Human Intelligence amplification Management

[Renato]

UNIVERSALITY

In order to be crystal clear with all Participants here in this forum I am posting an additional comment that should be illustrating the importance of the matter of HIAM.
The reported reference is a comment to a friend of mine and how the book titled "The mosaic Thinking" deals with the content.

The following is an extract from a letter exchanged with a friend professional and full-time writer. And here please find what follows.

Greg,

The book doesn't deal with abstruse mathematical theories or formulas which might make the
target audience narrower. It deals with the universal methodology of how we think.

Let's to put it at this way. Perhaps, the thought contained in the writing of the work is not complicated but philosophically essential.

I like to think that in one hand the book is an eye-opener type of literature on the other is a fundamental inquiry which improves the coherency in reasoning.

The language used in the book is at High School level consequently, after all, it is readable by anyone.

I had many persons reading and reviewing the book or part of it and they approvingly even offered to buy the book.
The guideline for teachers which caused the reason for the first batch pressed for the Pennsilvania Department of Education, only two copies are left so I keep them for my own reference waiting until I can press more editions.

The work deals with the know-how to control the mental process of intelligence. Using examples the narrative describes the associations of the thinking to a process of graphic visualization of how we compose meanings.

I you remember, like the diagrams of Noam Chomsky, a bit, but my concepts are not directly related to grammar like the Chomsky's diagrams are.
But rather the methodology illustrated employs a type of "visualization" which specifically address the creative thinking in the effort of significance dealing with the complexity and the depth of the creative vision of the originating author.

Substantially it addresses how to obtain more coherency from the mind,

-before-

the mind gets inspired.
Comparatively the diagrams of Noam Chomsky are a clerical, after-check on
grammar.
Chomsky does not deal "directly" with the substance of the significance.

I also support that by being more coherent we aim to increase significance of our mental outputs and in so doing we increase our own significance as individuals.


If you remember the substantive material of the book which for being the "Human Intelligence Amplification Management" is obviously suitable to all professionals around the world, i.e. all worker who use intellect, including students and scholars of all ages and their teachers: worldwide.

All corporations, all libraries, all schools, and all social organizations should have this type of philosophical narrated manual on how the human intelligence works. ###

 

[Renato]

HIAM - Human Intelliegence Amplification Management

SCIENCE WITH MEANING, SYMBOL, AND BEAUTY

When the concept of "purpose" was barred out of Science, this was not for a lack of evidence.
It was after the decision to purify Science from terms having metaphysical or anthropomorphic implications.

The decision was motivated by a need to create a world of "precision", amenable to rigorous control and experimentation, free from psychological biases and rejecting. As a result of such self-inflicted austerity, Science produced an uninhabitable universe, 'gelid in its solitude'1).

Has the operation of self-censure succeeded? The result was the abolishment from the Science's world of narratives, symbols, values, meanings and purposes.
In turn great results were achieved in the theorization of Nature. But were the latter the genuine result of the refusal of traditions and magic? My view is that they were not.

Both in the cognitive and in the applied field Science is in debt with ancient, if not ancestral, ways of thought, which still 'contaminate' its aseptic procedures. Fritjof Capra has skillfully shown the impact of ancient Eastern mystic in the development of modern physics.

A young anthropologist from Boston, Misia Landau2), has convincingly maintained that all the theories on the descent of man (from Darwin to Leakey) were but versions of the universal hero tales in folklore and myth (as theorized by Vladimir Propp). She concluded that scientists have much to gain from an awareness that they are tellers of stories. I think to have conversely shown (1986-1994) that the classic fairy tales have a robust (although concealed) scientific structure (astronomic, mineralogical, botanical).

My auspice is that Science will consciously (and with the due caution) accept back within its boundaries meaning, symbol and beauty, that it will become again "approximate". Only in such context "purpose" would have its legitimacy recognized and could become a central theme in biology.

Once we have accepted "purpose" among the legitimate terms in the observation and description of Nature; once we have given it an agreed definition, we have to consider which use we should make of the concept in reading Nature. My feeling is that we should confine its use, to the "mysterious intentions of God", and to special situations.

The structuralist approach of the Osaka Group is, in a sense, opposed to a functionalist approach which understands anything as directed to a practical result, adopting what one can call an economicist view of Nature. We – at least I do – have a preference for order irrespective of function, for beauty without a purpose, for structure without an end in view. According to Adolph Portman, morphological differences largely exceed any functional necessity. In vertebrates the manifestations of form have the fundamental value of exhibiting a meaning, i.e. of rending manifest, in the language of the senses, the peculiar nature of the individual living beings and of testifying to such nature in their peculiar shapes. This is what Portman calls Darstellungswert (value of presentation). D'Arcy Thompson is in a similar position when he states: "Nature simply exhibits a reflew of the forms conteplated by geometry", or "The problems of form are, first of all, mathematical problems."

Let me tell a little story. A small bird, Cyanosylvia svecica (blue throat), delivers his most artistic song, the objectively most complex, when relaxed, in the depth of its bush, poetizing with himself (to use an expression of Lorenz). When the song becomes functional, when the bird fights for territory or tries to attract the female, all grace is lost and one hears only the monotonous repetition of the strongest strophes. This is a case of function, ‘purpose', destroing form and compromising beauty.

An example of "purpose" in Nature
Activation by means of a substrate in a bacterium
"This phenomenon is wonderfully and almost miraculously teleonomic"
(Monod, 1979)3)
"In the presence of the inducer (lactose) the cell produces an enzyme with the purpose of utilizing lactose4)."
The "inducer" does not need to be the very substrate. Similar molecules (e.g. isopropil-tiogalactoside, IPTG) may act as gratuitous inducers of beta-galactosidase (illusions).

IS THERE A PURPOSE IN NATURE?

About halfway through the century which is now coming to a close, after decades of positivism and materialism, the vision of Nature circulating in scientific laboratories was somber and dispiriting, to put it mildly – and this irrespective of the discovery of DNA in the fifties. In 1948 Jean Rostand wrote in his Pensees d'un biologiste:

Man has the sole resource of forgetting the indifferent immensity of nature, which ignores and oppresses us... For the individual everything is tragically simple. There is nothing to comprehend, nothing to expect... For us there is nothing to understand and, beyond us, no one there to be understood.

Thirty years later – and in the meantime DNA had made its explosive entry on the scene – Jacques Monod (Le Hasard et la necessite) came out in a similar vein:

The blind and disordered processes which led to our origin looked toward nothing, were directed toward nothing, they were stumbling in the dark. Man's appearance was without purpose and without meaning.

It was by way of revolt against this spirit of nihilism and desperation that the Center for Theoretical Study of Charles University and the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague organized a Central European conference, sponsored by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, with the theme: "Is There a Purpose in Nature?" The idea came from Fritjof Capra (author of The Tao of Physics), who conducted the proceedings.


That science should have abandoned the concept of purpose (Aristotle's Final Cause) is certainly not because Nature has ceased to reveal itself as "intentional". It is not as if we were constrained to do so by some established vouched-for fact. Rather, it was a matter of lexical convention, a sort of gentleman's agreement, whereby scientists denied themselves the use of anthropomorphic or metaphysical terms, (shades of the Vienna Circle...) in their discourse. Yet they continued to meet with purposes in Nature, but they made it their rule to reject them and dismiss them as illusions.

While firmly opposed to the idea of Chance as the sovereign principle governing Nature, the participants at the Prague conference were nevertheless hesitant to give a simple affirmative reply to the theme question.
There is no doubt that people (and certain animals) "have intentions", but is "intention" characteristic of plants and stones and the rest of Nature? The concept of intention presupposes the formation of ideas and the attempt to real-ize them. But can a bacterium or a rock form a mental image?
There are two ways to address this issue. Either we can say that purpose is a property of privileged species, thereby denying it to Nature as a whole, or we can attribute a mental, psychic...character to the world around us. Such a ‘mystical' view had the support of some of the conference participants, among them Neubauer from the Czech Republic, who anticipated the return of science to its roots. Others, however, were left perplexed, among them Capra, who had come some way from the Tao of his famous likening of quantum physics to eastern mysticism. It is possible to admit that there is some purpose in Nature, but interest has shifted, however, to meaning. If Nature and its expressions have some kind of meaning, then this would stultify Rostand's "there's nothing to understand." Yet, to live is to understand – to understand oneself in the context of Nature. Meaning, Capra insists, is one's experience of the context, the ‘web' within which we have our being and which gives meaning to our actions and to every action taking place in the world. To act meaningfully is to act with a purpose, with an end in view. Admittedly this is a "feeble" and vague version of the purpose with which the discussion was concerned – not a purpose qua intention/destiny/will (which is the "strong" version), but purpose representing the sense of anything. Does life have a purpose? Possibly, it may not have a purpose as such, but it certainly does have a sense.

This sense comes to man through the fact that he is part of a whole, because he shares, along with other beings and other forms, a higher purpose, namely his existence, his being part of an order, of a process, of the laws of development. In all of this there is nothing anthropomorphic (as in the "strong" version). A term which was found favorable at the conference was anthropocosmic.

Out of the framework thus described, the Gaia system readily emerged. The Gaians see the Earth as an integrated organism, a whole striving to conserve itself and render itself habitable. In Gaia we are part of a more vast system, of a greater purpose – in other words, the Earth. In this way, ‘finalism' converges with ‘ecology'. In his later works, Capra refers to "deep ecologism." Is there a purpose in Nature? Maybe there isn't, but there is ecology, don't forget.

But is this an adequate answer? In a time when the ecologists have become a part of the political left, the proposed solution is too narrow. As Mae-Wan Ho remarked, besides the ecological, there are the scientific and aesthetic connections. Again, can one speak of a connection unless there is a feeling as well? Awareness of purpose in Nature is something that must get us involved, impassioned, and not have us stop short at the realization of a network, of a web that holds us together in a coordinated fashion.

That being so, a return to the mysticism of purpose is inevitable (even if Capra now prefers his Web to his Tao). Before any physical formulation of connections among beings, there must first be the appraisal of Franciscan poverty, the re-establishment of a more direct relationship with Nature – Nature being now in danger due to an invasive technology – as in the talking to the birds, to the Wolf of Gubbio, to sister water, to sister sun; addresses which are not anticipatory of ecosystems or of Gaia, but a mystical participation in the whole, where there is no incongruity with Francis' Laudato si' mi Signore.

What, then, is the answer to our question "Is there a purpose in Nature?" To be sure, an answer to this kind of question is not something that can come out of a conference in which each participant is expected to represent and maintain his position.

There were several different answers and reference has been made to these above.

Meanwhile, what is important is that the question was put forth in scientific circles, and the fact that it was put forth in the heart of Europe which is itself seeking a connection, a meaning, a purpose.

When all is said and done, what else is purpose if not a self-questioning as to where one is going – what else, if not the posing of a question to oneself that expects a reply from the intelligence within?

Giuseppe Sermonti

 

[Renato]

HIAM- Human Intelligence Amplification Management

Is There a Purpose in Nature?
How to Navigate Between the Scylla of Mechanism and Charybdis of Teleology
An associated project of Forum 2000
March 22-25, 1998
WORKSHOP PAPERS
Preliminary Statements by Panelists Fritjof Capra, Václav Cílek, Ervin Laszlo, Tim Lenton, Pier Luigi Luisi, Susumu Ohno, Anton Markoš, Giuseppe Sermonti, Tim Lenton, Peter Horton, Václav Cílek, Zdene Neubauer, Ivan M. Havel, Mae-Wan Ho, Václav Havel, Weiming Tu.

Motto
[Am I] right or mistaken in thinking that the crisis of much
needed global responsibility is in principle due to the fact that
we have lost the certainty that the universe, nature, existence
and our lives are the work of creation guided by a definite
intention, that it has a definite meaning and follows a definite
purpose, and together with this certainty of course also all and
every humility towards what reaches beyond us and surrounds
us[?]

In March 1998 fourteen scholars were invited to sit around a table and confront their opinions about a possible intersection of two seemingly different issues, the issue of human responsibility on the one hand and the much debated issue of directedness in nature exemplified by the terms 'intention', 'meaning', and 'purpose' on the other hand.

Our workshop "Is There a Purpose in Nature?" was conceived as a follow-up meeting to the prestigious conference "Forum 2000" at Prague Castle in September 1997. There some sixty of the world's leading thinkers, writers, scientists, religious leaders and politicians gathered for a three-day conference which, as the first in a series of "Forum 2000" conferences, was aimed at evaluating "the state of our knowledge of ourselves and to proposing alternatives for the future". There was a considerable number of interesting ideas raised at the 1997 Forum, which, for technical reasons, could not be discussed in sufficient depth. Some of them could even be potential sources of dispute, disagreement, or confusion. It has later been suggested by some of the participants that the time between the last (1997) and the next (1998) Forum 2000 might be well-utilized if small groups of participants, possibly joined by some other scholars, met for small workshops, each elaborating on one of the topics or ideas from the 1997 Forum.

The point of departure of our workshop was the motto quoted at the beginning of this volume, taken from an introductory speech by Václav Havel at the 1997 Forum meeting. Being aware that the terms 'intention', 'meaning', and 'purpose' are a frequent source of misunderstanding among scientists as well as philosophers, we hoped that an exchange of opinions could contribute to our understanding of nature and humanity's place in it, as well as create a mutual understanding between scholars and intellectuals of various orientation.

The concrete goal of the workshop was to arrive at a reasonably coherent description of evolution in nature that is neither strictly mechanistic nor purely teleological. The discussions were restricted to science and philosophy; they were not intended to touch upon religious beliefs in a transcendent supernatural entity.

Thirteen scholars accepted the invitation to take part in the debate: Fritjof Capra (USA), Václav Cílek (CR), Ivan M. Havel (CR), Mae-Wan Ho (UK), Takeaki Hori (Japan), Ervin Laszlo (Italy), Tim Lenton (UK), Pier Luigi Luisi (Switzerland), Anton Markoš (CR), Zdene(k Neubauer (CR), Susumu Ohno (USA), Mária Sági (Hungary), Giuseppe Sermonti (Italy), and Weiming Tu (USA). In addition to several Czech scholars and students from the audience who occasionally contributed to the discussion, the vice-rector of Charles University, Petr C(epek, participated in the first day's panel. The workshop was also visited by Jan Sokol, then the Minister of Education of the Czech Republic.

The workshop was included in the itinerary of events on the occasion of the 650th anniversary of the founding of Charles University in Prague. The organizational matters were handled by the Center for Theoretical Study (CTS), Prague, which is an institute of advanced studies at Charles University and the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic aimed at enhancing cooperation and interaction between various disciplines both scientific and humanitarian.

What a God would be without the individual's "human-sense"?
Where would be this intelligence of our minds if not within the attribute to be human.
What a God would be without creating an inner self within the person?
Simply, God recreates God and perpetuate "creation" within us, and we humans accept God being the same as we are. And frewill is the Self which reflects the process of creation and both God and freewill make the SelfSame.
Without hesitation many will discover that God is within the folds of the human intelligence.
Renato L. Porchetta

 

[Renato]

These few words could take you into the essence of the 2005's March event.

"If the mathematical logical process of the human thought would be assumed a reliable conceptionof the intelligence, then the "moving sculpture" would unassailably manifest, the major attributes of the universal God.

In fact, now, the ”Mathematical presentation of the universal interactivity between The Sacrality-ONE (Unary System) and Dualism (Binary)" can be presented.

Please be aware that a possible implication affecting the American living could be as follows If the mathematical proof of God's existence would be accepted, Religion and its related education based on Man and Woman's "significance" will enter the political arena of the Law making in Washing D.C. and, possibly elsewhere in the world, not because of gratuities, grants, contributions or arbitrary donations given by donors, but Religion for the reason of its tangible-existence, would have full legal rights equally or even superior to Defense. I think.
Peace,
Renato

PS: NO E-Mails - please!
Students and attendees must write an handwritten statement illustrating the reason/s why they would like to witness the proof of existence of God in mathematics and also, state the intention to discuss the event - if any interest would be there, of course.
NO E-Mails. Please!
Sociology should be contacted in "handwritten" format.
Attention to Dr. Mulvey or Gabriel Washington in relation to the event "THE MOVING SCULPTURE"
Dr. LAURIE L. MULVEY (Lecturer)
Address0211 OSWALD TOWER - UNIVERSITY PARK, PA 16802
DepartmentSOCIOLOGY
CampusUNIVERSITY PARK - PA 16802

enjoy the event !!!

and/or ... for summaries visit www.personal.psu.edu/rlp188
or enjoy the Penn State University airing the discussion of the event on "LION" at 90.7 FM

 

[Renato]

Dear ... Ophiolite, Starman, Spidergoat, Duendy, SnakeLord, The Devil Inside:
I am glad to give notice that the US ISBN Agency and the Library of Congress formally accepted the cataloging and registration of my book.
This formality is meaningful because the information contained in the volume is the only unassailable keystone explanation of the science of significance (semantics, composition etc.) in all human history, I Think.
Than, if you add to this publishing event to the other, i.e. the discovery of the mathematical proof of the interaction of God with Man - suddently, my time spread very thin - I need help with my communication... perhaps grammar ... perhaps punctuation ... perhaps typing -- If you are willing to provide some help based on your language skills, please, contact me by e-mail at Penn State.
Thank you.
Be well. Peace,
Renato

PS clerical data ...

Library of Congress Control Number 2005905187
ISBN 0976993104
Title Universal Methodology
Sub-title Semantics
Sub-title The Mosaic Thinking
Publisher - Ce Code Efficiency, Inc. - State College, PA 16804-1184