Abstract
The essay does not solve any of the controversial problems on the borderline of the humanities and the natural sciences, but with the essay, a new path is presented, on which the necessary knowledge about the things of the world can be gained. With the method: the trialectical approach, the problem of the non-decidable dialectic of matter and mind is representable, argumentative, and visual, leaving open the concrete factual questions, which are stated in the process of science, putting back the given answer into the process of cognition. The principle of this method, a combination of the semiotic triangle with the critique of Hegel’s dialectic, is analyzed and reflected in the horizon of metaphysics, the cornerstone of every methodology. The subject who thinks the dialectic of mind and matter is the focus of the argument. The core of my argument is the idea that neither the philosopher nor the physician can verify the truth of their arguments. The physician reaches his limits when he is to explain why his doing has not defeated the death up to now. This explanation fails because death is a constitutive moment of life that is not possible without matter, but life is more than mere matter. Up to now, the philosopher has failed to explain what the mind is because he cannot go beyond that what has been told and can be told in the myths about the being of man. The necessary narratives promise a solution which in life is denied by the dead, the factual existence of matter.
Graphical Abstract/Art Performance
Life: beyond predictions (Adapted with permission from the Health and Art (HEART), Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (USERN); Painting by Aytak Barazandeh)
Sapere aude – Have the courage to use your own mind!
Immanuel Kant, reply to the question: what is enlightment? (1783)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The notes have the function of a subtext, too, (a). The orthography (b) and the terminology of the relational argument require further references which would have disturbed the flux of thought in the text. As something which is new, the text cannot refer back to a broad discussion in the relevant sciences, but I can point at my texts, explaining the relational argument, differentiated from the ontological argument (c).
(a) The subtext is limited to some remarks, because the limited space for the essay forced shortenings in the planned sketch of annotations. In general, I point to my homepage, where the texts are available as well as the links to the INDEX/register (*1).
(*1) www.ur-philosoph.de /bibliography, and /INDEX/register.
(b) There is to remark one particularity in my orthography which should not be ignored, because it is fundamental for the logic of the text. It is the use of the colon with final comma (point) which differs from the practice. The term which stands after the colon is the variable, the term before the colon is the constant, parts pro toto the concept: mind, and the concept: matter. The sign: “, is set, if in the variable the terms are separated by a comma or colon, pars pro toto the term: “the letters: a, b, … n,” (*1).
(*1) INDEX/register, keyword: orthography.
(c) INDEX/register, keyword: relational argument und ontologist argument.
- 2.
In the horizon of the relational argument the distinction: history or historia, is to be observed (a). The term: historia, refers to the historical facts which can be documented with a document of historia. The term: history of men, refers to the narratives/myths which people tell each other, today and then. The debate: mind and/or matter, is conducted in this horizon. As far as the documents of historia point back in the history, the separation of mind and matter is the cantus firmus. People speak of the spirits which rule over the matter, the sea as well as the land and the sky. With the determination of the facts, nothing is explained, neither something about the mind, or anything about the matter.
(a) INDEX/register, keywords: geschichte und historia.
- 3.
The German terms: geist und materie, are translated with the English terms: mind and matter. The translation: materie ==> matter, (a) is unproblematic, the translation: geist ==> mind (spirit), appears more complex. Either the term: mind, or the term: spirit, are possible, but with a different meaning, a distinction which cannot be done with the German term: geist, but it is possible to give additional explanations. With the term: mind, different phenomena are called, partes pro toto: anima or soul, including consciousness (of himself) as notions of the subject, thought in his forum internum. The thinking of the subject is to be included, too, grasping the things of his world in their materiality. The term: mind, refers most accurately to the object of the text.
(a) Here, the sign: ==>, is used in the meaning: translated.
- 4.
In the horizon of the relational argument, the adequate translation of the German terms: widerspruch und gegensatz, is difficult. It’s usual to use the term: contradiction and opposite (contrast). The concept: contradiction, used in logic, is not the phenomenon: opposite (contrast), real in space and time, a complicated situation when the term: (to) contradict (= widersprechen), is used for the handling, formulated with the term: (to) opposite (= opponieren).
- 5.
The English term: thing of the world, is a translation of the German term: ding der welt. All the things which the subject can grasp, imaginated and formulated in the forum internum as concepts and ideas, and handled in space and time on the forum publicum, are things of the world (a). The possible distinction: “matter, life and mind”, is subordinate.
(a) INDEX/register, keyword: ding der welt.
- 6.
The term: scientist, refers to any subject who perceives the things of his world, guided methodically. The common distinctions are subordinate, partes pro toto: “natural scientists or arts scholar, physicist or philosopher”. The distinctive feature is that everyone is committed to the causality which is set by them in their autonomy.
- 7.
Set in the horizon of the relational argument, in the discourse every idea or every thought is treated as an argument (a), if the thought is methodically indicated in the horizon of the prevailing causality
(a) www.ur-philosoph.de /bibliographie /signatur: 029: argument.
- 8.
The term: subject, is the translation of the German term: individuum als ich, central for my thinking. A literal translation of the term is impossible (a). For this reason, the literal translation: the individual as I or the individual as a self, are misleading. Because I have not found an adequate translation for the German term: individuum als ich, I was forced to resort to the traditional term: subject, but I do not take over the connotations of the concept: subject, (b) discussed in the tradition.
(a) Based in my orthography, the problem is located in the words: Ich/ich. The German noun: Ich, is generally translated into English, either with the term: I, or with the term: self. Insofar, there is no problem, but I use the terms: Ich/ich, clearly differentiated. Grounded in my use of orthography, the meaning of the German terms: Ich/ich, cannot be mirrowed in the Englisch term: I. If I use the term: Ich, then is fixed, that I am the author of the thought and no other. If I use the term: ich, then is fixed the concept: das ich. According to the orthography, this differentiation is not possible in English. The sign: I, always stands for the traditional subject, the sign: i, is not used, standing for each other concept: “subject: I or self”.
(b) As the actor of all events the human being is the central concept of this essay, designated by the term: the subject, a term which is problematic regarding tradition. The problem is located in the general term: subject, which is used for opinions (= interpretations of the men) which are valid in the relational argument as well as in the ontological argument. For avoiding misunderstandings, I have developed the term: individuum als ich (*1).
(*1) INDEX/register, keyword: individuum als ich.
- 9.
The problem: metaphysics, is to be mentioned (a). The horizon of my argument is a certain version of the concept: metaphysics. I make a strict distinction between the relational argument which I follow and the ontological argument which is the mainstream in the tradition. Both concepts mark the fundamental and only possible perspectives on the world. The subject autonomously decides which perspective it will hold, a perspective which is absolute true for the subject, but, viewing at the tradition as his measure, the subject cannot prove the truth of his decision, well grounded in faith.
(a) Here, the historia of metaphysics is not to be discussed, I refer globally to: Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, 13 vols. Basel: 1971ff, keyword: metaphysik, vol. 5, sp. 870–924. Additional the reference to the keyword: geist (mind), vol. 2, sp. 154–204 (210), and the keyword: materie (matter), vol. 5, sp. 1186–1279 (1295).
- 10.
The terms: trialectic or triolectic, are to have been used publicly by Asger Jorn for the first time, around 1960(a). Without knowledge of the neologism, created by Asger Jorn, I formulated the term: trialectic, around 2000 in order to identify my philosophical intentions more clearly, being in contrast to Hegel’s dialectic. The derivation of the term: trialectic, from the term: dialectic, is obvious, if the coinage is not amalgamated with the speculations of numerical mysticism. From the number: 3, nothing can be derived which goes beyond the rank: 3. The ideal image of trialectic is the number: three, in which the notions of a triangle and a circle coincide, conceived as a perfect unity. All other geometric figures are either derivatives or singular elements: point and line.
(a) According to Wikipedia, keyword: Asger Jorn.
- 11.
I confine myself to a general note and refer to the theory of signs which Umberto Eco had developed (a).
(a) INDEX/register, keywords: semiotisches dreieck and Umberto Eco.
- 12.
G.W.F. Hegel: Die Logik der Wissenschaft (a).
(a) INDEX/register, keywords: “G.W.F. Hegel and Hegel’s dialektik”, and www.ur-philosoph.de /bibliographie /signatur: 031:dialektik_weg.
- 13.
A special attention should be paid to the reading of the signs, used in the context of the method: trialectic approach.
The systematic compilation of conventions, used in this essay:
1. The moments:
– for every conceivable thing in the world every conceivable term can be used, also the usual letters: “a, b, … n … z” (read: small a b … n … z. (always without punctuation marks)).
– the small letters: “a, b, c … z”, stand for things.
– the capital letters: “A, B, C … Z”, for persons (read: capital A B C … Z).
– set as moment of another relation, the relation is set in parenthesis: ().
– the moments of a dependent and/or reciprocal relation are interchangeable in their position. Whether a moment takes the first or the second position of the relation, the formulas are equivalent.
2. The relation-signs: (no empty space before/after the sign)
– the simple relation: ==> (read: relates simple).
– the dependent relation: <==|==> (read: relates dependent).
– the reciprocal relation: <==> (read: relates reciprocal).
3. Used formulas, as far as reading is not self-explanatory.
– a <==|==> b (read: small a relates dependent small b).
– A <==|==> b (read: capital A relates dependent small b).
– subject <==|==> (mind <==|==> matter) (read: the subject relates dependent the relation the mind relates dependent the matter).
– cause ==> effect (relation) (read: the cause relates simple the effect).
– cause ==> effect (no relation) (read: cause result in effect).
- 14.
The formula: in space and time, is a part of the concept of time, valid in the relational argument. The term: time experience, (a) is incompatible with the concepts of time, valid in the ontological argument (b). Living his life in the phenomena of his existence, the subject sets the things of the world which are commonly referred to the term: time. Distinguished by the traditional concepts of time, the phenomena of time are not a contradiction to each other, they are opposites which also can be mutually exclusive.
(a) The German term: zeiterfahrung, is translated with the term: time experience. In the horizon of the relational argument the term: time experience, marks all phenomena which are described as time, being exactly that time which time is supposed to be. In the terminology of the relational argument (*1), the traditional scheme of time is mirrored:
– present ==> the moment of the lived present
– past ==> the factum of the past
– future ==> the projection into the future.
(*1) INDEX/register: zeiterfahrung.
(b) Effective in the tradition, certain theories of time remain unaffected by the relational argument, pars pro toto, the time theory of the physical sciences.
- 15.
The term: metaphysics, is limited to its declaratory function.
- 16.
The concept: causality, (a) formulate the relationship: if/then, as the logical foundation of every method. The set cause has an effect, fixed in the relation: cause ==> effect, (b). In space and time on the forum publicum, the effect and its cause are named by the subject. In the relational argument and in opposite to the ontological argument, set by the autonomous subject, every form of causality is absolutely binding for the subject who has set the causality, his comrade can accept or not the set commitment of the subject, beíng for himself autonomous in his decision. The problem of causality is not located in the mechanism: if/then, but it is founded in the subject who has set the ground (= faith), deciding what the effect is to be (= knowledge).
(a) INDEX/register, keyword: kausalität.
(b) Remark the difference: on the one hand the relation: cause ==> effect, on the other hand the relationship of things/matter: cause ==> effect.
- 17.
The graphs in the trialectic approach have an explanatory function, but they do not extend the represented thought. They visually make perceptible the things of the world which the subject thinks. The graph and the text are equivalent.
- 18.
This image is not a scheme in the trialectic approach. Three schemes are merged, not falling identical.
- 19.
INDEX/register, keyword: gottesbeweis.
- 20.
Note: (09/a).
- 21.
The term: al gusto, marks the fact that, under the conditions of space and time, the idea of the autonomy of the subject (a) must be another idea than the idea of liberty, concepts and phenomena which are discussed in the societies, being real in the forms of civil liberties (b). Each form of the real civil liberties depends on the momentum of an incalculable arbitrition which is the implicit source of each autonomous decision, made by the subject.
(a) INDEX/register, keyword: autonomie.
(b) INDEX/register, keyword: bürgerliche freiheiten.
- 22.
The distinction: forum internum and forum publicum, (a) must be strictly observed. The subject deals with his ideas, phenomena of the mind, either autonomous in the forum internum, independent of space and time and closed absolute to the comrade, or, subjected to the conditions of time and space, in an act of speaking, the subject makes public his imaginations on the forum publicum, confronted with the notions of the comrade. Always a phenomenon of the mind, in the moment of the lived present the conception of the subject is either located on the forum publicum or in the forum internum—tertium non datur.
(a) //==> INDEX/register, keywords: forum internum and forum publicum.
- 23.
Niklas Luhmann has pointed out that every research process is conceived as a form of reduction of reality, complexly experienced (a).
(a) www.ur-philosoph.de /bibliography /signature: 014: das_politische, argument: 2.22.45, and the graphs in argument: 2.24.18.
- 24.
The application of the falsification principle, stated by Karl R. Popper (a) and defined as the logic of research, is conceivable only on the basis of the mechanism: cause ==> effect, including the logical axiom of the excluded contradiction. On this basis in his research, the scientist can only depict a part of the reality which the subject real lives.
(a) Popper, Karl R.: Die Logik der Forschung (1934). Tübingen: 1969.
- 25.
Representing a problem, the purpose of the method: trialectic approach, is focused on making visible the reduction of complexity, but it must be aware that the simple scheme of the trialectic approach do not adequately grasped the complexity of the world. On the one hand, the scheme in its simplicity requires additional explanations in order to be adequate to the complexity of the world, on the other hand, these arguments create a new complexity. In the representation of this complexity, the graphs are limited efficient, because in a graph the complex representation becomes again confusing for itself. Here, this problem cannot be deepened, but more on this problem elsewhere in my essay about the dimensions of the political (a).
(a) www.ur-philosoph.de /bibliographie /signatur: 014: das_politische, arguments: 2.24.01-2.25.18 (the chapter: graphs), in particular argument: 2.24.23 (time experience).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Richter, U. (2022). The Dialectic of Mind and Matter in the Trialectic Approach: A New Path of the Cognition Process. In: Rezaei, N., Saghazadeh, A. (eds) Thinking. Integrated Science, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04075-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04075-7_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-04074-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-04075-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)