object was presented to prove that trees exist, as a bottle cover, for example, what a sounds nonsense. The problem inhabits in the fact of that the contemporary logical - since the Middle Age -, for the vanity of its thinkers, aristocratic view or, still, for its allegiance to the theology and not to the Philosophy -, keep it away of that one idealized by Aristotle that thought not to have “thought without an image”, creating a medieval dualism: two worlds whose limits are as what we observe between the water and the oil, two elements that can’t be mingled! What we are saying is that the logic, today, beyond artificial, became myope and, when, insists that the forms are independent of the experiences, confuses different things as if they were identical, as an elephant with an automobile. If we look at them at a distance, our perception will be able, certainly, to confuse one with another. But, why to keep this confusion?

§114. Nietzsche and the natural selection of logic. And the natural logic. An interesting question raised by the German philosopher of nineteenth century was to assume that some species that saw the world as really it is, that is, in constant change, had been extinct giving to its place the species as ours, capable “to suppose” the existence of commom characteristics in things and beings of the world, what allows definitions as “species”, “forms”, “sorts”, etc. In his words: “it was necessary that by long time the changeable in the things was not seen, was not felt; the beings that did not see with precision had an advantage ahead of those that saw everything in flow”. Although, we recognize the intelligence of this analysis, it does not seem us correct: exactly bacteria live harmonically among themselves, what it means that exactly very small forms of life recognize each other. Thus, it does not makes sense that could exist beings that were unaware of its fellow creatures, except if they did not possess any kind, despite primitive, of sensation and perception. On the other hand, when we have a very particular perception, directed toward singulars things, we become isolated of the world, our possibilities of supervened would diminish and, in this point, the thesis of Nietzsche would be proven.


But, the central problem of that thesis inhabits in the fact that one being does not have only one degree of perception in its mind, except the children in its first days of life, when they passes of an ample perception, where, as Freud said, does not distinguish himself from the remaining portion of the world. Only then, gradually, with passing of the years, the child will identify singular beings and objects and, later, the external similarities between the beings and objects. In all this process, none of the previous arrangements of the perception disappears, but they remain in the mind and they can be used if the layers most recent will be exceeded. Is the logic a monopoly of the human beings? It would be necessary that they proved that we are human, that is, all of us share of an only and commom form. But, in the simple observation of the animals, we can recognize, despite primitively, logical actions. Crisipus - stoic philosopher - certain time observed a dog that chose logically - among three ways one for which another dog had past, before: it smelled the first way, later, smelled the second one and, without smelling third, chose it and left very rapid. Why it did not smell the third way? Crisipus answered: it was the only way that lacked!

§115. The logic as Aesthetic. The reversible thought. Let us catch the following example: when somebody says: (1) “all the pianists are famous”, (2) “Marcus Aurelius is famous” and, then (3) “Marcus Aurelius is pianist”.

The Logic specialists say that it is an invalid argument. Why? Will not be able to exist a Marcus Aurelius that is pianist and famous? Or, speaking logically, we will not be able to deduce, in certain experiences, that Marcus Aurelius is pianista, if we know that he is famous, if we are in a colloquy on pianists? The same reasoning valley for the silogism: (1) “all the unfed one is anemic”, (2) “John is anemic”, then,


(3) “John is unfed” is not a valid argument, but “all the anemic is unfed, John is anemic, then John is unfed” is correct? The logical relations are irreversible as the chemical reactions or as of the Physics, reversible one? If “irreversible”, then the logic also is submitted to time (for those that believe in time, real and external to us), fact that it intends to deny, because assumes the irreversible time as something! Of course that, if we define “unfed” strictly it can means “a person not well feed in some nutritional foods”, what do not means iron mineral, for example and, thus, nor all unfed people has need of iron mineral. But, who can stablish which is the correct definiton? Only those people that are talking about! The logic specialists will have to admit, too, that the thought is irreversible, what it is a nonsense. But we aren’t dening the series of cause and efect in world, but we are saing that our mind after a cause and a effect had occured, it can choose perceive the effect first. Certain time the dog of our family was having difficulty to defecate and when it finally got: (1) “its excrements seemed droughts”, as it was dry clay! (2) “seems that it ate soil” and the conclusion, (3) “it ate the soil of the piss box of the cat”! It did not have no freedom in our thought, but, yes, a series of connections of a rememberance to the other in the mind. The term “soil” was the key of the solution and did not have importance the position of it in our mind! We must think about a new kind of logic - “three-dimensional” -, that it incorporates the space, time and the degrees of our perceptions! Let us to make a critical reading of famous silogism of Aristotle: (1) “All the men are mortal”, (2) “Socrates is a man”, then, (3) “Socrates is mortal”, it suggested us some contradictory questions between this deduction and the aristotelian Philosophy that believed in immortality of the human form or at least, through the generation of children. The first phrase, recognized for that thinker as a “universal statement”, would not pass, then, of a relative statement to the group of individuals, the particular facts!


The explanation of that the logic would eliminate ambiguities of the Portuguese language or of other languages that people use in our daily life, does not have any reason, because what they call “ambiguities” are, in reality, distinct degrees of our capacity of perception. When two people use the word “garden”, can be relating to the degrees of detail that they had tried throughout their lives, having in their minds distinct images as a soil covered of gram and trees, for the first person, or a tropical garden, with orchids, bromelias, palms, victory-regal, etc, for second one. Another example that the logic especialists use to show the thesis of the ambiguity of the languages: “John and Mary had married”. Then, they ask: did John married with Mary each one or they married to others two people? Seem us clear that it constitutes rule of the grammar to add an oblique proname to the verb; in this in case, “they had married themselves”, we are in relating to an union between John and Mary. There isn’t, therefore, any ambiguity.

§116. Which are the requirements of a logical form? Certain time when we read unpretentiously the work “Logic: the theory of inquiry”, of John Dewey (Chapter XIX), we come across with something meaningless, but that it is taken as normal and correct by the logical. Dewey wrote the following two phrases: “John loves Mary” and “Peter does not like Joan”. For Dewey - and the logic specialists - both the phrases have the same “logical form”! We know, however, that the perception that we have of the forms of objects and beings of the world depends on our capacity to perceive with greater or minor details the limits of the things that are in the world. Therefore, to say that the previous phrases can be substituted by the same logical is to compel the people to see the world under a specific and determined detail of beforehand for some “Logicrats”. For us observing the two couples as possessing of one same logical form - in fact the form is not in them, but in our mind -, is necessary to lose the focus of our perception in a way that let us perceive only two spots together! Or of one another way, why the corresponding form “to love” must be equal “to like”?

§117. Is there a fallacy of the boy and the girl?


We remember the analysis that Peter Geach made of the thesis of the happiness of Aristotle for who there is a supreme happiness which all of us search. Geach understood that the aristotelian thesis leads to the “fallacy of the boy and the girl”: the idea of that each boy has girlfrind, does not authorize to think that there si only one girl for all boys. This is an example that the logic never will give significant contribution to the Philosophy. Where does inhabits the problem? The happiness if defined as a state - a feeling - of completude, yes is desired by all of us, what it does not mean that it is an physical object - how can be distributed, tried, shared, collectively! §118. The Principle of the identity. None other example is more certain to prove that the principles of the logic are born inside of our minds, that the observation of the principle of the identity. There isn’t in the world any being or object that remains the same - invariant - and that it is object of our experience. Therefore, its origin inhabits solely in the physiology of the mind, or better, in the incapacity to distinguish the beings, with its respective differences. Frege, when it wrote his work “On the sense and reference”, detached that the relation of identity realize in a relation between signs or names (A=A). But, for him, this wasn’t enough: it is was necessary to add to the relation of signs, a sense. In his more famous example, the expressions “the star of the morning” and “the star of the night”, both sentences have mention to the Venus planet, that only can be said to be part of an identity relation (or equality) se they are annexed to an explanation or a knowledge that, in the conception of Frege, depends on the experience that we have with the used language to communicate these expressions. In our opinion, the explanation of Frege would lead us to a return to the infinite, because how the addition of a meaning would establish the identity with each sentence on Venus? Seem us that it required other elements to explain the explication, or better, an infinite number of them and becomes impossible decides question. Words are stipulated symbols, sounds or images, related to other sounds or images. How do they could be the connections that allows an identity?


If we observe the idea that we are someting identical, we will note how this belief arise: it depends of repeated images and our capacity to see each of them as was the same. Thus, in case of Venus planet of Frage’s example it is enough overlapping in the mind the successive images of the trajectory of the planet that makes to appear in our minds an imaginary line, the real or approached trajectory of that object. Willard Quine, before us, had this observation: “ astronomical observation was needed...” The proper Quine has a very interesting thesis in his article “The Sense of New Logic” (p.136), he believed that a river was always the same - “an extensive object, as much in the time as in the space” -, considering the “total of its diverse instantaneous states”, exactly that changes its constitution, that the water drops are not more the same ones, etc. Thus, how we could call something “river” that we do not know since the beginning? Exactly if we knew, which the criterion to differentiate a drop as of the river and not of the atmosphere? Piaget, in twenty century A.D., in his fantastic studies with children (even so Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in century sixteenth century A.D., has been the true pioneer in the inquiry on how the children learn), looked for to show that the principle of the identity appears in a certain age of infantile life and, therefore, it does not exist always in the mind of them. In the work “Wisdom and illusions of philosophy” (Chapter I, page 83), he remember that when asking the children how many balls saw ahead of them, they answered “seven”, but, moving away a little more the space between the balls, and to repeat the same question, children answered “eight”, after, “nine”. It is obvious that, in this in case, the children took as “all” not only the object “ball”, but the set and, exactly, the relation of space between them. It seemed to have between the child and Piaget an error of communication, because there are different ways of perception of the reality. Thus the children go, gradually, learning to perceive “ball” as an isolated object of space and “seven” as the amount of objects, also, independent of the position in the space. Piaget recognizes - more ahead in the same work (chapter III, page 140) - that the children “center everything on their own action and the subjective impressions that follow it”. And, for this, they would not perceive that, exactly having been


modified in the distance between the balls, the total number of them would continue the same. But, if the distance to continue to be increased, there will be a moment where the child will pay attention that there wasn’t any alteration of the number, only alteration in in the distance among the balls. That is easy of being understood: the children had given attention to the question of the adult - on how many balls there are ahead of them -, and they undertood literally the belief that they not only would have to observe the balls, but its distribution in the space among them. The same problem occurred when a certain volume of a liquid inside of a container with a certain form was placed in another one of a different form, passing to be seen, for the children, as if had been occurred an alteration of the amount of the initial volume! Any way, it does not seem adequate to say that the children do not possess or they do not use the “principle of the identity” before the seven or eight years, therefore, thus, how we would explain that a child already recognizes its mother since very early? Finally, we would like to criticize Wittgenstein for who the principle of the identity is something useless, because it is a tautology, that is, to say that “A” is equal to “A”, would not add nothing. First, the principle is not useless, because for backwards of it there is a promise of unit of the entire universe. And, second, is not of the isolated observation of a thing “A” that we affirm that “A” = “A”, but of our need to distinguish “A” from other objects and beings around it.

§119. The principle of the not-contradiction. When we said before that time (in the meaning of “duration” and, also, a series of passed, present and futures events) appears in the mind, does not mean that, we agrees to Hegel, whom rejects the principle of the not-contradiction, essential for the success of his doctrine that the totality of the universe involves the opposition and the conciliation, simultaneous, of its elements. By the way, the hegelian example is baseless: he cited the behavior of the matter that, sometimes attracts each other, othertimes repulses each other. But, what he made was sophistry, to confuse the


auditorium. There aren’t in the nature nothing that attracts and repulses simultaneously. Nor there is simultaneity, as we saw before in §31. Why, then, do we affirm the reality of the principle of the not-contradiction? Therefore, even because our refutation of the reality of the time, restricting its origin to our minds, is enough that we only rewrite the principle of the following form: “nothing can be and not be under one same aspect, in one same perception”. We substitute the term “time” for “perception”, without problem. The difficulty is that this would limit the principle to a subjectivity; of another part, not having no justification for we believe the existence of “ego”, então, so there isn’t because we don’t understand the principle of non-contradiction to all universe. §120. On the relations. And the truth tables. In nineteenth century appeared a resistance among the English idealistic philosophers, as Bradley, in relation to the explanations of the empirists philosophers. The first ones understood that the second didn’t have explained their theories how we learned the operations of relations between the beings and objects of the world. The critical of the idealists inhabits in how occurs the relation, for example, that determines that an object “A” is greater that “B”? The reply of Locke it would be to say that the mind compares an idea with the other; however, to compare is a kind of relation and how it operates he didn’t explain. Our solution rests in the mental physiology: what it makes with that we pass of an image for another one (and we establish relations, comparisons, etc) is that the repetition of the first image makes them to appear the sensation of duration and, then, we pass to the image following, or better, an image if it becomes strong more than the first one. A relation occurs when we overlap at least two perceptions - of sensations gifts, last memories or imagination of future facts - and, of this overlapping, we identify to similarities or differences. But, in fact, we are not who is overlapping such images; it is because they possess similar degrees of intensity, then they appear ahead of our consciousness. When we see that an object “A” is greater (there are a bigger amount of sensations) that another “B”, the two images appear ahead of us and such difference provokes pain, without it depends on any act of will, because the image of “A” and “B”, apparently simultaneous, the “A” differs from “B”. It


is not the greater that will provoke pain in the memory (duration), because how much bigger something is makes with that the structure of our perception extends (become amplest), what reduces the sensation duration in the memory. Perhaps because this pleases us to see somebody higher than us and, because this the human societies prefers leaders higher, for example. In the first edition of this workmanship, we present a critical one to the table of values of truth. Not because they are established, in last analysis, in the causality idea, with which we agree: once we observe that from an event “A” it follows event B, then, whenever to occur “A”, B also will (can) occur or, more specifically, B (will can be) consequence or effect of “A”. The other problem is that the logical still believe that if the event “A” is false and “B” is true, thus, the relation will be true. But, we ask: what relation is there here? None.

§121. A causalidade é uma idéia mental subjetiva? Historically, thinkers believed that the causality related to the diverse elements in the empty space. In old Greece, the word “cause” was writen as “aitía” and it originated from the term “aitiós” that means “responsible”. Already in the Latin language, the expression “for cause of”, composed for the preposition “for” or “per” denotes the direction “through” and the term “cause” relates to “cousa”, one thing, an object, as we could see in the Etymological Dictionary, of Augustus Magne. For that, thinkers of the quality of a David Hume had been deceptive by his own perception. For him the “causality” is solely a mental operation and that it does not exist as reality in the world. Already Barush Espinoza thought differently: causa was a process that makes with that something become what it is. But, what is a process? It is a series of events or one event that develop itself, as a movement of an ocean’s wave that has start, development untill an end. We think in to identify “cause” as a real “path”, but, too, to a line that our mind image from the spatial’s positions in which location of the objects in the world (despite it is better to think as the top side of wave of one same substance, the universe). When we binding these positions, taking the objects as the points of geometry, we establish the relation of cause and effect. When we say that


an object “A” is the cause of object “B”, this means that “A” is the extreme point of a path perceived for us or, then, “A” is the beginning of the path that will be able to have its ending in “B” and, in this case, “A” is called the necessary cause of “B”. But there are two meanings when we say “to be cause of “B””: (1º) when “A” is diferent of “B”, when two billiards balls colide each other; (2º) when “A” becomes “B”, when “A” change its physical or chemical state.

But, how to persuade people whom they do not see as we see, thinkers who believe that nothing would hinder that the billiards ball crossed to another one, without touching it, or as the Al-Gazali Arab, who said that the fire was not the cause of the cotton to burn, but that the two substances were present when the experience occurred? A different reply is necessary: to believe in that is accepting that two objects could occupy place in the space the same and, this, would reach the principle of the not-contradiction, therefore, nothing it can be and not to be, in the same perception (as we saw in §119); two objects, together, would be distinct each one, but, also, would be one third object, combination of two previous objects. But, that thinker could say that God can everything… and He himself is the cause of everything. But, so, He will be guilty for everything! Another possible solution is to make use of the rejection of Hume in the existence of a “ego” in us: if it does not exist, no idea is subjective, included the idea of “cause and effect”.

§122. What are they subject and predicate? And on denotation and connotation… Why, when we are ahead of two objects, one of them will be placed in the position who we call “subject” and the other of “object”? For this reply we appeal to our thesis of the degrees of the perception: we believe that we will choose as “subject” that being, object or relations among others, for which our perception direct immediately our attention, that is, to one to be, an object or relations that demand - to be perceived - a degree ampler of perception and, thus, less detailed. Let’s exemplify: when we see a tree we perceive its totality, we see its more external limits and,


gradually, conform our interest, we go perceiving more details that were before not perceived, as its color, the form of the twigs, the texture of the trunks, the existence of flowers or fruits, if it move strong with the wind, etc. Therefore, everything what we define as subject corresponds to the less detailed perceptions of entities - beings, objects or relations - that they are, naturally, perceived for us. What we call “predicated' consist of the diverse details, properties of what we first had observed. Such definitions will seem - and, certainly, they are - obvious; however, until this moment no thinker had explained what occurs in our mental physiology for attributes to an element the condition of to be “subject” and to another, “predicated”. Aristotle in the work “Metaphysics” (book VII, Chapter 13, line 1038b) wrote that the substance - or substratum -, that is, what it remains although all change in the world, is that of which everything is predicated, without to be it predicated of anything. Therefore, it is the first subject. And this aristotelian definition identifies perfectly with the explanation that we had exposed in the previous paragraph. As it is only predicated that can to present itself to our perception with bigger degree of detailing, then it is impossible that the first substance was the predicated or that, in the before example, the tree was the predicated of the green color and, this therefore, it does not have nothing previous to the tree, when our perception is directed to it! It is evident that as we said before, that the long quarrels between Frege and Bertrand Russell on if a sentence is a relation between concepts, a co-presence of concepts, as when we say that “Socrates is seated” or, if an sentence express a relation between a subject and predicate, lose reason and are decided definitively. It is opportune to say something on the universal terms, species, sorts, etc: one of the objections, perhaps the main one, to the empirist thesis on the general terms as ideas of particular beings, is that we do not know of what image of the diverse men that we know, for example, high or small men, would come the term and the general image of “man” or of “humanity” ? Our reply is simple: the general term comes of an image that has been perceived according to a more detailed degree of the perception. It remains, however still, one doubt: do expressions as “the present king of France” assign to beings or ideas? We believe that they can be explained, too, by our


thesis of the physiology of our mind: when hearing the word “present” and “king”, will appear, in our memory, images of present kings that we know, nowadays. But, when they mention that the king is French, il will appear a pain in the memory - for the emptiness or insufficience of an image. So, it is a mistake to say that the phrase is false, as Russell intended, because all product of our imagination nor is false, nor true! Before us, Peter Strawson said that the expression “is bald”, is not true, nor false, because it is something that we intends to say of a inexistent thing. That intention of Russell was different of the definition given by Aristotle: (1) truth is “to say what it is of that is or what is not of that is not” and, (2) the false is “to say what is of that is not or what is not of that is”, because Aristotle said of that exists effectively, condition to make these correspondences. We will not give much attention to the enigmas (or paradoxes) of Bertrand Russell that are in his article “On the denotation”, as the sentences: “George IV desired to know the author of “Waverley”, “Scott was the author of Waverley” and the conclusion: “George IV desired to know if Scott was Scott”. These sentences can be decided with our thesis of the “degrees of perception”: nor always the people are of ownership of all the degrees under which they can perceive the world our return. Nor other enigma about mathematical sets : “if a set is composed of all sets except themselves”, it would seem a contradiction, because the set must to have among the sets, but it couldn’t be inside itself. Let’s image the set of South America, composed for others sets, countries, and, then, the question leaves to be a paradox! The problem is that Russell did not look an empirical explanation, but an - ilusory – one, purely formal. A last question: how we understand the historical distinctions as, “extension and understanding” - of Leibniz -, “reference and sense”, “denotation and connotation”, of Stuart Mill? They correspond the moments in the process of meaning. When we know an object for the first time, we associate the name to its image, sound, etc. Until then, did not have one meaning, one understanding or a connotation, just a extension, a reference or yet, a denotation. At the following moment, we can extend our knowledge, acquiring information on the uses of the object and its relations with other objects and beings. When to a native american was presented with a radio device, it


learned the name of the object and, later, he uses it. Its perception suffered a gradual magnifying: (1° he knew the object and bound its i mage to a name, a sound; and, ) (2° he learned the causes and efects related to th at object, that is, its uses and ) reasons for its uses.


An error that not only Bertrand Russell, but, before, Frege, had committed was to believe that the logic was in the bedding of the mathematics. Unfortunately, we can’t agree to them: logic and mathematics are sisters, children of the internal sense of order - of pains and the pleasure, purely mental -, and, of the association, of that feeling with one certain degrees of our perception.

§123. The origin of the figures: circle, triangle, etc. Observing a shrub - a dracena, whose leves grow almost completely in 360º around its trunk - the image of a circumference appeared in our mind. Of this observation, we infer that the geometric figures, appear of the loss of focus of the images that we observe in world. In fact the respectives images aren’t taking ready from the world (see §123). By the way, what is a circle? Plato defines it as a figure whose extremities are to one same distance of the center. It is a definition, not its essence. Already for Espinosa, the essence of the circle says respect to the process that makes with that something comes to be circle: we assume that this involves an instrument as the compass and the procedures until drawing the figure - that, we know, never will be equivalent to the perfect idea of circle that we have in mind. For us, circle is a figure that appears when our perception lose the focus of an image of any round object as


fruits, planets or dracenas. For a reason of curiosity, we want to contribute for the belief that exist “squared circles”, question that frequently is cited by logic specialists as a nonsense: if we define circle as a figure that has infinite sides, if follows that it has, also, four ones and, therefore, all circle is, also, a square. And how a triangle appears? It appears when we are ahead of mental pain to see three separated points, but that they could be linked. Already an equilateral triangle appears of pain not to see the three points to one same distance or, more precisaly, of a pain - duration - that appears when we compare the three straight lines and we perceive that they are different. §124. What is a point? And a line, is composed of points? An new “Euclidean Geometry” based in brain physiology. Is it a figure without dimension? Difficult to perceive something that does not have dimension. For the simple fact of being called geometric figure already backwards in itself the idea of that it refers to a space - mental or existing in the real world. Probably, it is related to the sensation of an object of very small dimension and of which we only perceive the form, the limit most external, as, when we see an ant to some meters of height, apples in the high of a tree, small signals in the skin, almost imperceptible, etc. we cannot forget, also, the “period”, as graphical and grammatical symbol, that we place in the end of the phrases and, that under certain dimension it seems to reproduce the mental idea of “point”. We were looking at the strong rain that fell and we observed that we did not see the drops, but lines! We were on of those that rejected that the line was composed for points, but if our ideas come of the images that we observe, then we must review our belief: it is from the drops that fall very fast that we perceive a line. And what does it makes that line seems to go for low, as it does? We believe that the mind perceives the drops, but simplify our work show us the first drop and the last one and between them show us a line. And for two points does it pass only one straight line? Only if points and straight line have the same diameter. A new geometry would have to be written to approach the abstract kowledge to sensorial one, that never had been separated! By the way, we started to write a book


to explain the origin, in the physiology of human mind, those axioms of geometry that greek mathematician Euclid had systematized. However, the work was lost, but, today, we don’t see any dificult to the reader ou maybe a mathematician can alone to develop its own thesis, comparing each mathematics true with our thesis on the origin of mental duration folloied with the thesis of degree of perception.

§125. What is to make a average. The tone of absentee blue in Hume. How our mind makes the operation of average? Let us think about a couple with different statures: we believe that our perception, when holding back their images, holds back, first, the image of each person and later the image of the couple. In the comparison between the two people, we will evidence the difference of height and, this will provoke a pain - duration - in the mind. We think, also, that the operation of average is, in fact, a reply of the mind to extinguish mental pain: the two images are, then, perceived as only one and – with less focus -, as resulted, appears a mental pleasure - when we see the couple and not more the individuals separately. There is an obscure point in the aesthetic thesis of David Hume: as good empirist he defended that all our ideas came of the sensations. However, it seems to have open hand of one part of this, when he accepted that we could know tones of blue color, without previous experience. How? Our reply it consists of saying that the mental pain that appears for the gap - lacks of a blue tone - puts in action the operation of “average” where two images of blue (preent or memorized) are compared: one of a stronger tone and another one of weakker one, so that, of these, it appears, the absent tone.

§126. Is Mathematics the language of the world? Not. It is the activity by means of which we place the world inside of limits contructed and tracings inside our mind. Thus, the movemnet of an object in the space becomes similar to a series of perfect mental figures, as straight lines, curves, etc.

§127. What are the numbers. And about the lottery.


We accept the definition of Aristotle so early we make contact with it: that the numbers are names that we give the amounts. What it occurs is that our perception – when it lose ome focu - recognizes objects that have some aspect in common, as color or form. And when somebody asks us for bringing tomatoes, we must take all or some? We believe that was when human being was ahead of such difficulty that names had appeared to identify and to differentiate the sets of singular objects. But we must to ask if when we answered “number are name of quantities”, we aren’t giving a tautological answer (as 1 + 1 = 2, because 2 = 1 + 1), because “quantity” can be undertood as number. In this case, we answer thus: “quantity” comes from latin word “quantitas”, something that has a greatness or extent, what is evident, therefore, remembering our example, tomatoes occupy really some place. But we prefer explain “quantity” as a image of a list of elements: when we say, for example, that we have a “nuclear family” this means immediately that we are a husband, a wife and untill three children. So, for us, “number is the name that we give to a list of elements that have something in common”. In the last year of the philosophy in University we start to play in the lottery, to obtain money to open a school where to teach short courses of philosophy for curious people for this area. Interested in proving that everything has a cause, we include the lotteries. In general, people believe that isn’t possible to foresee the numbers drafted. But, as well as we know that an airplane that has left a point “A” with one certain speed and direction will arrive at point “B” in “x” hours, we would be able, in the future, to know where will be each numbered ball when the globe stop. Ahead by the impossibility to conceive a sophisticated formula, we take the following technics: a) we catch the six drafted numbers (in a universe of sixty possible ones) in the game called “megasena”, “16”, “18”, “31”, “34”, “39”, and “54” and we subtract each one for the others, getting series of numbers with the following gaps: “02,03, __, 05”, “13, __, 15,16”, “20,21, __, 23”. Between the five numbers drafted (in game “quina”, in the next day) they were “04”, “14” and “22”. b) we use, still, the technique of “rule of three”, to transform gotten numbers of distinct universes. In a game called “duplasena” (six numbers in fifity), in Tuesday, we


observed that were drafted seem to indicate a pattern for the next day in “Megasena”: 06 12 15 34 40 46 08 14 15 36 42 48 This numbers above are fictitious, but allow us to show similar event occured before sometimes. In the next day, it would be possible we see drafted the numbers: 10, 38 and 44, “40,42__4648”. If we aplly “rule of three”, we obtain: 06 12 15 34 40 46 08 14 19 36 42 48 07 14 18 40 48 55 09 16 22 43 50 57, where we can see a gap in a new that is, the gap in sequences: “6,8__12,14”, “34,36__40,42” e

series “14,16,18,__,22”, the number “20”; c) another good track is to observe gaps in the previous drawing: if they had left, for example, 23-45-46-57 and 61, is possible that in the next drawing it has left numbers from the set of ten of the thirty, that one that is lacking: 23__45,46,57,61; Although such techniques do not foresee the totality of the numbers, seem-in showing them that it does not exist what they call luck, that is, an absence of causes!

§128. Are there infinite numbers? If the numbers are product of our perception, as we believe, then they are potentially infinite, once we could thinking about an increasing series of them, exactly if the objects of the world were finite, for a pure exercise of the imagination. We go beyond: we are sure that the numbers are those understanding in the series that goes from one until the nine, being that, all the others are only combinations of the former ones, as the places setting that are, primitively, of three types - fork, knife and spoon -, being that, everything else, are a variation or combination of the preceding elements, varying only in size. Or, conform our previous thesis (§127), “90” is the name that we give to ten groups of elements, called together, “nine”.

§129. On the prime numbers. To say that number “three”, for example, only can be divided by itself and for “1”, without it loses the condition of whole number is not always valid and it will depend on


the kind of involved material. We can take three plates of salad and to divide them in two equal parts, as well as, as said a logician once, a water drop increased to the other does not give two drops. Thus, the belief of that exists prime numbers come from our empirical observations of certain objects that can’t be divided, except if destroying its form. This gives us tracks that if we understanding our mind, we will understand the numbers prime. In a more intent analysis, we recognize the search for a standard in the prime numbers as an aversion the divisions where the result does not keep the form of objects. A mental pain, then, would appear from experiences as these. A possible way of inquiry consists in asking us if the perception that we have of six elements, for example, that are side-the-side are is the same when we perceive two-to-two? Under the geometric point of view it aren’t same figures, but, different ones! Thus, if we will be certain, the problem of the prime numbers leaves the “land” of the Arithmetic and it installs in the one of geometry. By the way, we always had the intuition of that the old Greeks, a people constructed in the limit between the pleasures of the aristocratic life and pains of battles without end, would have reached a level of ample perception, enough to give origin to the classic forms that we see in their temples, in philosophical theories and, what in it interests us here, to the inquiries on geometry, of Pytagoras, Thales, Euclid and Archimedes. It is not by chance that Plato wrote above of the door of the Academy: “that it does not enter here, who do not to know geometry”! Let us catch number “9” and let us place it under the form of matrices: we will have nine figures, but only three of them are matrices, “1x9”, “3x3” and “9x1”. In the others, elements will remain. Let us catch number “5”: to the exception of the matrices “1x5” and “5x1”, there isn’t, as in the number “9”, one another matrix. Because that we believe that a number will be prime when could not be rank under the matrix form, except in the cases where it appears with number “1”. But, this is not important, because the “1” is not properly a number, it relates to the perception of the totality of the elements of a set and not one of them. We do not know until point this our thesis could be useful to the mathematics, but it seems us that, at least, this boarding is new, because it abandons the


arithmetical and gives attention to geometry, where it effectively has place, inside of our minds, especially of those where the perception degree is ampler!


Nothing so deeply took root in the human minds that the belief of the existence separately of, of a side, God and of the other, the universe. Berkeley was the first to pay attentio to that such thesis couldn’t be correct, because what it would separate them, the “nothing”? Would be the “nothing” some thing, one another God, who imposes and keeps for itself a territory distinct of others? Neither it would make sense to think the existence of many gods, therefore, in this in case, it would be valid the traditional, medieval argument, that for “God” we understands a “perfect being”, that possesss all the qualities, without sharing them with nobody. We accept that (if God would exist, what we don’t agree) He woud be something only, nor we rise question if something without other equal beings can’t be numbered, because even so He can’t be quantified as “one”, He is “one” in the sense of totality. Saint Thomas Aquinas defended that the “one” is opposite to the multiplicity of finite beings; but, a thing just is opposite to the others if they have a common nature and we can, still, understand “opposition” as perspectives: the stairs that go down are the opposite to that one it goes up, but, in fact, they are one same stairs! Remain us, therefore, the alternative of pantheism, where God is identified with the universe - therefore, does not make sense to pray, because when we pray, we pray for ourselves. Why isn’t it evident? Because we are God with amnesia or God in pieces!


In substitution to the image of a creative God who produces its creation, but it would keep distant of it, as a craftsman that produces a furniture, we suggest the image of a dancer that puts herself to dance and, where, the creation nothing more is that the creator in movement (see too Scotus Erigena’s thesis of “teophany” in §35).

§130. What is the “nothing”? This is the appropriate moment to relember the question arised for Plato (to be and not-to be), Leibniz and, later, remade for Heidegger: why does exists (this) world and not the nothing? In our opinion this question relates more with the sophists masters of the rhetoric in old Greece - that properly with philosophers. And this because the term “nothing” means absence of some thing that we know and that we look for. If we substitute the word nothing of the initial question, remaking the question it will be thus: why do I perceive the world instead of not perceiving the world? Another interesting point says respect to the origin of the world. When we read that God created the world from nothing, all of us can think that the nothing wouldn’t be little thing, since all the substance would have come from there. But, reading Saint Thomas Aquinas, he says that the expression “from the nothing” is not related to an origin of the matter, but only one order, a succession: there was a God without a world and He, then, created the world. Aquinas, seems to believe that there was a kind of emanation of the things from God, very similar to Plotino’s thesis. There were two ways that we use to refute that God exists separated of the universe or, more precisely, for the thesis of that He is identical to universe: (1) by means of the thesis of pain in the memory and, (2) the ownership of many degrees of perception, as we will see in §131 and §132 paragraphs.

§131. If God has mind also perceives duration. We read in the work of Franz Brentano “Psychology of an empirical point of view”, the opinion that God must have knowledge of in which point is His work - the universe - and, thus, God couldn’t perceive instantaneously all universe. Even because to know the universe in one instant it means, under our point of view, billions


of years. Billions of years observing stars expanding themselves will make to appear in our minds the perception of long duration, as we already explain, in reason of the repetitive stimuli that a person memorized. Thus, what for God is one instant, for us it is a long time, too much long time to perceive His creation! But, if God has an infinite mind, He could to see universe as something always new, under new perspectives, as we see the image of the woman that we love, not sprouting tedium, that is, long duration. We know that she is the same being, but we concentrate our attention to a new perspective, to a new detail. This solution of identify with the belief proceeding from the religions of that God loves His creation. But, under this possibility, God will lose His omniscience! If someone to insist that God perceives the universe instantaneously, His mind must be, then, busy for all the perceived object - the universe - and, thus, we conclude that His mind has the size of the universe. But, if this will be truth, how could God create what has His size? So, remains the Pantheist alternative: of that Gods and the universe are the same thing! On perception of time as succession of events - pasts, presents and futures - is difficult to take definitive position, because we don’t know if God has sensorial organs, although we assume (in theory) He have consciousness – there are who says that if God created the senses He, also, possess them. However, if we estimate that God can perceive duration, then, He could perceive a line of events, in a time; He could relember passed events, but this memory could not be in a space behind Him, as it is inside us, because we assumes does not exist nothing behind, nor in the front, nor above and nor below to God. Plato comes in our aid: in the dialogue “Sophist”, it defends the thesis of that the “One” - God - of Parmenides would not be completely absolute, because to think and the proper “life of the soul” - consists of movements. If one of His capacities is to think, can’t be immutable, a time that will have succession of thoughts and, in this way, some will be pasts, other presents and futures. God could not have an immutable conscieousness, except if He is completely static, as God of Aristotle, what would make impracticable any act of creation. More correct is to believe that


God doesn’t think, because has even justified reasons to believe that to think is either physiological and that somebody only thinks when has doubts.

§132. The impossibility of the omniscience. It isn’t possible to any being, including God, to perceive - simultaneously - all the detail degrees that are in the world. To say that somebody perceives everything is to say that it perceives all things together, mixed, in an ample degree and, thus, without focus, without a detailed perception of each thing, being or object. Or, God would have many minds - thesis pantheist -, or, then, could think that It could perceive the world under all the possible degrees of perception, but, in this in case that, the principle of “not - contradiction” would be violated: to perceive all degrees and, still thus, not to perceive them jointly, but separately. By the way, Hegel and Heidegger made mistake in to believe that it was possible - even though to we human -, to perceive simultaneously the unit and the diversity - or perspectives - of one same living being, object or experience, had elapsed of the incapacity to recognize that they are, incompatible experiences, that is, or we has one of them, or we has to another one, but, never the two simultaneously. We see that their doctrines had stumbled at primitive slight knowledge, as “simultaneity”, for example. A point in favor of Hegel: for him, the erroneous belief in the principle of the identity (A=A) hindered the humanity to understand how the totality becomes multiplicity.

§133. On the “thing in itself”. The essence is equal to the appearance. A good tentative to explain the “thing in itself” was made by Hegel, from observation of thesis of Kant: the “thing in itself” or the “Being” - or the “nothing”, according to Hegel -, appear ahead of us when we extract - mentally - of the things all its predicates. In the beggining we tend to agree to Hegel, but there is a problem: we believe that the empty space isn’t properly empty, but filled with subtle substance, thesis thought before for Kant: for him, the operation of abstraction would make us to recognize not the “thing in itself”, but what we call “substance”. Substance itself isn’t as in world, because our mind change the external stimuli and, for that, we didn’t see


world as it really is. We must to object answering that the term “world” is the name who we give for the things that we see, including ourselves! We see, thus, a slice or layer of the world, something real, yes, but we do not see the “thing in itself”, at least not with our eyes, because we believe to be it the “arché” of the old Greeks, the most elementary structure of all things and, therefore, what there is of simpler than exists. Already the “essence”, it is related as much the process by means of which something comes to be what it is, visible (skin, hair, movements) and occult (feelings, disposals of character, etc), according to Aristotle and Espinosa, as well as the idea that appears in our mind when we think the form human being or of the circle. Forms that can be express by means of language, but such communication never will be complete, only similar, as wrote Plato, in his “Seventh letter” or, also, as wrote, in the Middle Age, Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, in his thesis of the negative theology, in which he observes that, as much more we approach to God, more difficult is to say something about Him, because He isn’t predicated of nothing that we use in ours dayby-day, except in an approach way. Of what we said before, we can identify the “essence” of the beings and objects of our world, too, from the external appearance when we observe them, as Nietzsche thought, who did not distinguish “essence” from “appearance”, not needing, thus, to appeal something supposedly interiorized, hiding, guarding, inside of us and other objects and beings, exactly because there isn’t nothing inside us, except meat and bones. The maximum that we could say when we hear to speak of the “essence” of a person is that we are dealing of his temperament and this, in turn, depends on the arrangements of its internal perceptions (mental structures or categories). JeanJacques Rousseau wrote that the face of people show, yes, their character, because when their actions are repeated goes leaving marks in their faces. It’s very interesting that thinkers had searched to self-knowledge: but, do we know our body from inside? And how many philosophers and scientists had failed to understand human behavior? In century twenty century B.D., thinkers defended that the technology creates a distinct reality of that our sensorial organs give to us , something unreal. Such thesis seems inspired in Walter Benjamin who saw with queerness the fact that the


invention of the photograph and of the video camera showed details that weren’t perceived and, therefore, all this human act would lack of a “aura”, of a proper space and time. Let’s to send space and time for the devil! What happen is that our perception can by means of machines be extended, as well as by means of a microscope seeing beyond its normal capacity. Nor because we will say that it is one another reality! An example that they gave is of the pornography that in the sample perspective in bigger number and with more clearness that we would have when we make sex. But is this something beyond the real? Our feeling was of that seeing those films would provided more desire to us than to make sex. But, this occurer by the fact that we did feel a decline of our physical capacity and understand, today, that we can touch in the body of who we love exploring new perspectives that we learn in those films. It is all question to extend percepção and see more that we saw before. That’s the same world!

§134. Nor finite, nor infinite. Against infinite series. A God or universe is infinite or finite? For the old Greeks, the infinite is imperfection signal, thesis to which we agree. Aristotle was who, at that time, better defined the infinite (Physical: book III, 6; VIII, 10; Metaphysics: 12,7-9): “That, for its nature, it couldn’t never be crossed”. And, still, added: “nothing is complete that it doesn’t have limits”. Already for theological thinkers, God is infinite, such His

grandeur and perfection! In our opinion, nor a definition, nor another one. This because we do not see the space, except as an illusion. In such a way - the only one we believe - we can surpass the antinomy, the paradox, that appears: if he was finite, He would be limited and if infinite, He would not have limit and - we assume - nor He would be capable to know Himself or to cross all His magnitude!

§135. One proves of the cyclical world. And had the universe a beginning? In reply to the thesis of the infinite series (for Espinosa and Hegel, the universe not had nor start and nor end, progressing for all the eternity to the more complex levels each time), we offer the thesis of the “cyclical movements”, from the observation of the development of our perception: we are born incapable to


distinguish what we are of the remaining portion of the world and, gradually, we go perceiving details, recognizing particular beings and objects, then - retroceding a little - genus, species and, later - for some still in youth and, for the majority, in the adult phase or, still, a little before the last breath - will only predominate a mental structure almost totally ample, that will look for to perceive all universe around. For that, , this sequence of successive perceptions that we live deeply demonstrates that we finish our lives coming back to the first perception with which we start. This proves, in our opinion, that the world is cyclical, has start and end. Let us add that if there isn’t inside us a “ego” (self), then there isn’t any possibility of this thesis is dealing with a specific characteristic of the mind human being. Did the universe have a beggining? It does not make sense, because what is perpetual is always the same and, we believe, in the case of the universe all is only always a thing alone, immutable. But, if the human mind extends, make focus on details and return to an ample perception, we must to wait that the universe, also, do the same to create groups of living beings and inanimated objects, and, then, reaches a aspect that remembers one smooth fabric. And what did it come before? We thought about possibility to think as well as that the principle of the identity is only valid for the universe as a whole, perhaps to the principle of the not-contradiction can be valid only for the cosmos, too. Thus, the moments of the expansion and the contraction would occur together. The consequence is that all the moments of our lives, since the birth until the death would exist simultaneously, but we are not capable to see them or, at least, not so with necessarily clearness. This would explain, thus, the premonitions or “déjà vu” (something already seen). But, how this would be possible? We think that a complete universe, but subtle it was rank in movement, as tracks under the proper Universe that will be developed; by the way, is necessary that a way exists on which everything is put in motion, because otherwise, or it would not have movement, or the things would move in a uniform way, equally spread.

§136. Another false paradox: the universe always repeats itself or is different?


We said in the first edition of this book that the universe always must be different, because the idea that two events can be equal are an illusion of our mind. As Kant, when defend the thesis of that the soul and the good will be infinite, we thought about possibility of that the universe could repeat, perhaps, for our personal desire of life againg this same life and see the same familiar people. But, “the equal” term isn’t real, then everything is always different. Thus, even so we defend that the universe as a whole is always the same, does not agree to Nietzsche who thought that the parts of the universe would repeat perpetually!

§137. Is there simultaneously infinite universes existing? It is a common belief to believe that the universe can be part of another universe in a series that goes to the infinite. They to speak that the universe can be inside of the cell of an alive being, that exists in one another universe. The problem in defending this thesis is that - as Aristotle explained, in the Metaphysical work -, in an infinite series of events, as infinite universes, this series wouldn’t have a beggining! Also, the argument of the “third man” (or “principle of third excluded”) is useful to decide questions as the impossibility of existence of two or more worlds or, still, of a external cause to the world: of what matter would be made this cause that creates the universe? If it was made of the same matter that the universe, itself would need something external for existing. If it is different, how this cause would create the universe? The certainty is that we are like fishes trying to discover what there is of the side of this aquarium, but in relation to the universe it does not seem to have nothing of outside!

§138. The paradox of the lizard: is there an order in the world? We were waiting the bus to go for a philosophy class, when we were student, when a lizard fell on our shoulder and, reacting automatically, we play it for the street and, one or two instants later, a bus passed over it. Which is the paradox? Where incased, in the order of the universe, that accidental and unnecessary death in? Nor we can appeal to a free-will, nor ours, nor of the miserable of the lizard. Thus, or all of us are an exception to the order of the universe, or are the standard, because all the


livings beings bring in itself an internal sense of order, that impels us to rearrange everything our return, as, when, we abdicated to the “natural habitat” and built cities to live. A way to understand the question is to see the notion of “order” as product of our mental structure: if somebody sees the world with an ample perception – without enough focus - it will seem that the universe is perfectly organized; under a perception centered in the civilization or itself, for someone it can’t be thus. Nor the “ample perception” discloses something with real existence, as a perpetual Being; only impels us to produce order, as a compassing or map that guide us for the “promised land” and makes us to keep away of the “kingdom of the imperfections”, in which we are born, we “ant-laborers” of this builting called “universe”. We can’t leave to cite an argument of Jean-Jacques Rousseau for whom the disharmony observed in this world is the proof of that a life after this one must exist, because thus there could have a just harmony. We would have to try to verify if there are more disharmony in this material world. J.T.Frasier said that the apparent disharmony of the universe - entropy - is a deceit and that the harmony and the disharmony are in balance!

§139. On the gravity. Certain time Newton opposed to the thesis of that between two objects separated for an emptiness space could have a force (gravity) that was exerted between them; but, exactly thus, he formulated the theory of the attraction between bodies. After him, many had speculated on a particle exchange (gravitons). Already Albert Einstein accepted the thesis of Espinosa of that everything is part of one only substance and, therefore, the space around of planets and stars, by possessing a kind of subtler substance, would have to be affected by bodies with denser matter. The example of the bed with well extended sheet, on which a bowling ball is placed would show the deformation that a body with dense mass exerts on the space its return. But, why only in one plan? Here the belief in a gravitational force seems rooted in the mind of that scientist (in the old Newtonian conception) that it would pull the ball of bowling or the planets for low!


We believe that the example of the bed and the ball of bowling is very weak, because the celestial body would deform the space in 360° to its redor; wouldn’t we must imagine beds and balls of bowling around of 360° of a planet or star? We mentally find difficult (impossible) to conceive an image thus! And, moreover, we ask: such deformations would not annul each other? An alternative would be to think that the planet only deformed the space ahead it in that direction where planet moves, but thus the moon would not turn together with the Earthe, west-east, but north-south! A way to solve the question seem us to be the following one: we must see the Earth, for example, as a portion (dense) of the universe in movement that, when turning, makes with that everything that is in its return turns together as if it pulled one fabric (a sheet) its return. What it would make, then, with that we can escape of the gravity? Well, the spaceships and the rockets already make this, but they need much fuel. But, without using millions of liters of fuels? Perhaps (in theory it seems easy) if the object (a rocket) turned in inverse direction of the terrestrial rotation in a about speed of 107 or 108 thousand kilometers per hour. If the machine has, 10 meters of diameter, then it must have itself or an engine in cylinder form that turned below of it a ray of 5 meters or 31,4 meters of circumference. Thus, it cylinder to turn 107 thousand km/h, then would need to give 3.407.643, 31 turns per hour, 56,794 RPMs or approximately 946 turns for second. And that kind of equipment to use to make to turn it? It could be some efficient engine as the ones that is used in jet airplanes or perhaps something simpler: if electricity passed around the external side of a cylinder, wouldn’t the machine travel in the speed of the light? But, it is necessary care, because many machines like this will can to affect the speed of the planet and if the Earth to move slowly or to stop, then everything that is on the surface will be ejected for the space. Perhaps something seemed has occurred with Mars. Ten in each ten scientists will say that there already was a proof that the theory of Einstein was certain: in a solar eclipse was observed that the apparent position of a star was different of real position and, thus, was concluded that the light of the star when passing for the deformation in the space around of sun suffered change in its


trajectory. We do not go to argue if the eclipse is only one effect optic, incapable to modify deformations in the space, what it is a methodological problem for the physicists. Nor we oppose us to this experience, but, yes, to the theoretical explanation offered; for us, the light of the star is dragged together with the space in which it is for the fact that the planet Earth and the Sun to turn around themselves. But what force do makes with that a planet drags for itself the space (like a sheet of fabric) of the universe its return? The most easy answer is to say: was “big bang” or the explosion of a star that formed the current solar system. But, it is inevitable we think about each time lesser structures until the point where it must have had a start where no object turning and did not exist, consequently, nor gravity. But, is possible a pre-cosmic system without gravity? Perhaps, here, we has fall in our trap: and if there isn’t an indistinct system? And if a thing without parts will be an error of our thought? Moreover, how something thus would affect and create the universe, without force? If there isn’t gravity, would universe have freedom for such creation? Until the moment where I write these paragraphs I do not know if I must become public this paragraph §139, because I believe that the thesis of the gravity can lead to the construction of a new flying machine, that will be able to substitute airplanes, helicopters, throwers of satellites and rockets untill the spaceships. Before making this, we sent letters to the Brazilian government and got a reply from the technological Institute of the aeronautics (ITA), that it said thus: “The theory of the relativity of Einstein has sistematically passed for more rigorous tests each time certifying its veracity. Based in the theory of the gravitation of Newton, that is an excellent approach of the theory of the relativity of Einstein, we know that the force of the gravitation alone depends on the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance between them. Because its premise of that the rotation of a machine in the opposing direction to the rotation of the Earth would annul the force of the gravity is a mistake”. I received, weeks later, another reply, from the INPE. In it, the researcher says:


(1) we do not visualize the deformation that the planet provokes, because aren’t enough the three space dimensions, but, still, the fourth dimension, the time, thesis with which we disagree; (2) more ahead, he adds: “… we go to consider initially that we are with the ship in one of the polar regions of the Earth (north or south). The axle of rotation of the Land is, in both the cases, perpendicular to the vertical line and, therefore, it is well clearly the direction that we must give to the turn of the ship. And if the ship is in the equator of the Earth? What side do we turn the ship for? After all the Earth does not turn in relation to the vertical direction in this latitude”. In a second email seem us to clarify the first one: “The axle of rotation of the Earth is perpendicular to the surface of the planet in the Polar regions and parallel to the surface of it in the Equator”. As if we had passed a wire inside of the Earth leaving in the North Pole or south, but when it passed for the Equator it would seem an underground and parallel train to the surface. Any way, we believe that there is an image of a machine in the mind of the scientist: the traditional “flying saucer” that, according to our theory, could work (and only turn in the opposing direction to the terrestrial rotation) in the polar regions. However, we think about one another format: a machine (a cylinder) that it turns on itself in the same direction of the axle of rotation of the Earth (west-east) but in the opposing sense (east-west), as it was a paving machine that is used to built roads. The researcher suggested the reading of articles, citing the scientist and, also, writer of scientific fiction Robert L. Forward (with works in detention of gravitational radiation or undulations of space-time, understood by him as electromagnetic waves, who could be caught between an interval of frequency of some megahertz) and, also, Hideo Hayasaka and Sakae Takeuchi, that had made a research where they affirmed that when having turned a the gyroscope among 3 to 18 thousand rpms, it seemed to them lighter, as if the gravity was scrumbled, disclosed research, later, full of errors, second was informed to us. In another “email” the researcher asked us: “why did we choose the speed of the Earth around of the Sun instead of around itself 1,667 Km/h (40 thousand km to each 24h), in the Equator, and zero in the polar regions. It would be, he adds, easy to


levitate in the polar regions”. Maybe this happen when the magnetic field of the planet leaves through the polar regions! More ahead: “...thus the gyroscope of the Japanese test (1.080.000 turns per hour times 0,6m of circumference) gives 648 Km/h. As the experiment was in Japan (latitude ~35 degrees north) the speed of the soil there, around the axle, it is of 1,667 Km/h multiplied for cosine of the latitude (cos 35 = 0,82). The result is ~1365 Km/h. Therefore, the gyroscope was turning under the half of the necessary one to levitate and must have caused the loss of half of the weight. Nothing, however, was detected”. We don’t know which speed to choose for this calculation, but we are certain of that saying that the polar regions don’t have any speed is an extreme abstraction. We are as the personage of Baron Von Münchhausen flying on a projectile. On the absence of signals in the test of the gyroscope, we imagine some analogies: (a) a maritime chain that drags a swimmer although its effort; (b) a rocket that it needs a thousand liters of fuel to leave the soil and only has half; or, better, (c) when it was observed for the first time in history that the water boiled with 100° Celsius, not giving to an observer no signal of this when it reached the half of the temperature, 50° or same 99° C C!



We are satisfied with the fact that we do not choose the path that we would carry through, being led from the connections that we observed between a question and another one. We start for the question of the time, we entered in the mind and its internal structures, we launch us in more ambitious objectives, moved for the curiosity. Of those we display throughout this work let to make any sense to ask if what it predominates in us is the instinctive or rational part. We are, in fact, organized in three layers: (1) a sense of order, purely mental, formed still in the life in uterus ; (2) one part instinctive, those knowledge acquired after the birth; and, (3) the cultural part, the rules - good or bad - that we learn in the interaction with the other people. However, such separation - didactic - does not mean that they are parts in conflict; in reality, all our choices are determined by one same cause: our sense of order plus a certain degree of perception! It is opportune to talk a little more about our rejection to the existence of a “ego” inside of us: we do not defend this thesis because it is only the half to extend the moral sense beyond the intrauterine experiences, relating it it a nobler cause - the reason of our existence. Someone will be able to ask why we must prefer an ample degree of our perception than another centered in our most immediate needs? Our reply: for us and good part of the people, who had reached an intellectual and


physical maturity, are more beautiful to see, for example, a couple that lived the entire life together, because they are loved, than to see somebody that has a new girlfriend each week or, then to contemplate and to taste a plate with a moderate and healthful amount of foods than to see somebody competing in a competition to see who eats the biggest amount of some kind of food. Although it can seem funny, certainly it is not something that we would say as a supreme end to reach! We are, thus, convinced to have presented a model of mental functioning that it does not need to believe in the existence of a “ego”, to work! Certain time, a professor said that if our actions were resulted of physiological operations, then, would not have a sense for the life. We disagree completely with him: if the choices were free - a absence of any determinism - any choice would be the correct one and the universe would not reach one same end, but diverse ends. But, if there is an internal sense of order in our minds, has, yes, a common objective! There were in the first edition of “Who we are?” three points that we considered paradoxes: (1) what it is the conscience and as the sensations are, for it, perceived, (2) the feeling of the beauty is instantaneous or requires an experience that involves duration; and, (3) if the universe are always the same or if it would be possible to be always different (refutation to Nietzsche). We believe that we could, in this work, to show that two of the three paradoxes (of the beauty and the universe as alway same or diferent) are “pseudo-paradoxes”, false. But remain two other questions: (alpha) “what it is the conscience and how sensations are perceived” and, (beta) if it is possible that the universe contracts and expands at the same time (question about simultaneity). Both consist, thus, in the central questions and the task of the Philosophy. It is clear that for “task of the philosophy”, we want relating to the task to develop new theories (hypothesis). It can even though be returned to the paradox of the universe or of the beauty, for, who it knows, to add something new or same to correct


everything what it was written. But, we can work in philosophy in other ways, beyond the lessons in colleges and universities: we can be innovated in other activities: schools of philosophy directed for other public, as liberal professional and retired people and, also, to be consultor to put in practical the ample perception - peculiar of the Philosophy - assisting sciences, but in a differentiated perspective, looking for to keep distance from the usual techniques and to inspire new ideas, unknown causes and new technologies. However, it will only occur if the philosophy education will stimulate the kind of rare ample perception, that we describe before. What original discoveries we had made and what are our contributions to the history of the philosophy? We will enumerate them: (A) duration is pain that appears in the memory, related to the monotony and the incompressible experiences and is the cause why we think, we develop mathematics and we search philosophical and scientific solutions; (B) past, present and future are position in the space of the point of view of each person. When we are in front of mirror, even so, science say that our image is past,for us, is present when we perceive it; (C) there aren’t nothing simultaneous, because two sensations together produce one third distinct perception of the previous ones, as the perception of blue and yellow, together, it gives green; (D) the gravity does not result of the deformation of the space, but of the fact of that the planets, when they turn, drag I obtain the space (ilusorially empty) its return; (E) our capacity of abstraction elapses from images (and others sensations) of external objects, without focus, through internal structures, as if it was a set of lenses, something perhaps organic as the neurons, diferent of Kant called categories and thought to be transcendental, beyond the physical world. The circle idea, for Plato pertained to an intelligible world, would be formed from the loss of focus of any rounded off object, as an orange. But, we are not saying, with this, that the form is in the things, because colors are forms, too. It seems that from the world alone we receive impressions and we do not know nothing on the things in itself, but, in true, each degree of our perception perceives a degree of the world;


(F) with mental structures, in ampler degree, we have our sense of aesthetic and morality and, when we perceive the elements that compose a work of art or a human society, where the elements are seen as equally important, being that none of the parts must be distinguished excessively. Taste must be to debate, yes: if the perception alone reaches what is more close to us, we say that it is a taste (a subjective feeling) in contrast with ampler perception, when we compare not the elements in itself, but the harmony among them, an objective feeling. We go more far: something is good, because is beautiful, that is, the moral sense is established in the aesthetic sense and, this, in the fetal experience, of where we learn the harmony and the completude (absence of necessities); (G) There isn’t any free will or free choices, because there isn’t simultaneity, then, two alternatives never are equally available and one always will prevail for its own force. We follow the strongest stimuli, that series of more intense emotional experiences than we lived and this makes us happy. Then, why do we punish the people because they have only one alternative to choose? It remains to think that we have hope of that this censorship becomes a stronger stimuli than those that had made him to commit a crime. But, how to know if it has functioned? To free him after fulfilled to the penalty or to do tests to identify his degrees of perception: as much more ample is better! ; (H) there isn’t a evil taken root in us, because the moral imperatives and the forms that our mind constructs or perceives in the things can be good or bad, depending on the experiences that we live. A dealer of drugs or a psychopath can accept as universal maximum moral the “law of strongest”, exactly that he can be the victim, therefore, he can undertanding that it is ideal world; (I) pleasure is a kind of pain, even so subtle, an overflow after a necessity to be extinct and, therefore, the happiness must consist of the extinguishing of pain and not in search a pleasure; (J) There is need of an ego, if all the choices are automatic, determined for previous experiences, includind those lived when fetus. And without an “ego” inside us (J1) everything is one alone Being and (J2) nothing is really subjective. More: if we bring in us perceptions that go since amplest, when we are born, until the most acute


one, with which we recognize objects and beings, can’t we say that such perceptions represent something similar to the some stages of development of an embryo, since the primitive forms until the human one? The ample perception, more basic, would not be that one with which, in the beggining of the world, we would perceive the universe as only one Being? ; (L) God cannot think, because the duration, pain, would appear in Him when perceived repeated times one same thing, unless He doesn’t perceive similarity and, thus, would see all always as new things. If He could think, would not plan the world, because when planning, already would imagine to all and we would exist in the planning, before the world being created. God also can’t be omniscient, because to perceive everything together is to perceive a mixture and not things separately. Nor He can have consciousness, if just we can have consciousness of external things; (M) moreover, to think is physiological, because most part of the times it is involuntary and when there is a reflection is because there was a ties up to between the possible alternatives, differing, thus, of the instinct, because this last one results of repeated experiences as many times that it becomes automatic. And the disdain to the body in contrast with the divinization of the thought elapses that thinking is next to the focal point (consciousness) and the remaining portion of the body is as the Romans legions when they were thousand of kilometers of the central power of Rome; (N) dreams are what it happens, also, when we are waked up, that is, the respectives thoughts and, therefore, we can’t say that are restrained desires, but, that they can, yes, to involve the memory of previous frustrating experiences, as well as happy ones. What happens when we sleep or waked up is that the mind doesn’t to stop to make analogies, to search similar images or other sensations filling gaps. The intuition, for example, is a reply that appears after having been done, unconsciously, many internal relations; (O) There isn’t a universal rational “will” that would guarantee the unconditional application of the laws that nothing more are then fragile references, replaceable for common-sense, a compound of moral sense and customs. The judiciary power must be elect for universal suffrage and composed for people with description of moral


acts. Do the reader already had repaired that the judges have two speeches: in an audience, ahead of ex-boyfriends, a judge said that if the victim was his daughter, he would punch who attacked her, but that, as authority, he could not say or do this! (P) numbers are, for the aristotelian definition, names that we give to a group or list of objects or living beings that, for beings without focus, give us an appearance to possess one same form or an identical specific characteristic. Already the prime numbers have the following explanation: they are numbers that can’t be ranks under the form of matrices and, therefore, the question isn’t arithmetical, but it belongs to geometry; (Q) the consciousness that we understand to relate to a point on which the sensations impact, isn’t a physiological operation, because such operation is sometimes involuntary, othertimes voluntary or, then, is possible of some control, while other times not, but in the case of the consciousness there isn’t possibility of any control. When they attribute to it a progress, they made a mistake because it isn’t what progress, but the brain’ structures and, as well as they progress (they extend), these structures, also, to retrograde. In another way, why would consciousness perceive certain experiences with bigger detailing whereas, in others, with lesser detail? (R) we would have to make a retrospect of the relations that we had throughout the life with the people of the opposing sex to observe with which physical types and which personalities we feel better, because are those emotionally more intense passed experiences that will define our future preference. Thus, all the affection form happens because we following those more detailed neurological connections [END].