I wrote the previous post about wisdom , mind and intellect for a couple of reasons:

1. As a strong supporter of 280-character X messages, I do at the same time fight against self-evidence. Self-evidence is a direct result of “short reasoning”. Short reasoning is not a result of the 280-character paradigm, but a result of not having enough energy to digest complex language, complex logic, and complex life. As Wittgenstein proved: short sentences when well thought, can express complexity. On the other side of the spectrum, one could find many examples of long, complex sentences that are one-dimensional. So the post that was rejected as obscure or even as a reflection of the author’s show-off is a text that mimicked language used not so long ago. I think you must use complex language to represent a complex reality fully. I do not want to claim I succeeded, but at least I tried.
2. The language itself is a beast. And if it is a foreign best, it makes it even more fun. Why? Because of rhythm and music. As much as the mind has to be accompanied by power and beauty to reach the level of wisdom, so much the rational level of language has to be accompanied by rhythm and music to achieve the full language value. And you do not have to be an expert in language rationality to play with rhythm and melody. As I listened to on Audible, Dante provoked me to step into such an experiment. You do not have to understand each sentence of The Divine Comedy to understand it fully.

But then, I conveyed some supporting messages in a much-hated post. And here is the interpretation that lacks all beauty. Short and dull.

Philosophy, art of knowing nothing?

Philosophy is a much older science of wisdom than approximately 2.400 years ago when rational sciences started to spin off. Unfortunately, spin-offs did not produce particular sciences that would address specific topics with the same holistic methodology as philosophy. Still, all sciences have reduced methodology step by step, so today, a specialist in any particular science knows less about holistic interferences than any layman. Pitfalls of such reductionism are pretty evident not only in medicine but in law, neuroscience, and physics as well. They are visible but rarely addressed.

On the other hand, it would be completely wrong to address the issue by regression. The answer does not lie in irrationality, in subjectivism, in flower-power movements, in “back to nature” ideologies, in “we hate capitalism and technology” leftist pleasantries. All those who follow such doctrines in fact regress man and humanity. Technology and all human achievements, including money, microchips, and plastic, are integral to existing Nature. Plastics are as much an integral part of Nature as green algae.

The challenge thus is to integrate and transgress all rational particularities (of various sciences) on philosophical (holistic) premises. Therefore, the challenge is not to forget or to avoid all of man’s intellectual achievements, but to integrate them simultaneously through one perspective.

Is universal knowledge passe?

Some claim that Erasmus of Rotterdam was the last universalist in science. Other mention Henri Poincaré as the last person proficient in all sciences at that time. Such claims are not only wrong but are even more devastating, for they imply that, since Erasmus or Poincaré, no one can understand the world holistically. Such a notion gave us all an excuse to lock ourselves in separate rooms. Since it was taken for granted, no single person will ever be able to understand everything due to the faster and faster development of all sciences and particular know-how. How could anyone in the year 2020 understand all the results of particle physics, cosmology, chemistry, neuroscience, neurology, medicine, material sciences, archaeology, geology, oceanography, biology, mathematics, and statistics?

Particular holism

But here precisely lies the trick. If you are focused on a tree only, you can never see that same tree as much taller than the rest of the forest. You have to understand that a tree is a part of a forest to recognise a tree and to understand the forest. But you do not need to understand each other’s zillion constituent parts of the forest to understand the complexity and interrelation of all “wood members” from hamsters to leaves. My claim is that even in the times of Erasmus or Poincaré, there were too many particularities for anyone to understand. But what he did was that he dared to jump over particularities; he dared to understand totality.

That is why I can claim that everything that exists can be squeezed into Planck time/length as the smallest imaginable entity in the Universe. No matter how fast knowledge evolves, there will always be enough brainpower/brain-space to understand everything. That is why we are exactly in the middle of the Universe, no matter where we are. We have to try; even the Master, Albert Einstein, as much as he started to transgress physics by the end of his life, could not accept entanglement as something possible. But he won the challenge even though he proved himself wrong. Entanglement exists.

To try is enough. What we see now is that not many even try.