AN ELEMENT OF CONFUSION ?

I have read all of your beautifully written blogs (Akis and Dimitri) a number of times trying to find an entry point to your discussions and introduce an element of confusion that should be present in all discussions.

It was only natural or αναπόφευκτο that I should settle with Akis statement that “Είναι συνεπώς αναπόφευκτο ο άνθρωπος να λειτουργεί και να εκδηλώνεται αντιφατικά”. Akis will agree, this is in keeping with all the discussions we have had since we were five years old, not because we disagreed on everything, we have discussed, but because we fundamentally agreed.

I will like to develop this contradictory nature of man not so much from Akis philosophical perspective but more from what is available to us from empirical scientific evidence, and probably earn a premature nod of agreement with Dimitris.
The main assumption on which I will base my argument is that human nature and human behavior must be the product of its environment, since human kind is the product of the same creative process. If “antiphrasis” is an essential element of this creative universal equation then Akis statement must hold true. The one area we may differ, primarily philosophically, is in the way we define what constitutes our environment.
The one constant in all scientific research has been to continually expand our understanding of that definition and what we perceive or understand to be our environment.

Over years of scientific research our understanding of the solar system expanded, into an infinite universe, and the atom contracted to an infinite microcosm of energy and its manifestations.

Scientific universal laws had to be modified to reflect gravitational laws of the macrocosm and quantum laws of the microcosm to a Unified Universal law governing the nature of all environments.

Although there were a number of unifying theories proposed one underlying principle in all these scientific theories is, that in order for our scientifically derived laws to apply in a unifying fashion our environment must be multidimensional and synchronous.

The idea of a solely three dimensional material universe influencing universal mechanisms of change is no longer valid, and by definition the nature of who we are and how we act, is not valid, if we indeed share the nature of our environment.
The extrapolation (Dimitri), that our DNA is the sole contributor to our nature and actions, is unsound, in that it leaves multidimensional influence variables out of the equation. I will be prepared to conceit that it describes a mechanism but not the cause.

Did God have something to do with it?
The spiritualist or religious scholar may argue that the door is most certainly open, in that the synchronous multidimensional nature of man is precisely what we have been talking about and that theological and scientific opinions differed simply due to a lack of the correct definition of what constitutes our environment.
Akis argues that “antiphasis” is also part of our natural nature and must therefore be reflected in all natural processes.

The word “antiphasis” is the product of two words “anti” and “phasis” the word anti denoting the opposite of the noun phasis, proposing the existence of two opposing states.

In the purest sense this describes a state of balance or equilibrium and is essential in all scientific arguments if a steady state is to exist.
Modern theoretical physicists also argue that the existence of “matter” is due to the existence of “anti-matter”, if a balanced stable universe is to exist.
Another fundamental scientific law states that “action and reaction, are equal and opposite”. Nature and scientific argument in its most fundamental building blocks is composed of plusses and minuses.

One would therefore argue that “anti-phatism” is an essential element to human nature and can be shown, at least in its purest form, to obey natural law. On the surface one would say that Akis is correct in saying that “Είναι συνεπώς αναπόφευκτο ο άνθρωπος να λειτουργεί και να εκδηλώνεται αντιφατικά”.

However, how could it be plausible for me to make Akis argument, without expressing an antiphasis to that argument? It will not only be unnatural it will be uncharacteristic.

The natural laws that I have so simplistic summarized apply to what I have described as a stable state, a balance or an equilibrium. What I have neglected to say so far is that steady state exists in an infinitesimally small period of time, because everything in the universe is constantly changing, not simply oscillating on either side of the equation, but changing on a specific direction. Latest scientific observations confirm that the universe is expanding and not with a view to contracting in another cycle. If that is indeed the case then that push or force responsible for all change must be outside the material plane.

If the argument of a multidimensional synchronous universe, derived by unified universal theory, opened the door to spiritual and theological argument, then the argument of a non material plane influence, as the cause for change, does not simply open the door, it allows the proposition, for the present, that it comes from God as the simplest if not the only theory proposed by the human collective consciousness.
If “antiphasis” is the influence of a material plane, and if theologians are to be believed that we are fundamentally created in the image of God, then “antiphasis” is not in Gods thinking and by theological definition not natural to our most basic self.

I hope all this makes sense to someone. If not then I hope it adds an element of confusion, which I promised earlier, that should promote a well being to an “anoikto dialogo”.

PHIVOS