An excerpt from the book SEEMING REALITY [ https://sellfy.com/p/WTto ].
Will continue with this book now. first selected part see here..
From early childhood you are told that 1+1=2 and if asked when 1+1=3, people are joking, as the answer is: man + woman = man + woman + child. The joke is about the untrue, unreal (?) solution, despite the fact that life itself offers a good proof of the equation.
But 1+1 may be 4, 5, or much more. Therefore no equation can have an unambiguous natural solution. The unambiguous solutions are provided only in a special case – reason, which reduces all operations to bipolar connections holding only to the second degree of strength.
What is bipolar and what is the second strength of connection?
Bipolar is everything that can be encompassed by our reason: mathematics and physics (+ & –), ethics and aesthetics (good-bad, higher-lower), or any other field of human activity, be it logic, chemistry, psychology or philosophy. Reason approaches everything in terms of existence-nonexistence, its being better or worse than something else or in terms of opposites. Reason seeks to pigeonhole all natural feelings by finding an opposite to each of them. It is no wonder that people who try to “decipher” their love will obliterate the feeling.
Reason may perform curious tricks with the strength of connection. For instance, addition and subtraction involve the first strength of connection (in the case of separate elements the strength is 0, i.e. nonexistent):
1 + 1 = 2
1 + 2 = 3
2 + 1 = 3
(everything fits in, as the result is not dependent on the ordering of members added). We may also be satisfied in the case of the second strength of connection:
2 * 3 = 6
3 * 2 = 6
The behavior of reason starts getting interesting with the third strength of connection
2³ = 8
3² = 9
also representable as
2 Θ 3 = 8 & 9
3 Θ 2 = 9 & 8
Here we end up with two answers and reason trying to deal with both runs into difficulty. But this is only the third strength of connection and nature is not that limited. It is interesting to draw graphs depicting several different solutions (on the premise that they are all true). The resulting graphs will be exceedingly interesting (even from the rational point of view), a flat sheet of paper will turn out to be too limited to depict the results and the space available will be insufficient to obtain a clear picture.
As reason opts for (the better) one of the two variants, the unidirectional strive from negative to positive, bad to good, etc. will emerge.
Such unidirectional movement does not arise because of reason. It is, however, reason that is able to select out of natural laws the connections that comply with its rules and subsequently calls them the laws of nature. For human reason the rest simply does not exist, being supernatural mystification.
Thus reason has created the rules:
(+) (+) = (+)
(–) (+) = (–)
(+) (–) = (–)
(–) (–) = (+)
or, in other words:
(to help) (good ones) is (good)
(to hinder) (learning) is (bad)
(to help) (bad ones) is (bad)
(to avoid) (foolish action) is (good)
(Don Men called such way of thinking the first intellect).
These equations may be developed into more complex forms but their content remains unaltered. Once you convert a novel into equations determining the “good” and the “bad” words, you may be able to establish the mood experienced by the reader of the novel depending on whether the equations hold or not.