Dialectical Creative Framework for Orientation in the Eternity of Times DIA Infinity of Spaces
The Endless Dialectical Worlds of a Six-Pointed Star in Time DIA Space, understood as endless Depicting a Six-Pointed Star within its Hexagon
DIA: The new introduced preposition-conjunction "DIA" draws its name from the three first letters of the notion "DIALECTICS". In addition to this original meaning, in the English language, it is also the abbreviation of the developed Dialectic Interactive Approach (DIA). In the symbolic terms which expresses the DIAlectical understanding of time DIA space, "DIA" is graphically illustrated by a six-pointed star [the primary school of dialectics, characterised by the using two dialects (triangles)]. In the everyday language, "DIA" can be approximately translated by a multiple dialectical synthesising of the following words of the (recti)linear comprehension of the TIME AND SPACE: THROUGH, IN, BY, WITH, AND, OR, FOR. In short, the word "DIA" encompasses the basic features, aspects, properties and manifestations of dialectics in time DIA space, such as, transition, transformation and metamorphose, and transfiguration as well, which is the highest achieved dialectical state of all them in time [future, emotively emotional presence dia active and creative physical presence, past] DIA space [spirit, reason dia mind, matter]. As it will be later demonstrated, in the developed dialectic interactive approach, any consideration of the notion TIME without the notion SPACE and vice versa, has no any meaning within the dialectical way of thinking, just due to the previously mentioned basic features, aspects, properties and manifestations of the notion DIALECTICS, respectively of the WORLD OF DIALECTICS, which is in a state of the continuous CHANGE, although in small intervals and scopes of the time-DIA-space it is not always clearly observable.
Because of the all previously mentioned reasons, the DIALECTICAL comprehension of the TIME DIA SPACE has little in common with the corresponding (RECTI)LINEAR understanding of TIME AND SPACE. Keep always in mind, the difference between them is NOT IN THE ORDER, in which they were set but in the ESSENCE of their compound dialects. Thus, if it is still difficult for you to adopt and to become familiar with the notion "DIA", then connect the used notions (in your mind) by HYPHENS, that is, "time-DIA-space" instead of the "time DIA space". In short, the connected notions by the word "DIA" makes an UNSEPARATABLE dialectical whole, where the first notion presents its meaning, understood in terms of time, whereas the second one presents its meaning, understood in terms of space. As an example, you are going to be faced many times with the notion "scenario-DIA-situation in time-DIA-space in these creative works and articles, respectively with the "scenario in time-DIA-situation in space". In short, since the developed dialectical interactive approach is a new methodological approach, it by definition requires use of the additional words, in order to be more precisely defined a scenario in time DIA situation in space.
So, if you meet the following part of a sentence, such as it, for example, "in terms of least / smallest", the first word "least" elaborates and interprets the meaning of the sentence, understood in terms of time (originating from the notion "little time"), whereas the second word "smallest" expounds and interprets the meaning of the sentence, understood in terms of space (originating from the notion "small space"). If you can speak and understand many languages, you are quickly going to perceive, that all languages, because of being based and developed on the existing (recti)linear understanding of "time and space", when describing a scenario in time DIA corresponding situation in space, they do not clearly distinguish between its time (temporal) and spatial meaning. In addition to this, it is possible the use of dialectical synthesising of more words, in order to be included its more precise meaning, understood in terms of the two additional dialects (the high school of dialectics): Time in space ("future in spirit") and the space in time (the already embedded "matter in the past"). For example, previously were used the words "through, in, by, with, and, or, for" in order to be in (recti)linear terms conjured up the new introduced preposition-dia-conjunction: "DIA".
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Good versus EVIL; Right versus Wrong; Not Bad versus Bad
The Background Simulative Methodological Assumptions of the Dialectic Interactive Approach
The Ultimate DIA Probable Methodological Presumptions of the Dialectic Interactive Approach
In the contemporary ('modern') languages, these notions are often used as synonyms. It seems that for them, instead of using the old-fashioned distinction of Good from evil, are more appropriate and easier for "swallowing and digesting" the notions right-wrong, and especially, good-bad. Recall, the notions right-wrong were used and creatively discussed in detail in antique time by Socrates dia Plato. In spite of this, using it in sense of a substitute for distinguishing Good from evil is not in full agreement with the dialectic interactive approach, which was developed by implementing as its fundament the hidden knowledge. In short, after reconsidering them through the prism of the great pyramid of the CULTURE, art, philosophy, and science, the notions right and wrong do not pass the test, that means, this concept is not appropriate to be used as their common denominator. In other words, each METHODOLOGICAL approach, which is based on the distinguishing Good from evil, such as it, for example, the dialectical interactive approach, requires something more universal in order to be acceptable in cultural, artistic, philosophical and scientific terms. To cut also this long story short, the concept of the doing right versus wrong is, at the first place, culturally dependent. In other words, what might be right or wrong in a culture (or a societal context, if you so will) might be inappropriate and unacceptable in another culture. Because the distinguishing Good from evil is a major postulate of the dialectic interactive approach as well as the only dual dilemma, which is retained in this methodological approach [temporal conclusion of / in the time DIA space versus absolute dogma (because the final judgment is in God's hands)], the concept of the right-wrong was used in this methodological approach in terms of solving various scenarios in time DIA suitable situations in space [spirit, mind dia reason, matter], which came into being as a result of the EVIL ACTING, otherwise there would be no exit
- or more exactly exits, which are in agreement with the considered culture and its understanding of the role of the applied art, philosophy, science, or with the methodologically considered societal context in this dialectical interactively creative way
from this manifestation of the eventually created "do while loop" of the bipolar understanding of good and evil. On the other hand, the concept of the good-bad is entirely an artificial construction in the contemporary (too modernized) languages. Probably, it came into being as a further attempt of the decoration of the notion - evil by this modern-day 'sinners' and language corrupters (spoilers). In most languages, which I speak, it is clearly perceivable this simple-minded decorating because it has no deep root in them. In short, the opposite of the word "bad" is "not bad", or something like it. In either way, in accordance with the dialectic interactive approach, in this context, instead of the word good, is a more proper use of the word: not bad. For example, after the evil was committed, the notion "not bad" will be used in the context that it was moved in the RIGHT direction from this unwanted scenario in time DIA situation in space [but still not good (at all), that means, there is a need for a further right action in this direction].
The aforementioned methodological considerations are very important in God's religions during the distinguishing Good from evil (the very point and the universal meaning of all Holy Books and Scriptures), which are as such incorporated as the core of the corresponding culture. Because the essence of each God's religion as well as of the old pagan ones is the after-life (life beyond death and its dialectically creative interaction with the future life, understood in terms of some form of reappearance, dialectically understood)
- if you are healthy, young and rich, you perhaps do not need these 'old-fashioned' religions, do you? Nevertheless, as it was pointed out in the pre-ancient times, it approaches dia comes to an end to your health, youth, and material richness, sooner or later,
the distinguishing (recognizing) Good from evil is of the crucial importance in each of them, regardless of whether it deals with the concept of sin, dharma dia karma, destiny dia fate and the like as well as it will shape the understanding and conception of righteousness and justice within each societal community, based on it.
- In broader, farther and deeper sense, it will have a decisive impact on the adopted system of shared values in a social context as well as judge what is a created knowledge about, its meaning, consequences and destiny, understood in terms of what is an appropriate and socially acceptable knowledge (not bad, right, good), and what is not [bad, wrong, evil: such as, for example, this created knowledge by this creator of knowledge in this societal (political, business...) and creative (scientific, philosophical, cultural and artistic) environment]. The written history of humankind is full of such examples, as utmost result of judgments of theirs, understood in terms of previously elaborated (their) distinguishing and recognizing Good from evil.
Anyway, the main feature of any sinful acting is the (continual) committing evil to others. The committing evil to thy-self is far less evil, negligible. In short, non-committing of evil to others, seen from the perspective of the dialectic interactive approach and understood in the aforementioned terms, will not affect thy after-life in negative terms. In other words, such an attitude towards the meaning of life dia way of life, seen from this methodological point of view, which is based on the hidden knowledge, allows thee to pass through the sieves of dialectics set in progress (into higher levels of time DIA space).
Unfortunately, the aforementioned way of distinguishing Good from evil does not mean that it is valid also in the everyday life, especially while living in societies permeated with (doing) evil, which is characterized by a low level of the developed consciousness of its inhabitants dia their underdeveloped prick of conscious. Such dialectical worlds, within which dominates evil (acting), are recognizable by a simple fact: there plants and animals live longer than people and human beings. In either way, in such natiocratic societies, the final judgment, related to the distinguishing good from evil, is in the hands of the earthly gods ("princes the earth from the old times"), that is, they dia their inner personification of them will differently judge, what is good and what is evil, what is a sinful and what is an appropriate act. For thy consolation, from these judgments of theirs were also neither spared the prophets and emissaries of God, nor the God himself (according to Christian faith). In short, it is another recognizable feature of very evil societies and a real sign that these societies are not moving in the right direction, but rather to some kind of the (earthly manifestation of) hell for their inhabitants.
NATIOCRACY: The major feature of all natiocratic societal orders, apart from being based on the crowd DIA group way of thinking and comprehending of the (recti)linear space [FUSED MIND, matter] and time [past ⇢ PRESENT TIME ⇢ future], is misuse of the notion NATION [HEREFROM ORIGINATES THE IRONICAL NAME OF THIS ESTABLISHED POLITICAL SYSTEM: "NATIOCRACY"], demanding the sacrificing of all and everything in its name and behalf, including its citizens. By going in a methodological way behind this dialectical content, it is not difficult to be recognised the hidden narrow-minded interests of members of the ruling natiocratic elite. As a result of this approach, IN EACH established natiocratic societal order, the main role plays and thus makes decisions about all important for the society as the whole, A FEW PERCENTAGES of its inhabitants (elitist upper castes).
DIALECTUL: Thy presentation DIA interpretation of a dialectical content uttered and understood in terms of the least (smallest) in time DIA space. For example, during undertaking a creative traveling in time DIA space, thy individual abilities to break up these inner and outer dialectical contents of the time dia space into the smallest pieces as it possible (dialectuls), and then again to put together, rethink, transform, recompose and re-design it, by synthesizing this puzzle of dialectuls in a dialectical creatively interactive way into a meaningful creative whole (thy creativity) is in fact of crucial importance in this methodological approach and the way of creating (a new dia deepening an existing) knowledge.
I - THOU - WE
Couple Dialect: Thesis DIA Antithesis
Synthesis DIA "G" → The Renewed Thesis in the Time DIA Space
ETC. in the Time DIA Space UNTIL
"G" → The Temporal Conclusion of / in the Time DIA Space is reached
I - THOU - WE: In order to be clearly distinguished the crowd way of thinking from this presented humane, creative, individual way of thinking it was introduced this notion (I, THOU, WE). In other words, in full agreement with the developed dialectic interactive approach [thesis, antithesis, synthesis DIA THE RENEWED THESIS... a myriad of ANTITHESIS.… until a temporal conclusion in (of) time DIA space was achieved] only by using this notion can be satisfied the major postulates of this methodological approach. Recall, this methodological approach opens doors for a THIRD, fourth,…. way, as an antithesis to the current ruling bipolar DIA binary approach: black – white, yes – no, for - against, all - nothing, 0 -1, and the similar. As a result of it, the black - white, for-against ‘WE’ way of thinking is not at all in accordance with the dialectic interactive approach. This creator of knowledge has been fed up with the empty catch-words for the crowding of people by using this simple-minded and simple-reasonable way, such as, for example, ‘(ALL) WE humans’, all people are good, 'WE' together will do … and the similar, because the use of common sense clearly says that there is no such ‘we’ societal categories, that means, we are not all humans (good), NOR the majority of people are good, because in that case, this world would be completely different. In short, this creator of knowledge clearly distanced himself from both of them and especially, from such a way (in essence malign, or EVIL) of thinking, which will neither change something on this endless rectilinear dia binarily bipolar line of this way of comprehending of the time and space NOR will lead these nations in the right (GOOD) direction. In other words, seen from the methodological point of view, it provides a foundation for the various forms of the natiocratic societal orders DIA suitable political systems (STATUS-QUO: Revolving in this magic circle).
Concluding this initiated dialectical process, I – thou – we, simply means, only in the case, thou (and thou, and thou, and …..) agree with me DIA until I -THOU – WE agree in regard with a dialectical interactively creative content under consideration, using the methodological means of the developed dialectical interactive approach [CLASH OF IDEAS AND THOUGHTS instead of using various means of the natiocratic power, thereby distinguishing good from evil [for example, at least like in the antique age, within the narrow circles (of philosophical debates) of Socrates (dialogs), or even better like the major actors of the Book of Job (multi-dialogs), each of us can speak in this conversational form]. However, if someone leaves an established actor-net, for any reason, in order to be established a ... fifth, sixth…. way, it is still in accordance with the basic postulates of the dialectical interactive approach. In short, all other pathways are acceptable, understood in terms of distinguishing good from evil, apart from the returning to the bipolar DIA binary way of thinking. Probably, you have already taken notice, that it was also re-introduced the notion of THOU instead of YOU in order to be broken apart in this way as well, the aforementioned natiocratic process of crowdisation. In short, by using this form of conversation (in fact, a distance and alienation), people became not more equal. On the contrary, by using at the first sight this polite form of conversation, acquired without a deeper methodological insight, they became in this way even more alienated of each other.
This creator of knowledge has already been faced with remarks that this (I, thou, we) way of communication IS NOT POLITE [what is a positive awareness, meaning they at least had read what I wrote], but most of the ordinary people were “shut up” after were contradicted by a simple question: Which type of conversation do you use when talking with your mother, father, close friends? After they answered that it was used the Thou way of conversation, I closed them up with the following question: Why then do YOU not use this 'YOU (POLITE, GOOD)form' of the conversation, if it is truly better and more polite, when talking with your parents, instead of using it during a conversation with not well known persons? In either way, the process of individualization DIA HUMANISATION understood in terms of treating other HUMAN BEINGS as thy sisters and brothers, can not be initiated with the continuation of the use of WE dia YOU form of conversation during an interactively creative dialectical debate, because the most of the time will be spent on prevailing this INHUMAN distance (if you dare it!), which is a distinct FEATURE of them. Or put it in another way, they DIA their inner personification of them will continue to lead the main word during such a kind of (the creative) debate, in this old-fashioned manner, which characterizes this kind of ‘WE humans’, while leaving YOU to satisfy yourself with this cheap reward of you-way of "conditioning". Keep in mind, each TRULY human(e) being for the difference to them has only ONE inner being DIA inmost one, and not two, three, four (‘faces, masks…’) as they possess it. Or as once upon a time, they said to Christ: There are many of us (inner demons) ….. [and for this reason, you have to address and greet each of them, haven't you?].
DOT: In difference to the everyday (static) math (uttered in the sense of emphasising space), in the dynamic math (uttered in terms of emphasising time), the zero (0) is not equal to nothing in the absolute sense, but a dot, because it is a result of accumulation of the invisible, imaginary intuitive and sensitive dialectuls: Thy presentation DIA interpretation of this dialectical content uttered and understood in terms of the least (smallest) in time DIA space. In other words, by this dialectic content was interpreted DIA presented a large enough accumulating in time DIA space for the creating a visible dot, that means, a visible one either with the "naked" eye or with any assistive instrument. Keep in thy mind, in accordance with the dialectical way of thinking, nothing (with)in the world of dialectics of His is (cap)able to exist DIA be created without existence of both the dialect time (Thesis) and the dialect space (Antithesis), and for this reason, by definition, none of their consisting DIA further (re)developed, regenerated and (re)created dialects (with)in any initiated time DIA space, can come into the existence (Dialectical Synthesis DIA the Renewed Thesis). The uttered dialectical content can be in more details reconsidered in terms of the three (3) basic principles, aspects, properties and manifestations of this methodological postulate of the dialectic interactive approach in time DIA space. Understood in this sense, by this creator of knowledge is argued, that time DIA space is not able to exist without one another (Renewed antithesis), and that something like it (with)in the time DIA space has no any meaning DIA sense (Synthesis DIA Renewed Thesis); nor it is possible to emote and emotionate DIA be imagined, imaginated und conceived nor to be thought about something like it (Renewed antithesis), as well as where "it" DIA when, how and with "what". All this creatively DIA methodologically uttered dialectical content, in fact initiates DIA enables a continual source of change (Synthesis DIA Renewed Thesis), understood also in the sense of ennobling and cultivating differences and diversities within it (Renewed antithesis), that is again a dialectical presumption and assumption for the existence of life and everything else in a deeper, farther and broader sense [Synthesis DIA (Provisionally, Temporal) Conclusion].
LINE: Since this accumulation of dialectuls in time DIA space happens in the sphere of visibility with naked DIA the "assistive" eye, sooner or later are going to appear in time DIA space, understood in terms of imaginative time in space (future within spirit), intuitive and sensible with (thy) emotive DIA emotional presence of this dialectical content in thy mind [DIA in the sense of the imaginary spirit within future], witnessed with thy creative (emotive) DIA active (physical) presence, understood in terms of space in time (matter embedded within past), some kind of deviation in time DIA space, perceived as images of a dotted line in this concrete case under creative consideration. Because also in dialectical sense the dot beside dot, understood in terms of a geometric presentation of the previously mentioned deviation in time DIA space, is already a line, the shortest perceivable (not in physical manifesting since it is relative, understood in terms of the smallest in the eternity of times DIA infinity of spaces but rather in terms of an existing) but yet recognisable line, regardless of whether it is consisted of two (minimum), three, .... three hundreds, .... (billiards) dots. Perceive that this dot counting has meaning, that is, (has its own) time DIA space within the static (quantitative, everyday) math (static "captured" time AND space within the line), but not also (time DIA space) in dynamic math, and thus in full agreement with this math's calculating: 0 (dot) + 0 (dot) = 1 (line). In other words, in the static (quantitative) math was registered only the final quantitative outcome, understood in terms of the physical space, whereas the dialect time was completely neglected and forgotten. Only an experiential dialectician is able to perceive it DIA to intuit and spiritually sense this quality, by understanding and perceiving this dialectical content in terms of time. In other words, the feeling that this dialectical content had been previously present DIA captured and kept (with)in this imaginative line, before it was forgotten. By the way said, this dialectical content might be still intuited in the physical DIA geometrical (vertical) presenting the number one [1: a form of the not closed triangle --> number one (1) presented as a vertical angle towards down pointing at].
In order to be got a more complete dynamic presenting of the prior elaborated dialectic content, imagine an apple (1) in the apple tree (dot), then a (1) living being or robot (dot), with her/his stretched out (automatic) hand in direction of the apple (line), in purpose of prevailing the perceived physical DIA emotively emotional deviation in time DIA space, and its picking up and the motion back to be (EMOTIONLESSLY or JOYFULLY) placed in the basket. And later when (that or an another) apple is put in front of thee on the table, all this qualitative (emotional and sensible) story, understood in terms of time (DIA space), had been simply forgotten DIA neglected (the rectilinear understanding of time and space). In other words, the qualitative story, how it appeared on thy table, cannot be expressed in terms of the static (quantitative) math, for it is not its meaning und purpose. In short, such a statically dynamic story might be only expressed with some type of the qualitative math, that is, with the simplest implementation of the dialectic math: dynamic math. On the other hand, it is very important to be emphasised, that only this QUALITATIVE dialectical content (emotional "touch") will be impressed DIA imprinted, and as such preserved in time DIA space (and not this quantitative content, except perhaps temporally be imprinted and memorized in thy mind dia reason.
TRIANGLE: Any dialectical trinity or triad ( of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis), might be symbolically represented by a triangle, as the most simplified expressible surface, in which can be "captured" DIA closed more time DIA space, that means, some form and manifestation of the higher quality (DIA filtering it), which otherwise could not be put and preserved in a rectilinear form, known as "TIME AND SPACE" [that is, within this imaginative line]. In other words, this higher quality would have been lost, that is, it cannot be held permanently with(in) this imaginative line but rather it would be dispersed (scattered) through its (two) BIPOLAR ends dia a BINARY one. By reinterpreting this dialectical content, related to the dot and line, in terms of the dynamic math, with a QUALITATIVE (DIALECTICAL) connecting two lines will be formed a triangle. On the other hand, the result of this dialectical content in the quantitative [(recti)LINEAR] sense is an angle. And finally, by dialectical synthesising this dialectic interactive content in accordance to the above presented way of dynamic DIA dialectically mathematical calculation in time DIA space: 1 (line) + 1 (line) = 3 (triangle).
The Symbol of the Human(e) Genus
The previously mentioned picking up of the apple with stretching forward and moving back the hand, in order to be picked up this apple in order to be put in the basket, can be perhaps graphically presented DIA interpreted with the one DIA two arrowed lines (arrows), understood in terms of the (recti)linear understanding of time AND (physically made static) space, but not also in terms of the dynamic math, because of the well known DEVIATION of time DIA space, regardless of how much it was tiny, as a consequence of the conveying it in (recti)linear sense from the inner worlds of the time in space (future in spirit) into the external worlds of the space in time [matter embedded in the past: the realm of the five basic (scientific) senses]. In other words, all this will be registered DIA "noted down" in TIME DIA SPACE, and as such included and represented by two (rectilinear) slanted lines, [symbolically presented by a triangle dia be physically connected in order to be formed this triangle]. All this was done in purpose of describing this dialectical DIA dynamically rectilinear process, understood in terms of having a target (aim: apple in the tree) until the apple was put into the basket (determined place). However all this depends on the point of view of considering this dialectical content, which conjures up this dia-process in time DIA space: "from down till up DIA from up till down" movement. In either case, understood in dialectical sense, it will be created an imaginative triangle, within which has been already preserved, or it can be preserved, this static-dynamic quantity dia quality. But keep in mind that even in this more simplified manifesting of the dialectic math (synthesis DIA ....), in this dialectical two-way relation (or interplay if you so will) of the static (thesis) and the dynamical math (antithesis) in time / of the time DIA space, seen from the dialectical point of view, there are still "too much left and retained rectilinear way of thinking", that is, too many (unneeded) repetitions.
In other words, seen from the viewpoint of the dialectic math, the first remarkable redudance in this dialectical relation, understood in terms of (the spent) time DIA space is that are not necessary two lines but rather a line and dot. In other words, by this simultaneous imaginative "drawing" of two lines from these two orienteers in time DIA space (in purpose of preventing the quality to flow out), can be also created the aforementioned triangle. In fact, it mighy be argued that this approach even more authentically presents dia interprets the interlocked and captured time DIA space (spirit, mind dia reason, matter) within it. In order to be achieved this goal, this dialectical interactive content can be even more qualitatively presented by a self-reflective connecting DIA dialectical synthesising (these) three (invisible but imaginable) dots in time DIA space!
In other words, similarly to a child who uses calculus or its fingers to be able to conceive DIA convince itself that understood in terms of the static (quantitative) math 1 + 1 = 2 is, so someone new in the realm of this simplified (rectilinear) understanding of dialectical (qualitative) math (but the same is not not valid in the higher forms of the dialectical math), is now able to conjure up, how DIA why are 1 + 1 = 3. In the living reality, the practical implementation of the all aforementioned dialectical content is not something new at all. It is fascinating, how a human(e) being is (cap)able, in a flash of time DIA space [SPIRIT, mind dia reason, matter], to intuitively conceive DIA to synthesise some dialectical interactively creative content, by applying the power of the so-called mental-(emotively) EMOTIONAL intelligence. This kind of the picturesque DIA dialectical presenting and interpreting of the time in space DIA space in time within the created medium of time DIA space, is probably closer to the faculties and abilities of an imaginable super (-artificial) intelligence, an the first place, its primitive technical part.
Exceptions are perhaps children (of the countries in Far East), who were taught to think, design and create something in this picturesque way. It is not a coincidence, to the opinion of this experiential traveler in time DIA space, that great number of innovations, as in the written past so in this current time DIA space too, have been creatively designed exactly within these "picturesque" spaces DIA times, because a recognizable feature of any creative acting, understood in terms of implementation of creativity, is the imaginary DIA imaginative dialectical synthesising images of the impressed and imprinted pictures in (human) mind/reason DIA spirit, applying thereby as a minimum the sense of intuition DIA a feeling to be spiritually present within this time DIA space. Or said it in another way, (s)he filters this dialectical creatively interactive content, through her/his inner DIA innermost being, used as a kind of dialectical sieve set in a continues progress DIA initiation of the multiple and multifaceted dialectical interactively creative processes within this eternity of times DIA infinity of spaces [by undertaking the corresponding creative traveling, understood in terms of time in space (future in spirit)]. This dialectical content should be understood in terms of creative traveling through the least / smallest in time DIA space.
Keep in the mind, each undertaken voyage, understood in terms of the biggest / largest in time DIA space (external one) in fact means in dialectical terms too, the traveling in sense of space in time (the matter embedded in past). Recall the Olbers' paradox says: As farther DIA longer you watch in the observable space, as better you see the (face of) past ('s events). In other words, because of the fact thou art externally surrounded with the (matter in the) past, the only way traveling within time DIA space, which is truly available by the help of thy emotively emotional presence, is the (creative) traveling in sense of the least/smallest (with)in it. Actually, this kind of (the CREATIVE) traveling, understood in sense of journay through the future (in the spirit) within DIA through thy Inner DIA Inmost Being ALWAYS PRECEEDS to dia is a precondition for the undertaking any "external" one, which includes thy physical presence too.
Regarding the prior uttered picking up an apple, thou willst at first perceive thy goal (apple in the tree) DIA related intention by (the power of) thy emotively emotional DIA mental presence there and back (the apple in the basket), and only after that it will be accomplished this task by undertaking the corresponding physical action (physical presence), understood in terms of thy capability this intention to carry out in the reality by creating it (intentionality). The similar is valid for the robot too, to whom all this has to be pre-programmed, including EVENTUALLY the simulation DIA imitation of the emotional dialect. In now-days, it is done by CONVERGING, COALESCING AND FUSING, in sense of the linear way of thinking, the previous described mental (DIA emotional) AND physical activities. In either case, by uttering this dialectical content in Christ's way, the undertaking any traveling in terms of the time in space (the FUTURE in spirit) is done by using the preserved "kingdom of God" DIA (with)in thy own "kingdom of ???? [“Go in by the narrow gate” (Matthew, 7.13 –7.14): The least/smallest (with)in time DIA space, understood in dialectical sense], that is, by using thy Inner DIA Inmost Being ["Heavenly (Matthew - 13, particularly 13.24 –13.35) DIA kingdom of God (Matthew, 17.20 –7.21)"], thereby creating in terms of distinguishing Good from evil". Thy FUTURE is (with)in thee!
Or by paraphrasing Christ (Luke-17:20-21)]: Thy (creative) future (capability) has been [already noted down DIA is written (every day) with]in thee! In other words, as the cleaner and purer thy Inner Being DIA Inmost one is, as greater the bandwidth of ideas DIA thoughts (both possible DIA feasible ones) within it is. Note that even during the process of creating new (renewed) knowledge is still used by creators of knowledge the concept of distinguishing good from evil, applied this time in sense of dialectical synthesising the good, true, right, correct, .... dialectuls (parts), that means, only the dialectuls which properly fit into the new/renewed creative whole in time DIA space (drops of knowledge), after being previously caught in DIA "captured" time DIA space, had been broken apart into the smallest parts imaginable by thee within thy Inner DIA Inmost Being by the power of thy mentally - emotively emotional capabilities (intelligence). Or more simply said, all that thou emotionally emote DIA intuitively feel, it does not fit into the "Great Picture" imagined by God, should not be included into thy renewed dialectical creatively interactive content of the (created) time DIA space (intentionality).
Reviving of the Dialectics
REVIVIFYING DIALECTICS: German Kantian, Johann Gottlib Fichte (1762 - 1814) was the first thinker in the modern time DIA space, who presented DIA interpreted dialectical way of thinking as involving in the triad of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. After him a lot of other thinkers put dialectics under their consideration, in more or less extent. The most of them were born on these German expanses, which were in those time DIA space much more decentralised, as well as impregnated by a linguistically richer way of expressions DIA culturally far more diversified, and for this reason, by definition CREATIVELY MORE FREE and fruitful spaces. The greatest achievement of this creative interaction was definition of the three basic dialectical aspects and principles. However, by unification of these decentralised kingdoms and counties into the great German 'Kaisertum' in purpose of (too late) chasing the world imperialistic goals, characterised for those days surrounding empires, the dialectical way of thinking DIA the related views on the world was abandoned and replaced with the more appropriate philosophic directions (machinelike way of thinking and acting). In other words, it was stopped with further reviving the dialectical (interactive) approach as well as other secrets of the dialectics, understood in terms of considering of these dialectical contents from the standpoint DIA viewpoint of the German various (in those time DIA space ruling in world proportions) philosophic directions, so characterised for this age DIA creatively decentralised rooms of the blossoming German philosophy, culture, art, and some time DIA space, later the science as well.
- "Netmode – the Strategy for 21st Century – Dialectic Interactive Approach, Jovanović, Denmark - Copenhagen, May - August 1999"
- "Traces of Dialectics in Time DIA space – Methodology for Creating Knowledge, Jovanović, Denmark - Copenhagen, February - May 2001"
- "World of Dialectics versus Multidimensional space – Dialectic Interactive Approach in Use, Jovanović, Denmark - Copenhagen, May 2002 - 20??":
- - Appendix 1: More about the Fourth Dimension , England - Manchester, November 2002
- - Appendix 2: The Eternal Poem, Germany - Aachen, August 2003
- - Appendix 3: The Book of Job - Holy Bible, Austria - Salzburg, February 2004
- - Appendix 4: The Human (Re)Enlightenment DIA Divine Choosing versus The Natural Evolution DIA Natural Selection, Germany - Münster & Nürberg, October 2004
- - Appendix 5: Implications of the Implementation of the Concept of Simple(st) Mind in terms of the Theory of Natural Evolution DIA Natural Selection into Living Reality, Germany - Nürberg, November 2004
- - Appendix 6: Holy Scripture: The Teaching of Buddha – Vakkali Sutta, A Fragment for the Initiation of Dialectic Interactive Process, Netherlands - Rotterdam, March 2006
- - Appendix 7: Feodosian Spring Rhapsody, Programming in Java – A typical earthly creative Travelling: A short Fragment from this Travelling for Initialisation of a deeper Dialectic Interactive Process, Ukraine - Feodosia, May 2007
- - Annexing 7-1: Concept of the Free Will DIA Freedom of Choice versus Wisdom of God, Netherlands - Rotterdam, August 2008
- - Annexing 7-1: Natiocratic Concept of Secularism versus the Distinguishing and Separating DIA Discerning and Recognition Good from evil, Netherlands - Rotterdam, August 2008
About Website Portal:
The first internet portal, which included these creative articles, was developed in the year 2010 in Riga, Latvia. On the other hand, the portal's subdomain such as, for example, /apartments/lv/riga/salacas written by java programming language (after acquiring Sun-Microsystem by Oracle, it cannot be opened), were developed much earlier, at the end of 2007 in Rotterdam, Netherlands. The most of the creative articles such as this one you are reading now, were also compiled during my stay in Riga, Latvia (2010), and only a few of them were compiled in Evpatorya & Sevastopol (Ukraine) and Kishinev (Moldova) at the beginning of the year 2011. After an unsuccessful try for hosting this website portal by an internet provider in Sevastopol, only the client side of this java applet was launched in Kishinev (march, 2011). At the end of 2015 it is actually paralysed by this host provider, simply by doing backup until was occupied all available disk space. An old version of the home page of Cosmopolis still can be opened, but not updated too. Reasons?
READ the Next Part of this Article: