Wisdom, Most Devouring Beast of Them All

New Philosophy Mostly Blossoms Multi, and Meta, Culturally:

Any culture is wise, and loved. Thus, it is a philosophy. To use philosophy for diplomacy among cultures mandates, and thus needs, a greater wisdom to adjudicate among smaller wisdoms.

To any logic is associated not just one, but many, metalogics. Any of the latter is bigger than the former.

This is a direct application of the proofs of the Incompleteness Theorems in metamathematics.

Thus wisdoms, or cultures, by themselves, are the germs for bigger, greater wisdoms, or meta-cultures (thus, germs for their own enlargements). They contain their own spontaneous generation for greater transmutations.

Pine Island Glacier Crack Philosophically Transmutating

Pine Island Glacier Crack Philosophically Transmutating

The easiest way to enlarge a culture is to entangle it with another. The resulting union is automatically meta. Thus the greater wisdom of travelers.

However, what comes out after a while, is not harmony, but battle. Indeed a simple union of logos, and intricately entangled emotional systems is not possible, as some elements will generally come to contradict each other.

This is what those who confuse multiculturalism with tolerance, overlook. In their colossal naivety.

Paradoxically, true multiculturalism is not tolerant, at least not tolerant of lies and ossified thinking. Instead, it learns to pick, chose, abandon, adopt, and decide. It does not tolerate everything: it selects the best, rejects the bad.

Any wisdom is a system of logos, entangled with systems of moods associated to it. Local wisdom is often weird: associate a picture of Buddha to a party in Burma, and you will be condemned to years in prison.

The entanglement of cultures results into, not just synergies, but, before that, competition, conflict, even extermination, between different ideas and emotions.

The situation is similar to, but even more frazzled than in the biological survival of the fittest.

Any new wisdom comes from forcefully introducing at least one new idea, fact, or emotion to an old wisdom. The resulting entanglement brings a dynamic conflict between the old wisdom, and the union of it with the new element.

So one can say that any new, better, and improved wisdom is intrinsically multicultural.

This happens in the clearest way when new science arises: Relativity as defined by Poincaré (1904) arose from the earlier realization (Lorentz, Poincaré) that time and space (contribution of Fiztgerald) were local.

Einstein’s name got associated to Relativity (although he had invented none of it), just because had written down a neat abstract of the new wisdom in just one paper (“hiding sources”, as he admitted, helped!)

Why did Einstein become so famous, if he invented nothing (aside from the obvious nationalist and tribal aspects of the discrimination)? Because he presented a neat synthesis of the ideas and concepts of the new culture, Relativity. By the time Einstein wrote his paper, the new culture exposed by Poincaré the year before in the USA, had to be recognized as a coherent whole in the German language, the language of very serious and obviously superior people.

By 1905, Relativity had thoroughly digested the idea of Poincaré that the constancy of the speed of light, as measured in all frames, was a new law of nature. And also the proof of Poincaré, from 1900, that the emission of energy by a body decreased its mass, according to E = mcc. One just had to wrap it in one text.

How is a philosophical wisdom found to be superior to another? Because it is closer to the truth in matters pertaining to survival.

Picture this; in Western Antarctica, the Pine Glacier rests on the bottom of the ocean, two thousands meters down. It is bathed in increasingly warmer waters. Its catchment basin, under sea level, is larger than Texas. If Pine, and some of its colleagues, melted, and they could, very fast, billions of refugees would be on the march.

Clearly, something impacting survival, but not envisioned by philosophical systems in the past. This is the sort of possible truth that philosophy has to envision. Add increasing ocean acidity (from conversion of CO2 into carbonic acid), and one has new facts that require clearly drastically new philosophies.

So the most drastic transculturalism comes from mixing philosophical obsolescence, let alone bigotry, with exotic cultures, brand new science.

If we want to survive, we need to be right, and that involves firing lethal torpedoes to sink the biggest lies, and turn attention towards the real problems, whatever is left, an approximation to truth.

Philosophy, some suggested, is a way of life. Yes, the one that maximizes survival, and that means, now more than ever, the pursuit of veracity, is the most superior philosophy.

Maximal culture shock can only help constructing that superiority. Even the worst culture has some mental elements that can be integrated somewhere into superior wisdom.

Some may object that the preceding was all too theoretical: it may be true that new systems  of entangled thoughts and emotions arise according the (metalogical) mechanic that is explicitly described in the proofs of the Incompleteness Theorems in logic. However, they will complain, what does that bring?

As I said, transculturalism, well done does not mean falling asleep, it means conflict, or replacement. Therefore when, as in Europe, conflict is avoided cost, and replacement is not instigated (as in the USA), transculturalism does not arise, only apartheid (to use the notion of Manuel Valls, the French PM used, to depict the situation in France).

Conflict and replacement can be effected by rising the cult of the republic above others.

In the USA, Americanization is both fine art and massive enterprise. It involves sports and high rewards. (This is one reason why some financial compensation, in sports or ‘equal opportunity’ “leadership” jobs are so high in the USA: to make the attraction of absorption in American culture irresistible, for the befuddled masses out there).

The best and highest philosophy swallows, integrates and transmutate accordingly to whatever it can swallow. That mood is already in Rabelais. What is new now, what is better now, is that never before have so many new fats come to light, so many cultures, so much history, and so much new shattering devastation.

This disastrously destructive, and all too global situation out there, is excellent, for the birth of vastly superior wisdom. Bring it on.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , ,

11 Responses to “Wisdom, Most Devouring Beast of Them All”

  1. gmax Says:

    To paraphrase you, if I may:’Philosophy is war.’


  2. johsh Says:

    “Philosophy, some suggested, is a way of life. Yes, the one that maximizes survival, and that means, now more than ever, the pursuit of veracity, is the most superior philosophy.”

    well, the most superior philosophy is one that (eventually) imparts perfect wisdom equally and to all humans. One that creates a harmonious, perfect society, with perfect culture. Survival is part of it, but human life (unlike animal’s) is bigger than that.

    If you breakdown average 100yr life of human (humanity’s) activities, “worrying about survival” barely figures in that (i’m not even talking daily basis), unless you are a tea-party-end-of-world guy planning to live off the land. Sure, survival was big deal in stone-age. But over the last 12000 years (since agriculture), humans moved on to higher/meta stuff (like “harmony”), away from animalistic survival.

    This doesn’t mean we should ignore global warming, or not explore space/science, far from it. Just pointing out that survival alone is not the arbiter of superior philosophy. This is easier to see if you imagine all humanity as one person. Is survival alone, which is not totally in one’s control anyways (as death is a surety), the only thing that matters. Would you kill everybody(including yours) if it means your survival. Will that be a superior philosophy. Wisdom gleaned from animal world is primitive, far from superior.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, Josh, human institutions contain the thinking about survival. Seen from afar, the government of the USA is, first of all, a survival machine.

      Moreover lots of activities that look far removed from survival are actually made for people to forget their all-too-short lifespan. Including the will to war of the youth.

      Humanity has never been one person, and never will, therein its force.

      We are animals. So “animal world” is something we occupy all too much. We have killed our closest relatives, in our will to survival…


      • johsh Says:

        my point was survival (and much more!) can be achieved via better philosophies. Philosophies arbitrated by survival alone are not that superior. Dont forget the “much more”.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          To survive now, we are going to need philosophy to the measure of the looming catastrophes: the planet is completely over sustainability in several measures (say nitrogen!)


  3. Paul Handover Says:

    By a remarkable coincidence, this evening Jean and I watched a YouTube video that was a recent HBO programme regarding the increasingly rapid melting of the Antarctic ice. It mentioned several times the Pine Island glacier.

    We, as in humanity, do not have a great deal of time for the superior wisdom to rise above the waters!


  4. pshakkottai Says:

    “All creative thinking is war, a jihad…” I don’t like it put that way, Jihad has neither wisdom nor thinking. It is dumb killing, the way alligators kill wildebeest in large numbers at a river crossing. It is a survival strategy by killing everybody else of the same specie and grab their resources. It does not appear to be an instinct to kill to save the ecology because at the time Islam arose there was no population pressure.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well, Partha, I was a bit looking for effect here. Yet, those who talk Arabic, will tell you that “Jihad” is a great effort, and does not have to imply war, really hurting people. Salam, the physicist who got the Nobel for co-discovery of the Electro Weak model (he was from the ex-Raj, Pakistan now) would tell you that.

      Otherwise I agree with what you say. Muhammad created a population pressure by ordering his followers to NOT kill girls, or risk the WRATH of god, and have sex with slave girls, and “marry” them, have children (they could marry somebody else next month…)
      Crafty, but also a real demo pressure, and, of course, civilizational progress. Early on, women were fully part of Islam’s assault, and intervene in the major battles, even killing en masse the wounded enemy.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: