Theory of Universal Equilibrium
THEORY OF UNIVERSAL EQUILIBRIUM
Roberto Patron
This file belongs to the edition of February 2, 2014.
| Edition: February 2, 2014 Edition: January 1, 2014 |
Contents
|
Preface Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Fundamentals Regarding Pairs of Opposites Chapter 3 Value, Valuation, and Values Chapter 4 Love and Sex Chapter 5 Equilibrium Between Opposites Chapter 6 The Future of Humanity Chapter 7 Theory of Gravitational Repulsion Appendix: Another Example of Rejection of Repulsion Opposites |
|
Preface Since the present edition, I highlight in yellow the parts constituting additions or modifications with respect to the past edition, which you can still see in the page Theory of Universal Equilibrium - Jan-01-2014.
CHAPTER 1 Introduction The Theory of Universal Equilibrium is a set of scientific discoveries, which encompasses phenomena from all fields of knowledge, in a consistent and systematic way, by means of the formulation of principles or laws that governs them in analogous forms, in fundamental qualities that all those phenomena have in common with one another. The discovery and formulation of the majority of these principles, I made it in 1990. The rest of these principles and laws, the detailed development and deepening in them, are a result of other many years of hard work: from 1990 to the present time; years during which I have made many other related discoveries, which I plan to publish in other books successively. The principal discoveries in the Theory of Universal Equilibrium, can be summed up in seven themes, namely: * War and peace. (Conflicts in general) * The duration of life, in the individuals and groups of these (as, for example, nations, species, and other larger groups). * The future of humanity, near and distant. * The essential of life, in some respects; what all living beings have in common: Which allows among other things to suppose, with very high degree of probability, how extraterrestrial beings are in some aspects, if there are them. * The interaction among the largest cosmic objects (galaxies and various levels of clusters).(Here I present a theory that complements with Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation.) * The origin of the Universe. * The size of the Universe. The Theory of Universal Equilibrium, is very extensive and complex, and all its chief conclusions imply very great changes, it is possible to say that revolutionary, in respect of what up to this time the human being has regarded as true or probable as respects the same topics. In it I have created over 60 new concepts. Owing to these characteristics, I have devoted a great deal of time to trying to explain these discoveries as clearly as possible, not just by embodying numerous concrete examples, but also by repeating often one idea with different words. At the same time, I expound and enunciate frequently analogous phenomena and statements by deliberately using the same or nearly the same words, precisely for the purpose of making more patent the analogy between the compared cases. It is worth saying that, since this is a strictly scientific theory, it is sure that almost no reader who has certain religious ideas with regard to the subjects dealt with here will be able to understand, or rather in this case to accept, this theory. So, of course, this is a primary obstacle to this understanding. Then, it is necessary to take into account that for understanding these discoveries is indispensable a high degree of open-mindedness to what is new and to the very great changes, and being free from prejudices of any nature. If you have already achieved this, still something not less difficult is necessary: The major obstacles that exist in the human being to understand the Universe until the point in which it will be understood starting from the Theory of Universal Equilibrium, are of psychological origin; just as in other cases in the past, for example due to anthropocentrism. The ability to discover and to accept new truths, is directly proportional to courage. The reading of each of the sections of this book, and in the sequential order exposed here, is very necessary for the correct understanding of any other of the sections, even though seemingly there is little relationship among some sections or subjects and others. Here no topic is dealt with too, but on the contrary: It is necessary to say far more—and I will do it as soon as I have the opportunity—as to each of these subjects and many others, in order to a better understanding of the Theory of Universal Equilibrium.
1.2 The Universality of the Theory of Universal Equilibrium Some natural principles or laws that govern the human behavior,* are the same that decide the behavior of the largest macrocosmic objects as it will be demonstrated; but they also necessarily regulate the behavior of every living being (no matter how civilized or evolved this is, and no matter how much, in other respects, is distinguished from humans) who may exist in the Universe. Explaining and predicting the conduct of humans in some of its fundamental aspects, are, in the Theory of Universal Equilibrium, a result of a more ambitious intention: to unravel the essence of the sense of life. Insofar as this can be achieved, it will be possible to know what behavioral features any intelligent living being (from any place and civilization in the Universe) must necessarily own in common with human beings, and also what qualities may differ. * I use in this section the terms “behavior” and “conduct” in an extremely general sense, which covers, besides individuals and groups, nations and the entire human race, or equivalent.
Intelligence, sensitivity, perseverance, and ambition, are indispensable when trying to make discoveries of remarkable significance. But there is not in such enterprise any quality whose importance reaches to that of the bravery. There are not theory or discovery whose unwonted value does not have their origin in rare audacity. And at the same time, for lack of fearlessness, more than for any other deficiency, self-deception abounds to the extent that, much more than for their boldness in the face of it, the common people is distinguished by their fear and repugnance to truth. Notwithstanding these facts, the courage is not enough if the desire is to go still further, since there is a level, very high, of original knowledge from where the bravery stops being useful to advance, and consequently the advance ceases unless a different technique is used, which I usually call suicidal attitude or suicidal search. Between the brave one and the suicidal one there is a certain difference. The brave one is such because of s/he faces the dangers with fear to them and in desire—which is overcome by a purpose born of the sense of duty or of sensitivity—of the opposite. The brave one fears and wishes at a time. By contrast, a certain type of suicidal one, the one who has already committed suicide in such a way that is a living dead, no longer neither fears nor wishes absolutely nothing. Hence the great advantage: most of the worst errors, are originated by fears and desires that subordinate the reason. But to such attitude, not just the extreme decrease of the degrees of fears and desires can lead, but likewise the extreme increase of the same fears and desires. In the face of danger or what is fearsome, the attitude of the one who is a living dead and that of whom on the contrary has life extremely, are not always easy to distinguish, and many invariably confuse them, just as often there occurs before crazy and genius. Both can behave as if to life they were attributing no or very little value. Life, which is desires and fears, is what impedes to know thoroughly life, in an analogous way as their condition of humans obstructs humans in the project to get to know her/himself as such. And in addition, to participate in the game of life, impedes to know the Universe, as long as the way of considering it is determined greatly by fears and desires. The suicidal attitude or search, instead, leaves the way open towards the truth; but it is possible only when the researcher has a desire for truth so powerful that even surpasses their intense desire to live (hence their seeming disdain to life). From that moment on, one progresses like free from life and from humanity, and like evaded from the Universe. It is not possible to know the Universe from its interior, so to speak; it is necessary to be situated out of it. Summarily: in order that to find important truths, courage is essential; but in order to very advanced ones, recklessness. To the first one, to go against multiple fears and desires. To the second one, against all, including those about death and about life. The truth is not conquered by confrontation to it, but by means of abandonment—by oneself of the own life—to it, like someone who when seeing it to sink into an abyss, throws her/himself to it, completely determined, without paying attention to doubts, neither to notices, warnings, nor fears. The truths are thus like a rain of diamonds into an abyss, and the only way of catching big truths is to plunge towards them. And, indeed, the most pleasing and fascinating place—if one really loves truth—is the depths of that abyss that most of the humans fear and avoid. This book attempts to be a trip, an exploratory adventure, bound for the depths of that abyss. Semantic explanation: The word “man” will have the meaning of 'human of male gender'; it will never mean 'human being', anywhere in the book.
1.4 Broadness of the Concepts in the Theory of Universal Equilibrium The most effective way to understand the parts is to understand the whole. The entire Universe, is constituted of an extremely simple form—which, though, of course, does not imply great easiness to come to know it in substance—but it is seen, ordinarily, as extremely complicated, because its simplicity does not reside at the individual level, to which, usually, is drawn attention, but at the general level. A theory that says, in a way that does not admit any exception, what there is in common among all humans, is very general, but still insufficiently simple and wide, taking into account that the Universe is not composed only of humans. The aim, in consequence, is to find what there is in common among absolutely all that exists and that can exist. For this purpose, it does not matter as much to know in what the things differ from one another, as to know in what are similar, trying to avoid the error, which is very common, to see analogies where there are none. The majority of the most important concepts that are usually used, is too narrow for this purpose; so here I will use some of them by extending sufficiently their meanings.
CHAPTER 2 Fundamentals Regarding Pairs of Opposites There are various all-important reasons for researching opposites, and some of these will be seen through the different sections of this theory. Two aspects of prime importance in individuals and the human being as a whole, are love and sex; which always require interaction or relationship between at least two parts (thus it is even in any relationship of self-love or autoerotic); and the most appreciated bond is the one that is formed between opposite sexes. Insofar as love and sex are important, so are at least also the action between opposites and to research it. At the same time, evidently both peace and war, two of the most vital actions among living beings, imply to a large extent certain actions—interactions—between opposites. In addition, the function of the Universe as a whole, and that of everything what exists in it, lies substantially in action between opposites, and in conformity with various discoveries resulting from my researches in this respect, each action and each motion, animate or inanimate, whether significant or not, in any place of the Universe it is governed by some same principles or laws that regulate the functions of each pair of opposites that exists; principles and laws that I expound here.
2.2 Principle of Parallelism If we make a comparison between any pair of pairs of opposites, for example, light - darkness and life - death, we will find that in one and the other pair there are characteristics that make them parallel to each other. For example, it is noteworthy that whilst life is associated by people more frequently with light than with darkness, death is more often linked with darkness than with light. Likewise, joy and light are more commonly associated with each other than darkness with joy or happiness, whereas sadness more usually is associated with darkness than with light. By intuition, near any person knows vaguely that amongst some pairs of opposites there is a certain parallelism. Nevertheless, after analyzing rigorously and in great detail over three hundred pairs of opposites, including all the most important that I have been able to find and many of them very diverse from one another, I have found that the parallelism above-mentioned exists in all of them, without exception, and that due to the function and the vital importance that this parallelism has in each pair of opposites, it must also necessarily exist in any other pair of opposites that exists or that can exist. To be aware of this reality and keep it in mind when researching, is very useful when comparing pairs of opposites with one another, because parallelism does not reside merely in similar features between the opposites of a pair and the opposites of any other pair, but moreover in how each pair of opposites interacts or interrelates. Therefore, we can enunciate the following principle: Principle of parallelism: each pair of opposites is in essence analogous to any other pair of opposites.
2.3 The Fundamental Pair of Opposites Everything in the Universe is in motion, and this is always an effect of attraction and/or repulsion between or among two or more parts. When speaking of the movement of parts, the words “attraction” and “repulsion” usually are circumscribed to the fields of physics and chemistry. However, when people speak of love and hate and of peace and war, actually is speaking, respectively, of attraction and of repulsion; the same attraction and repulsion that, albeit manifested in a different way and in other scopes, regulate the behavior of both atoms and galaxies. And likewise, when people speak of life and death, of pleasure and pain, of unification and separation, in effect is alluding to consequences of the aforesaid attraction and repulsion. Both attraction and repulsion act by the agency of more complex mechanisms among humans than among atoms and among galaxies. But anyway the interactions among living beings are due invariably to attractions and repulsions. Consequently, we will relate all the opposites by analogy with the fundamental opposites attraction and repulsion. In this way, it is possible to distinguish two types of opposites, which we will denominate as follows: repulsion opposites (for example, hate, cold, death, insensitivity, past) in the left row of the table below, and attraction opposites (love, heat, life, sensitivity, future, etc.) in the opposite row. Obviously, attraction opposites are not opposite of one another, but of repulsion contraries, and vice versa.
In general the term symmetry is seen as synonymous with harmony. At the same time, it is frequent, especially among physicists and among mathematicians, to consider the symmetry as a guide towards truth, on the basis of the assumption that the Cosmos is symmetrical. However, one of the principal results of my researches is that in reality all the Universe is qualitatively based on asymmetry, and not on symmetry. The Cosmos is not, fundamentally, symmetrical, but qualitatively asymmetric; in addition, far from having in it some defect, in it precisely its existence and its optimal functioning reside. The harmony, or optimal functioning, of the Universe is consequence of the qualitative asymmetry that in it exists fundamentally. One of the major obstacles to come to understand the functioning of the Universe and of the life in it, is precisely the above mentioned wrong repellency to the asymmetric. And it is a limitation of psychological origin: the same as war and death, the asymmetric is felt as repulsive. Commonly, scientists want the Universe to be symmetrical. But by valuing truth still more than the own life, to the researcher there is no reason why s/he should not distrust seriously the idea that in the Universe death, war, and asymmetry, can not carry out functions at least as indispensable as those that carry out life, peace, and symmetry. Of course, the conclusions of which I am speaking here are not consequences solely of the overcoming of the above-mentioned psychological problem when researching, but they result from the research of a great amount of phenomena and multiple confirmations of a hypothesis whose formulation is only possible once the psychological limitation aforesaid has been surpassed.
2.5 Asymmetry in Pairs of Opposites In this section we will begin by considering the relationship between opposites, with the purpose of understanding why reason exists in each pair each of their members. This way we will realize that the function and the reason for being of attraction opposites, are different in respect to those of repulsion opposites. For example, in the pair of opposites space - matter. The answer to the question of if matter could exist independently of space, is evidently no. It is impossible to imagine matter without space, and I do not only refer to the space between matter, but also to the space that matter occupies. We can, therefore, consider that the existence of space is indispensable to the existence of matter. But the answer is very different if we wonder if it would be possible that space can exist without the existence of matter. We could be inclined to respond that yes, since at least we do not see physical impediments to such an existence. Notwithstanding, before responding it is necessary, without considering the physical aspect, to look for in the reason for being of both matter and space. If we were to choose between space and matter the principal one, without any doubt there would be a tendency to vote more for matter; just as more for love, heat, and future than for hate, cold, and past, respectively. That is to say: there would be a tendency to vote more for attraction opposites than for repulsion opposites. Nonetheless, the existence of space makes possible the existence of matter (which in a way can be seen as main). Matter exists thanks to space, and for this simple reason it is not possible to assert without error that this opposite, space, is of less importance than the other, matter. Certainly feeding (attraction contrary) is the attractive; but defecation (repulsion opposite), no matter how repulsive, is as indispensable as feeding, and in consequence, does not have less importance. The reason for being of defecation is to give rise to feeding. And analogously, the reason for being of space is to give rise to the existence of matter. Thus, and also on the basis and confirmation resulting from the analysis of each of the hundreds of pairs of contraries that I have researched, it is possible to draw the following inference: attraction contraries (e.g., matter, future, feeding, unification, etc.) are final opposites, on the grounds that they are the reason for being of the existence of both the Universe and the life it contains. Put another way: both the Universe and life pursue the attraction opposites; these are their aims or goals. And likewise, repulsion contraries (e.g., space, past, defecation, separation, etc.) are medial opposites since the means or way towards attraction opposites reside in them. Put another way: repulsion opposites are causes of attraction opposites, and these are effects of repulsion opposites. Ultimately, the reason for being of all repulsion contraries, is to give rise to attraction opposites. All attraction contraries exist as a result of the existence of their respective opposites, repulsion contraries. We can now respond to the question of if it is possible the existence of space without the existence also of matter: if the reason for being of space is to give rise to the existence of matter, without matter space would not have reason for being, and therefore its existence is not possible independently. So the existence of space depends as much on the existence of matter, as the existence of this one depends on the existence of that one. It is important to emphasize that both dependences are—while quantitatively identical—qualitatively different, as it is possible to see in the examples that I have given. Both the existence of space and the existence of matter mutually depend upon each other like the existence of foundation and the existence of building: there can not exist building without base, nor base without building. But this mutual dependence and its quantitative and qualitative characteristics, are in all pairs of opposites, and not merely in the few pairs of which I have spoken hitherto. This qualitative asymmetry, implies that at the general level and at the particular level the existence of the repulsion opposites and attraction opposites in the inanimate field depend strictly (this is to say, necessarily) on the existence of attraction opposites and of repulsion opposites, respectively; and it also implies that in the animate field that dependence is equally strict at the general level, but it is not so at the particular level (this implies that in some case or in many cases it can exist repulsion opposite without attraction opposite, and vice versa; but such monopolarity cannot exist in all cases). In short, the mutual dependency of the contraries in the inanimate field always occurs at the general level and at the particular level, and in the animate field it always occurs at the general level and it can occur or not occur at the particular level. It is very important to bear in mind always this difference, as regards each pair of opposites considered, in order to be able to understand clearly, without confusion, how the opposites interact. During this exposition, frequently I am going to point out that difference when speaking of other pairs of opposites, and I will explain to what it is due between the general and the individual between the inanimate field and the animate field. Although both attraction contraries and repulsion opposites depend on one another in equal measure, with the object of keeping in mind that there is qualitative asymmetry in the aforementioned interdependence, we will call independent opposites repulsion opposites, and dependent opposites attraction contraries. So, for example, substantive (repulsion contrary) is an independent opposite, or that depends upon its opposite solely for the reason that in the absence of it lacks reason for being, and adjective (attraction opposite) is a dependent opposite, or that has dependence on its opposite because in it has its support, its foundation. To sum up, repulsion opposites are medial and simultaneously can be called independent; and attraction opposites are final and at the same time can be called dependent. This distinction of the opposites in medial and final, conveys the idea that some are causal and others effectual,* respectively. For example, receiving (attraction contrary) has as a cause giving (repulsion opposite), and giving has as an effect receiving. Giving is the cause of receiving, which is an effect of giving. Giving, therefore, is causal; receiving is effectual. Likewise it can be stated that giving is a means for receiving, which is the aim or objective; and therefore, giving is medial, and receiving is final. Besides the dependence and independence in this pair are as follows: there can exist giving without receiving, but there can not exist receiving without giving, and for this reason giving can be called independent (of receiving) and receiving can be called dependent (on giving). (Though it is necessary to see that giving has reason for being because it leads towards receiving, although not always, frequently; and that if giving never leads towards receiving, its existence would totally lack raison d'être; reason for which the existence of giving, strictly speaking, depends as much on the existence of receiving, as the existence of this one depends upon the one of that one.) And the same occurs in all other pairs of opposites. In order to see otherwise this asymmetry and to understand it better, it is necessary to realize that attraction opposites constitute reactions towards repulsion contraries, which in turn are actions. Always in congruity with this parallelism, this asymmetry is in all pairs of opposites; in all pairs of opposites this asymmetry occurs in a wide sense of the concepts of action and reaction; i.e., in the sense—already earlier mentioned—that attraction opposites are results (reactions, effects, ends) of repulsion opposites, which are attempts (actions, causes, means). In many pairs of contraries, the asymmetric property action - reaction occurs besides in a relatively strict sense of the concepts action and reaction; for example in the pairs: giving - receiving, question - answer, crime - punishment, acid - antacid, etc. Order, answer, peace, virtue, wealth, knowledge, punishment, defense, and truth (attraction contraries), arise like reactions, respectively, to disorder, question, war, vice, poverty, ignorance, crime, attack, and falseness (repulsion opposites). Later, I will often refer to this significant feature of the asymmetry between opposites, with the aim of making more understandable the theory of equilibrium. Another characteristic of asymmetry in all pairs of opposites is the following: repulsion opposites result from relaxation or loosening, or from less effort, while on the contrary attraction opposites are a result of a certain effort or the overcoming of greater difficulties. Put more generally, repulsion contraries are distensive and attraction opposites are tensive. To repulsion opposites we come, the living beings and the inanimate matter, via an analogous relaxation to the one of a fall; this is to say, to those opposites, without no effort or with little effort, we fall or descend distensively. In contrast, to attraction opposites we come by means of efforts analogous to those that an ascent demands; that is to say, we climb or ascend tensively to these. For this reason, to repulsion contraries we come with more easiness than to attraction opposites. For example, to order, answer, peace, and honesty, we come less easily than, respectively, to disorder, question, war, and dishonesty. In like manner, the existence of difference is easier than that of equality; that of destruction than that of construction; that of cause than that of effect; and that of past than that of future. Wherefore, summarily, repulsion opposites are medial, causal, “independent,” distensive, and constitute actions (in a very broad sense of this concept); and attraction contraries are final, effectual, dependent, tensive, and involve reactions. In order to understand better the classification, parallelistic-analogical, in pairs of opposites, is useful to use in each of them the phrase “The existence of... (repulsion opposite) is easier than that of... (attraction opposite).” For example in each of the following pairs of opposites and in the lists later shown here: The existence of darkness is easier than that of light. * I use the word “effectual” giving it the sense, anywhere in the book, of 'of, constituting, or implying an effect.'
2.6 Principle of Bipolarity The simple fact resulting from to cut a magnet in two, can serve as guide to understand better love, sex, war, peace, and the whole Universe. In Figure 1 (a), the black and white sides correspond to the North and South poles of the magnet. When this is cut in two, one would expect that the resulting parts were two isolated poles, or monopoles, in the same way as a wooden stick that, as the magnet aforementioned, were painted black and white would result, when it is cut in two, in a stick solely black and another totally white; or in the same manner as when a lemon is cut in half results in halves of that fruit. However, the product is very different: it is well known that when a magnet is cut, the result of it is fractions having two own poles each; this is to say, the product is a pair of smaller magnets, like in Figure 1 (b). And this is surprising when comparing it with the mentioned black and white stick that after cut does not result in two-color sticks; just as in the case of a lemon or a book the result is not two smaller lemons or two reduced books either, but a pair of incomplete fragments.
Figure 1
This fact seems to indicate inherence between the poles of a magnet, and, under the guide of the principle of parallelism, is cause of suspicion—the same as space and matter—that equally it occurs in the other opposites. And thus it is, as we could already realize when researching what function the members of pairs of opposites perform. From the mutual dependence that, on account of the reason for being of each of them, there is between the opposites composing each pair, it can be gathered that no pair of opposites can be turned into a monopolarity (at the general level). Then between the opposites a principle governs which, in the simplest way, we may enunciate as follows: no opposite can exist without the existence of its corresponding opposite. Nevertheless, in order to greater precision, it is necessary to see that the poles, i.e., the opposites, must exist related to each other: it is not enough that both exist in some place of the Universe isolatedly; they must be in relation to each other, so that the influence that allows their existence can exist between them. Then, the principle is more precisely in this way: Principle of bipolarity: no opposite can exist without the existence of its corresponding opposite, nor without relationship with it. Furthermore, a second clarification is needed: the necessity of the relationship between opposites, is respecting the way in which these must exist so that both the Universe and life function optimally. This is why monopolarities can not exist at the general level. But it is not thus necessarily among all the parts composing the whole (an isolated system); there are exceptions normally. For example, although it is true that men without women or women without men in the entirety of humans can not exist, monopolarities are possible in particular cases; for example, there can exist, within such a totality, women without a partner, this is to say, without man, as well as men without woman;* and likewise, of course, after a tornado or a war or by the interruption of a just started construction site, there can exist only foundations, and in other cases, even, constructions devoid of that support; giving without then receiving, and receiving without having given. But even so monopolarities at the individual level are an anomaly opposed to progress, which it cannot exist in all pairs of contraries; e.g., in the case of the pair sleep - wakefulness, unlike the celibacy or the abstention from partner relationships with the opposite sex, the sleep deprivation is impossible for an indefinite period of time in any human being. For the purposes of progress, or greater progress, monopolarities should not exist at the general level nor at the individual level. Whereas in the case of a magnet the inherence between opposites is in such a way that when cut in half, by separating its opposite poles, a pair of magnets with their two opposite poles each are generated automatically, that is to say, instantaneously, without the slightest delay, in the case of the pairs of opposites relevant to life the necessity of the interrelationship or interdependence is a little less strict; for instance, people who suffer from the very rare fatal familial insomnia disease inevitably die months after, not immediately, the manifestation of the impossibility of sleeping (albeit during those months they suffer from various mental and physical disorders). Also, it is possible to imagine that a disease could kill all the members of one of the opposite sexes in humans, taking place a monopolarity at the general level (only men or only women in the whole race), which would not engender the nonexistence of humanity immediately, but after several decades, after the death of the last generation, owing to the impossibility of further reproduction. But this temporary dying survival in monopolarity, does not mean that amongst living beings there is not inherence between opposites. In any way, the relationship between contraries is vital for life and the progress of life. Pueden existir "monopolos", pero siempre en relación e influencia con otros "monopolos" contrarios a ellos; es decir, no pueden existir monopolos totalmente aislados de sus polos correspondientes. Los polos pueden existir separadamente de sus polos correspondientes, y en este caso constituyen monopolos; pero ello sólo puede ocurrir en casos especiales y a nivel particular. En realidad, un rasgo esencial del polo a nivel general es que su existencia tiene por finalidad la mayor cercanía física posible entre ellos (incluso entre polos que constituyen partes en conflicto), de tal modo que se facilite lo más posible la influencia recíproca entre ellos. Sin embargo, ello no significa que necesariamente todos los polos entre sí contrarios estén de hecho cerca entre sí. De hecho, en muchos casos están separados, muy separados incluso, puesto que la separación física, geográfica o cosmográfica, no necesariamente implica un aislamiento entre los polos. De hecho, si bien la cercanía física entre polos como, por ejemplo, "mujer" y "hombre" puede contribuir a la comunicación entre estos polos, no hay necesariamente proporción directa entre una condición y la otra, es decir, entre la separación y el aislamiento, ni entre la unión y la comunicación influyente (o influencia comunicacional). De hecho en muchos casos particulares dos polos están muy lejos, muy separados físicamente el uno del otro, y al mismo tiempo están en extremo comunicados e influyéndose en extremo mutuamente. Así, por ejemplo, llega a ocurrir en casos como el de un hombre y una mujer enamorados entre sí que se comunican e influyen recíprocamente mucho por correo mientras están en lugares extremadamente distantes uno del otro dentro del planeta en que viven. Y lo mismo en otros muchos casos de otros muchos pares de contrarios podría suceder de tal modo que, cuando menos en teoría, dos partes, dos polos, físicamente situados en extremos del Universo (suponiendo que el Universo sea finito) o infinitamente separados (suponiendo que el Universo sea infinitamente grande) pueden influirse mucho recíprocamente, y así mantenerse siendo cada una base o fuente de la existencia y el progreso de la otra parte por tiempo indefinido. No es lo mismo existir separadamente que existir aisladamente. La existencia separada de los polos es totalmente posible en muchos casos particulares (pero no de manera generalizada), hasta el punto de que dos polos podrían existir en extremos cosmográficos opuestos en el Universo, suponiendo que el Universo sea finito, o pueden existir en extremos cosmográficos infinitamente opuestos del Universo, suponiendo que el Universo sea infinitamente grande. Sin embargo, tal existencia implicaría necesariamente la existencia de una relación de causa y efecto circular entre los dos polos, pese a la enorme distancia, es decir, la existencia de una influencia recíproca simultáneamente causal y efectual. En cambio, la existencia de polos con absoluto aislamiento recíproco es totalmente imposible. Siempre que en el caso de una bipolaridad, como, por ejemplo, la compuesta por el polo sur y el polo norte de un imán, un polo es separado del otro, si esa separación implica al mismo tiempo un aislamiento total entre un polo y el otro o entre cualquiera de los polos y cualquier cosa que haga las veces del otro polo, ello conducirá enseguida al surgimiento de otra parte que sustituya al polo faltante, es decir, que se convierta en el polo faltante, o si ello no llegara a ser posible, conducirá a la inexistencia de esos dos polos (como lo que hasta entonces eran, sin que ello implique, por supuesto, la destrucción, sino sólo la transformación, de la materia o energía que los constituye. Sin embargo, la separación física entre los polos de este ejemplo y de cualquier otro par de contrarios, es siempre posible si se mantiene la comunicación e influencia recíproca entre los polos, o entre cualquiera de los polos y cualquier otra cosa que lo sustituya debidamente, es decir, que en lo esencial aporte al otro polo lo mismo, el mismo sostén, que el polo al que está reemplazando le aportaba, y en tal caso con toda lógica es posible considerar que esa parte sustitutiva de uno de los polos, puesto que en lo esencial cumple la misma función que el polo reemplazado, es en esencia ese polo mismo, es esencialmente lo mismo que ese polo, es en esencia indistinguible de él, y, por lo tanto, es posible decir también con toda lógica que tampoco en tales casos ha llegado a existir un polo completamente aislado de su polo correspondiente. Concretamente, por ejemplo, es posible inducir la existencia de imanes de un solo polo, siempre que esa parte inductora haga esencialmente las veces del polo que está reemplazando, y en tal caso podemos decir muy lógicamente que esa parte inductora es el polo "faltante", y que por lo tanto en realidad ninguno de los polos en ningún momento ha llegado a existir de manera totalmente aislada y sostenida por tiempo indefinido. Es decir, que en ningún momento ha existido en tal caso un monopolo totalmente aislado (y sostenido por tiempo indefinido) de su polo correspondiente. Podría crearse un imán con un solo polo, separando sus dos polos uno del otro, y creando así dos imanes monopolares; pero esto dependería del concepto que tengamos, es decir de cómo definamos, un monopolo. Si lo definimos como algo que simplemente puede existir separadamente de su polo contrario, entonces la existencia de los monopolos es factible. Pero si lo definimos como algo que existe o puede existir aisladamente de su contrario correspondiente, entonces su existencia sólo puede ser en la fantasía de una manera sostenida, o en la realidad únicamente como efímera secuela de la muerte de su polo correspondiente; como, por ejemplo, en el caso de la relativamente efímera continuación de la existencia, como por inercia, de la mujer o del hombre tras la la desaparición (generalizadamente, a nivel general) de todo hombre y de toda mujer en respectiva comunicación con ellos. Como resultado de dicha desaparición, ocurre normalmente un surgimiento de homosexuales, que actúan como sustitutos del polo faltante. Si tal homosexualidad realizara de un modo tan esencial el papel del polo faltante dentro del sistema, que incluso se hiciera posible la reproducción gracias a esas relaciones "homosexuales", ya no estaríamos hablando entonces, en rigor, de relaciones verdaderamente homosexuales, sino de verdaderas relaciones heterosexuales, en que una parte del sistema compuesto únicamente de hombres o únicamente mujeres, se convirtió, respectivamente, en mujeres o en hombres auténticos. Análogamente, en la inducción de la monopolaridad en un imán, inicialmente puede pensarse ilusoriamente que la parte inductora está actuando del mismo modo que un homosexual dentro de un sistema en que sólo hay otra persona u otras personas del mismo sexo, cuando en realidad si esa parte inductora logra sostener por tiempo indefinido la existencia de la monopolaridad sobre la que está ejerciendo influencia, entonces es tan esencialmente parecida al polo que está reemplazando, que su actuación dentro de ese sistema no es en modo alguno comparable en lo esencial a la de un homosexual en el más arriba mencionado análogo sistema, sino que es completamente comparable, en lo esencial, al papel desempeñado por un verdadero heterosexual; y, por lo tanto, con toda lógica podríamos, y deberíamos en beneficio de lo más cercano a la verdad, ver a tales "homosexuales" exactamente como verdaderos heterosexuales. En otras palabras, cuando se crea un imán monopolar de tal modo que éste solamente tiene, por ejemplo, polo sur, la parte inductora de esa anomalía se ha convertido en el polo norte; y así, en realidad, nunca se ha producido en tal caso, como en ningún otro caso en todo el Universo, una indefinidamente sostenida monopolaridad completamente aislada de su correspondiente opuesta polaridad. * Later, in the section “Law of rebipolarization”, I will speak of a form of bipolarization that takes place even in these individual cases of isolation.
Innumerable judgments that are heard or read, as much from the quite intelligent people as from those who are less so, fall into the error of supposing, in an implicit or explicit way, that among living beings there can exist some effect that comes necessarily from a given cause, and that, as well, there can exist some cause leading necessarily to a certain effect. It is normal that the effect of dropping in the air a tennis ball is that falls to the ground and that bounces several times. Another thing or the opposite would be abnormal: that remains suspended or rises; that when touching the ground does not bounce or sinks in it. However, these abnormal effects in the inanimate world are normal in the world of living beings. The gravity of a planet attracts a ball towards it; the smell of a bread attracts a rat toward it. But the rat can react in several ways: one of those manners is a reaction exactly contrary to the expectable. One would expect that the rat approaches the bread; but it could occur that, even with hunger, goes away distrustful from the bread that tempt it, like a tennis ball that when is dropped in the air rises or moves away from the ground that attracts it. In this case, a causa, or stimulus, cannot have necessarily only one effect, or reaction, but one of two, or of more effects, that are opposite to each other. Likewise, a reaction or effect that necessarily comes from a certain stimulus or cause cannot exist. For example, the fact or effect that the rat moves away from the bread, can have its cause as much in that this is attractive as in that it is repulsive. Analogously, it is not possible to be sure that the crying of someone is due to an adverse incident, since can be born of a favorable occurrence. Thus, concerning the conduct of living beings, we will enunciate the following two principles: Principle of two causes: each effect can have any of two causes opposite to each other. Principle of two effects: each cause can lead to any of two effects opposite to each other. Likewise, it is possible to refer to both principles with the denomination principle of two causes and two effects. Note that there are two kinds of relationship between cause and effect. Both cause and effect can be equal or to be opposite to each other. For example, when cause is a blow that A deals to B and effect is a blow that B strikes to A, we can call these facts equal cause and equal effect. But when cause is a blow that A deals to B, and effect is that B caresses A we will call these facts opposite cause and opposite effect. However, there are the cases in which a blow that A strikes to B brings about not another blow nor a caress, but weeping or laugh, or pain or pleasure, where crying and pain are not accurately equal to the causing blow, nor laughter and pleasure are exactly the opposite of said blow. Without being the same as blow, both weeping and pain are in the same side of the classification that that one, and, for this, we will say that when a blow causes pain or weeping, there is adjacent equal cause and adjacent equal effect. And conversely, since both laugh and pleasure are, in the classification, in the opposite side to the side in which it is the blow, when a blow causes pleasure or laughter we will say that there is crossed opposite cause and crossed opposite effect. Just like often there is the tendency, when reasoning, to close the eyes to the function that repulsion opposites carry out, the important contrary relationship that there is between cause and effect constantly is usually underrated; it is more common the erroneous consideration that a cause must lead to an equal effect, and that an effect must have an equal cause. Example of it is the very widespread belief that love necessarily arouses love, when in actual fact love or evidence of love, although very rarely is a cause of hate, is very frequently a cause of rebuff. Most human beings, by experience, has come to know such a thing; but there is a certain resistance to the recognition of this reality, or is considered frequently, in a conscious or unconscious way, as an unfortunate error of the way in which the Universe works, or in a more particular way, the human life or that of some individuals. Nonetheless, in the vast majority of cases of opposite effect there is nothing abnormal nor erroneous.
Value, Valuation, and Values The old dispute in regard to value, above all touching its objectivity or subjectivity, contains in its questions and arguments not a few serious errors. And here, of course, we will completely ignore the views—not the data contributed regarding facts—of the others, for the sake of the independence of judgment. The value of things, their importance, is their usefulness. By extending extremely this concept, a thing is useful insofar as modifies or determines something; and as long as everything what exists—even a piece of rubbish—influences, to a varying degree, something, everything is suitable or useful for something. In this way, a thing that were utterly isolated, would not have any value; but as nothing is in that circumstance, everything what exists has value. In a less broad sense, a thing is useful only when is used for an intelligent or beneficial aim of something or someone. In this way, a shirt as such may lose its usefulness for someone when ripped. And although in this ordinary concept of the useful thing it is possible to a great extent to know what has usefulness, is not possible to reach a complete knowledge of the usefulness of something. (In order to be achievable such knowledge, would also have to be possible to know in full all the needs of the object to which usefulness is looked for and, for this purpose, all its ends, which in turn would demand the utter knowledge of the whole Universe.) The usefulness, or value, of things, is wholly independent of its knowledge. Things do not begin to be useful from the moment when somebody discovers in them some usefulness, but irrespective of it. For example, a dog does not need to know that it has heart, so that such organ begins to function and to be useful to it; and the human does not begin to reason since s/he knows that their brain is useful to that activity. In reality, it occurs the other way around: firstly things are useful, and later they are discovered as such. In fact, the sense of science, and largely that of life, comes from going discovering in things their utilities, their value. This less general concept of the useful or of value, is the one that we will use henceforth.
In the pair need (dissatisfaction) - satisfaction, the aim is satisfaction; but this opposite cannot—at a general level—in any way do without dissatisfaction, which is the only means toward it. Satisfaction (attraction opposite) is, then, final, tensive, and dependent, while, on the contrary, dissatisfaction is medial, distensive and independent (though it is necessary to remember that such independence is not so strictly speaking: strictly speaking, without the existence of satisfaction, the dissatisfaction would lack sense—and wherefore it would not exist—not less than what satisfaction without the prior existence of dissatisfaction would be impossible). In order to understand clearly the interaction or alliance means-aim that, without exception, in any pair of opposites occurs, coitus is very illustrative: in it the aim, the intended, the desired effect by both sides, is the insertion (attraction opposite), and never the extraction (repulsion opposite), of penis into vagina. There is not in reality commonly in the extraction any pleasure of psychic origin, and the physical one is not more than an inevitable by-product of it. And as penetration is attractive not as a state, but as a process or action, in order to be able to be prolonged by means of repetitions extraction is indispensable. Moreover, insertion is a process achievable in a tensive way; extraction, by contrast, is distensive. (This asymmetry, is remarkable in the fact that the strength and the speed with which the body is impelled in penetration—often even in sexual positions in which gravitation favors penetration—is greater normally than in extraction. And this asymmetry is, like in any other pair of opposites, analogous to that of the fact that the union of the couple, painstakingly achieved—this is to say tensively—becomes disunity, or separation, as an outcome of carelessness, distensively.) Both dissatisfaction and extraction—as any other repulsion contrary—are precisely as indispensable as their respective attraction opposites.
The phrase “I need to eat” can have two very different meanings: one who says it enunciates the judgment that s/he must eat (due, for example, to weakness or too much thinness that s/he has noticed in her/himself), or it expresses sensation of hunger. We will distinguish two kinds of need, denominating them undergone necessity and felt need. In this concept, the undergone necessity does not in itself imply any sensation. When a person says to another “I need you” can be expressing the judgment that s/he undergoes necessity—irrespective of the felt—of that person, or s/he can be expressing that s/he feels need—without regard to the undergone—of that person, or s/he can be expressing both things. One and the other kind of need occur often with disparity, or one exists without the other (not at the general level, but in particular cases); for example, an obese person who emits the phrase said at the beginning, can lack the undergone necessity and simultaneously to have to a large extent the second; whilst a thin person can have much the first and nothing, or also much, the felt need. In addition there is between one and the other need the difference that the undergone one can be independent of the consideration of whom has it, and of any other judgment, whereas of the felt one, of course, who suffers it is conscious normally. The opposites of these two needs, respectively, are undergone satisfaction and felt satisfaction. The first, constitutes the benefit or advantage that, regardless of the felt satisfaction, a undergone—and sometimes also felt—necessity fulfills partially or fully. Undergone necessity -› Felt need -› Undergone satisfaction -› Felt satisfaction At the same time, the phrase “I need an extinguisher” in itself implies an ambiguity that only can be dispelled by the alarmed or calm tone with which it is said, or by having in view the circumstances. It can, indeed, indicate the need to extinguish a present fire, or the need to extinguish a possible fire. We will call these, on account of which, respectively, need by currentness and need by forecast. (Naturally, both needs are current, and this adjectival distinction only underlines the causal fact that in the first need the problem or the inconvenience that originates it and the solution of which is looked for exists in the present time, while in the second need in the future, in a possible way, forewarnedly.) And one and the other need can be undergone or felt.
3.4 Cognitive Valuation and Desiderative Valuation At the same time as value, valuation exists, on the other hand. This is subjective due to be carried out in the subject, whereas value is objective because it resides in the object. In the pair object - subject, the subject is the attraction opposite, and the object is the repulsion opposite. This one is an independent opposite; that one, dependent. Indeed, we could think that the existence of object is independent of that of subject, and that the existence of this one depends on the one of that one. However, the existence of object without that of subject would be as absurd as the existence of space without matter, and, wherefore, strictly speaking the existence of the object depends as much on that of the subject as the existence of this one depends upon the existence of that one. Object is a medial opposite; subject, final: the aim is the existence of subject, but the means towards this aim are the existence of object. So, value, which belongs to object, is a repulsion opposite; and valuation, which belongs to subject, is an attraction opposite: given that the existence of value would not have sense without the existence of valuation, depends as much on the existence of valuation as valuation depends on the existence of value. We will distinguish two types of valuation, which we will call cognitive valuation and desiderative valuation. The first, is cognitive insofar as the subject considers that s/he knows—regardless of whether actually s/he knows it or not—the value that independently of her/him it possesses the object that s/he values. The cognitive valuation is, therefore, the estimation that the subject makes of the usefulness or value that the object has. In contrast, the desiderative valuation is the desire or felt need that the subject has with regard to the object, in many cases in an independent way of the usefulness that the object has and of that the subject attributes to it. In the same way in that between thought or ideas and feeling in other cases ordinarily there is struggle or great discrepancy, many times one and the other form of valuation do not agree. For example, a person can know the great value that water has for the human being, i.e., to value it highly cognitively, and, though, s/he can at the same time value it next to nothing desideratively, due to having it available with such easiness and sufficiency, that s/he does not feel great need for it. Considering the judged, believed, or perceived in the cognitive valuation, and considering the felt in the desiderative valuation, we will likewise call these two valuations, respectively, valuation by usefulness and valuation by need. Things are valued by their usefulness and because they are needed. Nevertheless, there is asymmetry. The valuation by usefulness does not constitute but the consideration of that a thing is useful; for example, a lemon, for its vitamin C or for its flavor; a clock, because it keeps the time; a person, for their honesty or for their dishonesty; a painting, for its colors; some shoes, for their durability; a word, for the tone in which it is said; a parakeet, for speaking; a house, for its location; or all these same beings or things, as well as whatever else, for many innumerable qualities, conditions, capacities, or situations that they own or in which they are, and that are seen by the subject as convenient. Such valuation can give rise to a felt need of the valued cognitively; this is to say, the cognitive valuation can originate desiderative valuation; but even so it does not in itself constitute a need, and it may or may not give rise to need. For example, a person when knowing that the lemon contains vitamin C, or when knowing in what ways this vitamin can be helpful for health, s/he can begin to want, that is to say, to feel need (even if there is no craving) to eat such a fruit. And likewise, when listening to a parakeet speaking and after considering that the parakeets are pleasant, that person can feel need to own one of these birds, or simply to approach it and to see it or to continue listening to it; but it is possible, too, that none of those effects occur, and thus there is only cognitive valuation, a mere knowledge that has not caused any desire or action. The desiderative valuation, instead, always constitutes an attraction, felt or active, towards the object. But the existence of at least a minimum of cognitive valuation is indispensable for the existence of desiderative valuation. So the asymmetry can be illustrated in this way: a person can value highly cognitively an automobile and at the same time not to value it at all desideratively. By contrast, nothing can be valued, not even a little, desideratively without there being previously a cognitive valuation: when a person or any animal values a food desideratively, necessarily s/he does it after considering, by instinct, or belief, or knowledge—consciously or unconsciously—convenient to her/himself such a food. The desiderative valuation, always presupposes the act of choosing, which obviously is as a result of the consideration of the benefits of the object, as, in this example, can be its nice smell and its sweetness. Someone who values desideratively, necessarily values also in a cognitive way. Anyone who values in a cognitive way, does not necessarily values also desideratively. An erroneous idea that many people have, in a conscious or unconscious way, is the one that asserts that a person will necessarily be attractive if s/he is, at the same time, honest, sensitive, sincere, intelligent, creative, healthy, cultured, decent, good-looking, ambitious, understanding, without vices, rich, disinterested, hard-working, kindhearted, enterprising, valiant, persevering, affectionate, tender, sensual, well-shaped, of high moral principles, without prejudices, prudent, modest, communicative, thrifty, generous, amiable, tolerant, clean, tidy, organized, reflective, worthy, of great reputation, jovial, likeable, frugal... Unquestionably, a person like this is very useful; but s/he does not attract, in the slightest (and even, as we shall see later on, s/he can be extremely repulsive) in anybody if among those who know about their existence and even they know her/him truly and they own very similar qualities, there is not who feels need of her/him. And cases like this or similar really occur, with a certain frequency. If there is not need there is not attraction, no matter how much usefulness exists. It is common to say that the fact that a thing becomes scarce increases the value of that thing (where the appropriate word is valuation); that when something is hard-won is more valued than when it is easily achieved; or that what costs is more valued than what does not cost. Such causes of valuation are always reducible to only one: need. They are valuations by need or desiderative. Someone who pays, for example, ten dollars for a book, value this one (desideratively) just as if s/he had deposited in it, among its pages, the before-mentioned bill. An exactly equal book but obtained free, is less valued, commonly. And if this one is lost the owner feels to have lost only the text that contains the book, whilst if that one is lost, s/he feels to have lost ten dollars with it. (In these cases, of course, another desiderative valuation can exist at the same time towards the object, resulting from cognitive valuation.) Nonetheless, the book purchased is not by any means of more value than the free one. The payment made for it does not increase its value, since it does not make it more useful; it neither modifies it, nor removes it, nor adds to it anything. But it do reduces the buyer's capital. And in someone with little money, parting with that amount (such as in somebody rich, parting with a greater quantity) it leaves a hollow, because of which, in equal measure, need is felt, of money, or of another compensation, that the book can sometimes accomplish by being used. In the example earlier, the money represents, and thus it is seen by the subject, a certain amount of effort, of work, which is in turn an energy expense. Thus, anyone who walks a forest section with the aim of coming to a river to drink water, and, for this reason, s/he faces more difficulties and invests more time than one who does it riding a horse, s/he values, desideratively, more the water when coming, for the reason that the cost has increased more their thirst than that of the another person. When, on the other hand, something desideratively valued becomes scarce , such a valuation grows to the same extent as the need of that something grows. However such valuation usually is increased even prior to the shortage, when this one is anticipated. For example, if somebody presently feels neither thirst nor need for a toothbrush, s/he can begin to feel, while not exactly thirst, both needs if s/he anticipates that water and toothbrushes will be soon scarce. The forecast of a future need, can create a present need. This is why a person who knows that s/he is going to separate for a long time from a loved one, begins to feel for this one a need greater than the common one, from the preceding days to the separation. Need not only is increased in the ways of which I have spoken as yet. Also, when a person attempts something difficult to achieve, just as when obtaining it their cognitive self-esteem increases, when failing commonly such valuation diminishes, which can create to her/him need to recover it. (Although without having it lost, need for not losing it can exist.) This need, is a desiderative valuation of an increase of cognitive valuation or by usefulness, of the subject towards her/himself. But as that increase in self-esteem is carried through via accomplishing the failed attempt above mentioned or some other difficult pursuit, the desiderative valuation is oriented towards one of those means. Thus, someone who walks by the forest in search of water, can doubly value, in a desiderative way, the success in their exertion, and gains doubly when obtaining it.
3.5 Causes of the Attraction and Repulsion Between People So far we have seen the causes that somebody feels attracted, towards other living beings or toward things. We will now see the causes for which somebody attracts others. What makes people attractive, desideratively valued, is not different from what makes things attractive. The person who is difficult or expensive to gain, is, with relative independence from the value or usefulness that s/he has, more attractive than the easy one or of little cost. It can occur that the first, for their vices, defects, and limited abilities, is of much less value than the second, and that the person attracted is aware of it. No matter how of value a person is, if s/he is not needed, s/he is not valued (desideratively), and does not attract by any means. And no matter how little of value s/he is, if s/he is needed a lot, equally a lot is valued and attracts. Both cases in fact are very abundant; anywhere they take place. Example of the second, can be in a child who by reason of needing extremely their parents values them extremely, without corresponding in any way to the value that these have, so high valuation (in this particular case). (Of course, in cases like this commonly the child does not know their parents yet but very scarcely, for which reason usually there is no great incongruity between desiderative and cognitive ways of valuation. But in many other cases such a need occurs not in children, but in adults able to form an opinion or to know in a less incomplete way.) An object is valued insofar as to the subject it gives satisfaction; but also insofar as this one has the hope to obtain satisfaction of it. Nevertheless, here it is necessary to point out that when satisfaction is consummately fulfilled, need is wholly extinguished and, with it, the desiderative valuation. For example, after an orgasm that has given entire satisfaction to the subject, there is no need left, or desire or valuation, to have sex at that moment. A total reduction of sexual attraction in the couple occurs then when satisfied. The attraction that in such cases often is left, and that move people to embrace each other even sometimes more than during the intercourse, implies, of course, a need—that it can be purely sexual or also amorous—which, though, not directly has its origin in the sexual relation abovementioned, but in the forecast of further amorous and sexual appetites and of their processes of total satisfaction, as the just lived through one. And it is likewise, such a need, a result of a sort of feeling of gratitude, that implies to feel in need of protecting the satisfactor. Notwithstanding, if the subject could know that in the future in her/him it will not have no need of their partner would not feel need by forecast; and the mere gratitude for the occurred is not commonly enough to preserve the union of two people, and although it is sufficient in some cases, always such a need to protect is a result of satisfying a need. When a person shows someone interest or love for this one, insofar as s/he satisfies her/him s/he attracts her/him. But showing disinterest or indifference, is likewise a cause of attraction, insofar as due to not satisfying, the need increases. Then, according to the principle of two causes: CAUSES EFFECT Moreover, the signs of indifference or disinterest, can cause cognitive valuation; but in this case in a nondirect manner, which I will denominate valuation by deduction. A subject values directly, for example, a painting when seeing it and, on the basis of this, form an opinion on it. And in an indirect or deductive way, when judging it, having seen it or not, based on the estimate that others make of it. Likewise, a subject can value highly deductively a movie to see that a great amount of people has seen it; or to know that a very knowledgeable film critic, eulogizes it. In the same way, a person when seeing that a stranger is praised frequently, tends to deduce that this one owns a value or usefulness that gains praises from others. The accuracy of these valuations, as that of those made in a direct manner, are not relevant. The fact that matters is that often valuation by need is born of them, and that therefore to a high degree determine the human conduct. On the other hand, the indifference or disinterest is, in most cases, to a great extent an attainment of feeling satisfied, by motive of something or somebody. Nonetheless, this satisfaction is not of any species; for example, the felt one for eating produces indifference towards food, but not towards the people from whom valuation can be received. Such satisfaction necessarily is produced by that towards which indifference is shown: cognitive or desiderative valuation, or one and another. This valuation, necessarily, must have its origin in the same subject; it is always self-esteem. And self-esteem is a result of achievements of the same subject, and can occur desideratively or cognitively or in both ways simultaneously. The degrees of one and the other self-esteem can be, as in heterovaluation, notably unequal: a subject can be valued her/himself highly in a cognitive way and, though, commit suicide owing to the lack of desiderative valuation of her/himself, of their life; in contrast, another person can not selfvalue but scarcely in a cognitive way and at the same time to feel enormous need of her/himself. On the other hand, the attainments that lead to self-esteem, can lie in facts on things or animals and people, or in the relation with these ones. In this latter case, the valuations that from others the subject receives, whom this one considers to be of value, are taken as achievements similar to, for example, to run a long distance, to elucidate a question or to repair a machine. Except for some details, what I have said in the whole preceding paragraph is, although not in a very conscious way, well-known, by intuition, by any normal human being who has reached a certain age. For that cause, for all but anyone who sees a person of indifferent attitude, towards the others—and s/he notices that this indifference not is due to insensitivity or depression or some other ailment—this adjective is synonymous with of value. The value (or supposed value) is deduced right away: indifference -> satisfaction -> attainment -> value or usefulness. So, the causes that make attractive the person of indifferent attitude, are two: s/he produces, firstly, cognitive valuation by deduction, and then, desiderative valuation. The cognitive one, direct and indirect, is the origin of the desiderative one, of attraction, which later is increased by the indifference. CAUSE EFFECTS
CAUSE EFFECTS The very common judgments like the one that without further thought asserts, in multiple forms, that love arouses love, are false because they imply the idea that such an effect is necessary, instead of merely possible. We will see now in what conditions the effects of attraction and repulsion occur necessarily. As we have seen, the signs of interest, or of love, produce attraction, arouse interest or love, when who receives them is in need of them. But if, on the contrary, in such a need the received is signs of disinterest, the result is repulsion. However, there are cases in which the needed is not signs of interest, but of indifference or lack of interest; where if the shown thing is exactly that, attraction is the product; and if it is love or attachment, it is repulsion. Of such need of indifference, there is an example in the calm or quiet required by the person who after an orgasm, or after a surfeit of eating, no longer has any need for sex, or for food. After such an orgasm, need for love can be born—or left—but not for more sex: it is, then, a requirement of sexual disinterest, which intends not only to avoid the inconvenience to which more signs of sexual interest, in this case inopportune, would give rise, but also to allow enough time of abstinence so that the sexual need arises afresh and to be able to feel satisfaction another time. This can become clearer if the signs of interest or love are seen—just like we saw the bills—as what they are in reality: portions of energy. Looked at from this angle, when the person B has sufficiency or surplus of energy repels A if this one charges (in this case overcharges) B; and s/he is attracted, if from her/him s/he receives discharge. And when s/he has deficiency or lack, s/he repels A if from her/him s/he receives discharge; and s/he is attracted, if s/he receives charge. In order to facilitate a comparison among these four cases, separately and in summary, I expound them in such a way that after colon come the effects that in a person are originated from the attitude of another towards her/him, and then the type of attraction or repulsion felt consequently towards the causer. Necessary or opportune charge Surplus or inopportune charge Necessary or opportune discharge Surplus or inopportune discharge Note that the attractions are opposite to each other, just like the repulsions, on the grounds that they are caused in a contrary way. But in addition, given that the pair repulsion - attraction is, like any other pair, asymmetric, the contrariness between repulsions is not the same as the one that there is between attractions. Here it is necessary to observe that when a person gives excessive—this is to say that they exceed the need that of them who receives them has—signs of interest, the receiver not only cannot value her/him desideratively, but, commonly, s/he begins to value her/him less cognitively when deducing, from their dissatisfaction, that does not possess enough value or usefulness that sustains her/him, directly or through the valuation received from others, a self-esteem that allows her/him to be moderate in their request of love or valuation. The increase of love, interest or attraction, has, in each of the two ways leading to them, a limit from which begins to become repulsion that increases. In Figure 2 the ascending of the line represents the beginning and the increase of attraction: from 0 to -4, attraction by means of signs of disinterest (attraction by need); from 0 to 4, attraction by means of signs of interest (attraction by gratefulness). And the descending sides of the line, represent the beginning and the increase of the repulsion: from -4 to -8, repulsion by means of signs of disinterest (repulsion by resentment); from 4 to 8, repulsion by means of signs of interest (repulsion by aversion). The points -4 and 4, represent the maximum degree in which disinterest and interest can be shown and to obtain the maximum attraction.
Figure 2
But it is necessary to take into consideration that at the same time the degree to which ordinarily people need to receive signs of affection or interest, is very variable from person to person. A very common case of such differences, is between the very spoilt children and the very neglected ones. Whereby an attitude that most of the time is attractive to some people, is just about always repulsive to other people, and vice versa. The degree to which people show dissatisfaction, need of love or interest from others, is in many cases not very indicative of their value. And, therefore, the valuation via mere deduction, very often greatly errs. Indeed, someone who feels highly satisfied, is very far from being perforce more of value or useful than one who feels very unsatisfied, forasmuchas the goals of the one and the other can be enormously different from each other. In reality, the degree of satisfaction of her/himself that a person feels, is not due commonly to compare their achievements with those that others have had, but with their own ambitions and exigencies. Thus, someone who builds a mediocre house can feel extreme satisfaction, while on the contrary someone who in equal lapse builds one hundred floors magnificently, can even be depressed by dissatisfaction. For this, in lack of direct valuation—and of evident personal differences that allow otherwise to value by deduction; as, for example, the quality of the garments—the first architect, normally, would enjoy more cognitive valuation than the second from people to those who are stranger; which, in addition, would bring to her/him a greater desiderative valuation. These lack of congruence between value and valuation, are very frequent in varied degrees. Nevertheless, the valuation by deduction has secondary importance with respect to the direct valuation. Although simultaneously it is necessary to take into account that of the dissatisfaction there is besides a result that is of maximum importance: the tendency to try, by means of excessive—inconvenient—signs of interest, too much valuation from the others; what, if dominated by said tendency, only takes away attraction or renders even repulsive the unsatisfied person. That is why anyone who possesses an extraordinary number of virtues, as the person earlier supposed, can not only not be attractive, but repulsive, due to the lack of opportuneness, which in turn is due to poor self-esteem. Up to now we have seen that to feel satisfaction leads to give signs of indifference, and that, on the contrary, dissatisfaction leads to give signs of interest. However, in accordance with the principle of two causes, indifference or disinterest cannot only be an effect of satisfaction, but of dissatisfaction too; whereas interest can have its cause not only in dissatisfaction, but also in satisfaction. Thus, when interest is the needed, an unsatisfied person can be attractive, while one satisfied repulsive. When satisfaction is frustrated frequently, indifference can arise toward it in consequence, by hopelessness or by resentment. And by such indifference, insofar as one to others does not give satisfaction (but simultaneously gives hopes of it), s/he can be attractive for the others. For example, there are abundant cases in which somebody after the failure when insisting, to excess, in giving her/himself satisfaction by gaining love of another person, completely abandons their attempt and for that reason s/he becomes attractive; by reason of which anew hopeful, s/he retries, once more excessively, their satisfaction, causes aversion, loses all hope newly and is once again attractive. Another common case of this way to be attractive, occurs in anyone who by disappointment of love considers despicable any people of their opposite sex. Apropos of the interest due to satisfaction, it occurs frequently, for example, in those who joy overflows. (In these cases, showing affection or interest does not have the objective of receiving valuation, but when seeing that s/he has this one exceeded, the subject feels invulnerable to slights, to the repulsion that s/he causes in others, and on that account s/he does not see reason—but relief in a way—why s/he should not overflow, to be discharged, which besides s/he requires.) Thus: CAUSES EFFECTS
Repulsion As can be seen, there are four types of repulsion and four types of attraction, among living beings, depending upon whether they have as origin dissatisfaction or satisfaction, and at the same time disinterest or interest. We have already seen that needs, or valuations by need, are increased before difficulties. Now we will see the respective functions of impossibility and possibility, on the subject of need. The seen as impossible is not valued, neither cognitively nor desideratively. For example, a voyage to the center of the Sun, would be of great value, and the same valued, if it were considered possible. But as at present it is not considered such, it is not valued in any way. A person can value the idea, feeling attracted towards it, of traveling in a second from one galaxy to another if, even in the knowledge that in reality such thing is not presently feasible for the human being, and in addition s/he sees it as impossible towards the future, s/he do considers it possible in fantasies. And when, on the other hand, a person considers that another is their “impossible love”—whom, of course, s/he values—s/he does it because in spite of not considering the union in reality possible, or to be loved by her/him, s/he do regards it as possible in fantasies. Only by judging possible something that something can be valued. And the degree of desiderative valuation—and sometimes also by deduction, cognitively—it depends on the degree of difficulty of the possible. Thus, whilst a voyage in a second to another galaxy rarely or never is actually valued, because it is considered impossible, the voyage to the Moon and Mars do is valued, owing to being well-known as feasible. But this latter action is usually more valued, partly inasmuch as it presents greater difficulties. Then: Possibility Degrees of difficulty Impossibility
3.6 External Difficulties and Internal Difficulties In respect to difficulties, it is necessary to distinguish two kinds, which we will call: external difficulties and internal difficulties. The first ones have their origin in the external of the subject: in the valued object, or the circumstances that accompany this one or the subject. The second ones originate from the internal of the subject. And the ones and the others, separately or, virtually always, combinedly in a very varied way, determine the degree of valuation. For example, a person can desideratively highly value music owing to the fact that discs are scarce where s/he lives, or to the fact that the only stereo system that s/he has is defective (external difficulties); or due to being almost completely deaf (internal difficulty); or on account of the three disadvantages. The intensity of love, depends in many cases on almost merely external difficulties, and in many other cases on well-nigh entirely internal difficulties. For example, in the couple love, normally the internal ones predominate between adolescents, who from inexperience find in themselves, for the most part, great difficulties in their loving relationships. This is chiefly why the love is in many cases between them more intense than between adults. These, with the increase of their knowledge, by various means, in reference to the opposite sex, to love and sexuality, and by demonstrating themselves to be useful for something, they eliminate or reduce, generally, many difficulties of internal origin; those that yesteryear hindered them but that simultaneously increased the need and, as a result, the valuation of love desideratively. The adolescent love, accordingly, is more a love by need (this is why it abounds in fantasies) than by gratefulness; whereas the adult love commonly is the other way round. But the difference that in intensity there is often between both, not is because the love due to dissatisfaction is more intense than the love by gratefulness, but it occurs that in the adult need, upon which satisfaction depends, is even more reduced, than in engagement, after marriage in the majority of cases. Forasmuch as it is common that traditions and religions do not allow the premarital cohabitation or sex, when marriage comes, and when the attraction of the couple is based much on these prohibitions (external) and little on of internal origin, separation, repulsion, or at least a great or total and abrupt reduction of the attraction, come as soon, so to speak, as the bounce of two spheres that first separated despite a elastic band that unites them, they are left by the hands, of society, traditions, and religion. The difficulties leading to a stable relationship and rich in satisfactions, and to the most attractive attitude, are the internal ones that, unlike those that separate adolescents, do not consist in involuntary limitations, nor in voluntary ones resulting from a studied and methodical game of conquest, but in a natural effect of the valuation of her/himself based on own facts that, from the point of view of the same subject, possess high value or usefulness. And thus, the own satisfactions do not come or depend but partly on the being who is loved, since such facts are unconnected with the one of having gained the love of that being. The high attraction between adults cannot be obtained, in the normal cases, but by the agency of satisfaction of people for their own facts. To put it another way: attraction occurs when the valuation of oneself resulting from the own achievements, is intended as a means—or simply as an end—to be valued by other people; but not the other way around: not being valued by the others, without previous one's accomplishments, as a means to the valuation of oneself. Without this inescapable asymmetry, civilization would be impossible. We will distinguish other two ways to value, by means of the following denominations: valuation by itself and valuation by relationship. The first is equivalent to the cognitive one. On the other hand, the due one to relationship lies in attributing to an object value merely for the fact of having, having had, or being forecast to come to have, physically or not, relationship with another valued object in a cognitive way, and sometimes also desideratively, or in turn by relationship. Example of objects valued by itself: * A telescope, for its power.
Example of objects valued by relationship: * A telescope, for having belonged to a great astronomer. In the last example, all the valued objects have in common their relationship with someone in particular. For this reason, we will call this way of valuing valuation by particular relationship, and, on the opposite side, it will be valuation by general relationship in which what is in relationship with the valued object is general. For instance, whereas in the first case a garment is valued due to belonging to a certain baby or woman, in the other one it is so for being in general infantile or feminine. * A person who is valued because of their friendly relationship with another to which high value or importance is attributed, is valued per se—as opposed to by relationship—as long as friendship, unlike the mere kinship (except for, at least biologically, the one from parents to sons/daughters), constitutes an achievement that demonstrates usefulness. A value, in a very broad sense, is any being or thing that is the object of valuation. But we will restrict here the concept to solely any quality, state, circumstance, attitude, ability, and action that are the objects of valuation, cognitive or also desiderative. Not only attraction opposites are valued, but also repulsion opposites; for example, infidelity, indecency, obscenity, frivolity, vanity, dirt, vulgarity, in a special way of seeking pleasure, which we will see in the following chapter. But, apart from this procedure, any opposite of this class is, or can be, valued; e.g.: naiveté, weakness, smallness, ignorance, poverty, dependancy, inexperience, aggressiveness. Finally, we will call repulsion values and attraction values, respectively, repulsion opposites and attraction opposites that are values.
CHAPTER 4 Love and Sex The level of protection and well-being is the cause—and simultaneously the effect—of conservatism (repulsion opposite) and liberality (attraction opposite). We will denominate pleasure by conservation and pleasure by liberation, respectively, the forms of pleasure obtained in such qualities. When the degree of protection or well-being is low, the degree of insecurity is also high and the need of protection, of protective situations, is greater; by reason of this, in such cases people usually take less risks, because they feel more vulnerable. And on the contrary, when the degree of protection and well-being is high, the degree of security is also high and there is less need for protective situations; in such cases people usually take more risks, because they feel less vulnerable; the only way of obtaining pleasure, in these cases, is by the instrumentality of aggressive situations that make possible the need of protection and security. That is to say, the pleasure by liberation occurs by means of forms of mediate protection. And the pleasure by conservation, by means of forms of immediate protection, without the mediation of the search of aggression or risk, inasmuch as the aggressive or dangerous situation already is present. People who live in a state of relative well-being and security have to look for aggressive and risky situations, to be able to obtain protection and thus to be able to value and to enjoy life. By reason of this, people are more liberal in the countries with higher degree of development. A relatively high degree of security determines actions like smiling at a unknown person (lack of shyness, or audacity), to swim naked on a public beach and to practice high-risk sports or games (in the reality or on computer).
When the degree of protection and security is very high, the mere liberation usually is insufficient to obtain pleasure and this one in many cases is obtained by means of infractions. We will call this form of pleasure pleasure by infraction (attraction opposite), and pleasure by observance (repulsion opposite) the opposite. The pleasure by infraction is a result in many cases of the consideration that an own or other people's action contravenes a moral norm. The pleasure by observance, on the contrary, is originated in many cases of the consideration that an own or other people's act constitutes an observance morally. For instance, the pleasure by infraction in many cases is felt as an effect of knowing that the own partner goes to bed with another person; of relating to the own partner sexual adventures had with other people; of watching (mostly a man) two women (most of all if the two are remarkably feminine) having a sexual encounter with each other; of watching some person posing nude, or half-naked—or in a sexy way—in a magazine; of having a sexual encounter or relationship with a stranger or married person; of speaking obscenely in presence of the own partner (above all if this one is accustomed to a chaste conduct), etc. There are many degrees and forms of infraction of one norm; and likewise there are many norms, and the infractions appear, and can appear, very variously combined in many cases. On this account, the situations of which it is possible to obtain pleasure by infraction—and of which in fact it is obtained—are very numerous. An example of a situation in that many infractions are combined, frequently in that way giving origin to a greater pleasure, in those who by such means look for it in certain conditions, is the following: watching the own partner, who until that moment has been decent always, to have publicly a sexual encounter with another person (or an animal) of her/his same sex, complete stranger (or very close relative), married (or under age). On the contrary, the pleasure by observance, for example, in many cases is felt as a result of receiving faithfulness from the partner and to give her/him signs of the same faithfulness; of watching the loved person dressing with decency; of a man to watch in his wife the purity of her femininity, and she in him his unshakable masculinity. The number of observant situations that can occur, is neither more nor less great than the one that can take place of the infractive ones, since what is not considered as an infraction can be judged as an observance, and vice versa. When the degree of protection and security is very low, also in many cases pleasure by infraction is obtained, in line with the principle of two causes. The pleasure by infraction is not only usually an effect of very high levels of security and well-being, but also of very low levels of the same security and well-being. In the very low levels of well-being, the difficulties for the obtaining of pleasure by observance are much greater than in the intermediate levels, and as a result of it many people choose the obtaining of pleasure by infraction. Before the great difficulties, for example, for obtaining pleasure by observance by means of the faithfulness of the partner, there are two options: insisting on the attainment of pleasure by observance in spite of the frequent suffering that the jealousy entails during that attempt, or to opt for the adoption of a tolerant attitude in that sense, that is to say that it allows the infidelity and other similar liberal behaviors and produces simultaneously pleasure by infraction. For example, the couple relationships in which the man allows the woman to work as a sex worker, are part of the aforementioned tolerant conduct. And the same way as in the rich countries the pleasure by infraction is very common due to the very high level of well-being reached there, there are poor countries where it is common the pleasure by infraction owing to the very low levels of well-being predominant there. pleasure by infraction Pleasure by observance Pleasure by infraction Comparison between an action carried out by a person with a very high level of progress and another equal action, but with contrary cause, performed by a person with a very low level of progress: High level of progress: Action: A woman has sexual relations with two men at the same time. Cause: State of excessive security derived from her economic well-being. Cause (in a word): Security Objective: Obtaining pleasure by infraction by means of an aggressive action that reduces her excessive degree of security. Immediate objective (in a word): Insecurity Mediate objective (in a word): Pleasure, by means of the obtaining of insecurity. Direction of the process of interaction between opposites: Security - insecurity
Action: A woman has sexual relations with two men at the same time. Cause: State of excessive uncertainty (insecurity) derived from her economic malaise. Cause (in a word): Insecurity Objective: Obtaining money by means of an aggressive action that reduces her excessive degree of uncertainty (insecurity). Immediate objective: Security Mediate objective: Pleasure, by means of the obtaining of security. Direction of the process of interaction between opposites: Insecurity - security In cases like the aforementioned it is common to say that the first person acts by choice and the second out of necessity. Nonetheless, the actions motivated by excessive states of attraction opposites, which tend towards repulsion opposites and the balance between opposites, are results of needs as strong as the actions that tend towards the balance in opposite direction, i.e., from repulsion opposites towards attraction opposites. Those needs are not only subjective (felt) but at the same time objective (undergone). The pleasure by observance is a repulsion opposite with respect to the pleasure by infraction when this one is originated in a very high degree of protection or well-being, and is an attraction opposite when the pleasure by infraction is an effect of a very low degree of protection or well-being. Which implies, of course, that the pleasure by infraction is an attraction opposite when is a result of a very high level of protection and security, and is a repulsion opposite when it is an effect of a very low level of protection and security: Repulsion -> Attraction Whilst the very high levels of backwardness and progress impel towards the pleasure by infraction, an intermediate or moderate degree of progress impels towards the pleasure by observance. And analogously occurs with other pairs of opposites. For example:
The people who have reached the highest levels of progress in the world, have great similarity, in many aspects (humility, simplicity, freedom, honesty, sincerity, spontaneity, health, longevity, naturalness, strength), to the people who are in the lowest levels of progress, albeit those similar states have causes opposite to one another. Within any society, any quality that exceeds towards the progress a certain limit of the prevailing normality, often is judged and treated as a regression. In these cases, the degree of contrariety between what a person is and the judgment and treatment that receives from the others, is directly proportional to the degree in which the abovementioned limit is exceeded. Put in a more general way: any person whose state and concept of progress are exceeded towards the progress in a certain limit by actions or qualities of another person, will judge and/or treat as retrograde such actions or qualities.
4.3 Types of Pleasure by Infraction The pleasure by infraction often is circumscribed to the bedroom, to moments and places that make it hidden, whereas other times it goes more far. Depending on if the infraction that causes the pleasure occurs in the couple in a private way or with the presence or active participation of another or other people, we will denominate it pleasure by internal infraction or pleasure by external infraction, respectively. At the same time, each of these types of pleasure can be classified as exclusive or as inclusive. In the exclusive internal, the infractions are limited to the sayings (appellatives, blue jokes, etc.) and the facts (staged fantasies, jokes, etc.) that exclude any relationship, insinuated or direct, with people other than one's partner. Obscene words and poses, for example, take place here in the forms whose senses only can be interpreted as infractions that includes just one's own partner; words that are usually expressed in singular and preceded by possessive adjective and/or definite article. In the inclusive internal one, instead, the infractive sayings and facts refer to relationships (evoked, imaginary—with the awareness of such a quality—fantasized, expressed or considered as possible) with people other than the partner. (The afore-mentioned relations, in some cases are not in themselves considered as infractive—for example, past engagements or some past marriage—however, the petition and the narration, made in search of pleasure, of the details on sexual acts had with a former partner, do are usually felt as infractive.) In these cases, the infractive words are expressed often in plural and/or after indefinite article. The exclusive external one, on the other hand, is derived from infractions in which really people apart from the partner are implied, said inclusion being restricted, though, in some measure. For example, the nudist beaches allow couples to appear naked before other people, and to obtain from it pleasure by infraction, commonly with no sexual physical contact with them. In a lesser degree of infraction, equal occurs when the couple gets pleasure by infraction embracing and kissing each other with a certain sexual boldness in a public place. The inclusive external one implies participation of other people besides the partner, and constitutes the widest scope of infraction from which sexual pleasure is obtainable. A substantial proportion of the pleasure that is originated from the sexual relations involving infractions of exclusive type, internal or external, is due to the privilege granted between the members of the couple, and not merely to the action of infringing. In the exclusive internal one, although an infraction, like an obscene or bold pose, is by itself a cause of pleasure, there is also the possibility, materialized in many cases, of feeling pleasure as a result of the fact that the infraction is only performed in the presence of the partner. (In addition, the greater is the contrast between the observance or rectitude normally shown to the others and the infraction or indecency shown in private to the partner, the more intense is such pleasure usually.) And in the exclusive external one, in like way, it is common that besides the pleasure takes place by awareness of the fact, or the possibility, that those who witness the infractive act feel desire to be in the place of one of the members of the couple, and that, though, that place continues being a privilege for whom is in it. For such a reason alone, the desire is born in many people for seeing their partner wearing, on the street or on the beach for instance, bold clothes, or to pose nude for a magazine. In summary, in the infractions of exclusive type pleasure, besides being by infraction, is frequently an effect of the privileges that the infractive acts constitute, whereas in those of inclusive type, pleasure is a product of the mere infringing. We will call displeasure by observance and pain by infraction the displeasure and the pain, respectively, of whom looking for infraction finds observance, and who comes across infraction when looks for observance. Indeed, when someone who wishes pleasure by observance, notices that a received kiss, caress, hug, or glance, for example, is motivated by frivolous intentions, s/he suffers displeasure and repulsion similar to those that if, on the contrary, wishing pleasure by infraction, s/he receives those caresses but motivated by serious intentions. Examples are, also, of the pain by infraction: the one that a person can feel as an effect of the infidelity of their partner; and of displeasure by observance: the discontentment before the fidelity or the engagement, in many cases for desire of preserving the freedom that implies the infraction; in other many cases, for fear of receiving inobservance after accepting to wish and to hope the opposite (this is to say, for fear of the pain by infraction, which, nearly always, becomes much greater than displeasure by observance, which is hardly ever more than a discontentment). In accord with the aforesaid, and in conformity likewise with the principle of two effects, observance as much can cause displeasure as pleasure; and infraction can originate as much pleasure as pain: CAUSES EFFECTS Pleasure (crossed opposite effect) For most people, it is expected that observance instead of causing displeasure originates pleasure, and that infraction does not produce pleasure, but pain; or, in other words, that displeasure is not originated in observance, but in infraction, and that pleasure is caused by observance and not by infraction. Nevertheless: CAUSES EFFECTS
The intensity of pleasure is largely decided by sensitivity and imagination, anent the subjects. In reference to everything what is the object of pleasure, it should be added that pleasure is lesser or greater to a large extent as an effect that the contrarieties—between descent and ascent—or the variations—in descent and in ascent—are less or more noticeable. Thus, the pleasure by infraction is greater when a person of very remarkable ascending aspect descends extremely than when contrast is moderate. The pleasure by infraction, depends to a large extent upon how great is the infraction. But it is necessary to consider that the measurement of the infraction is by comparison with precedents of whom commits it. In this way, even if undressing in public is a greater infraction than a mere obscene gesture (when such acts are compared with each other), if the latter is carried out by somebody who in the name of decorum had always refrained from it, whilst that by someone who daily undresses that way, or by someone who ordinarily infringes even more (by having, in addition, for example, sex), the gesture is greater infraction than undressing, taking into account the habits of their actors, and therefore, is a cause of greater pleasure; but not only for whom carries out it, but likewise for a spectator who knows the antecedents: on account of this, a bather whose skin exposed to view by a small bikini is not less clear—equally bronzed—than other parts of their exposed body, as proves that way their habit of swimming thus, is far less attractive and pleasant in other people's eyes than another who wearing equal garment, exposes to view a clearer portion of skin, which reveals the habitual prior use of another less small bikini. There is marked, in this case, a oppositeness process, from pudency in the direction of impudicity (or to a lesser pudency, or from less to more impudicity), unlike the first case in which there is only a monotonous impudicity, and to another case of whom only wears a modest bathing suit, in which there is only a monotonous pudency. (Nevertheless, it is necessary to bear in mind that as much the monotonous impudicity as the monotonous pudency of two people can produce pleasure by infraction and by means of observance, if they are compared with each other, with which the monotony is eliminated, by forming a simultaneous contrast.) There are, therefore, two infraction types, which we will distinguish with the names undergone infraction and felt infraction. The first, generally receives the same measurement by each individual belonging to a same culture. Thus, for practically all or for all people who share the same culture with one another, for example, to have sex in the nude in public can be considered as a greater infraction than undressing in public without having sexual intercourse, just as the fact of touching a leg of some stranger, with sexual intention, could be seen as greater moral infraction than to touch the neck of her/him; or just like, apart from the sexual, to kill a child can be according to the majority an atrocity greater than to kill an adult. Notwithstanding, these estimations can from culture to culture more or less differ, or even to be inverse. Instead, the felt infraction depends greatly on with how much frequency or rarity (with how much constancy or inconstancy) the infractions are undergone, in such a way that those who often experience big infractions, feel less the infraction than those who rarely, and even than those who after very continuous and prolonged observance experience very small infractions. So between both infractions there is often no coincidence. And there is, in fact, in one way an inverse proportion between one and the other, although also there is a direct proportion, depending on how the undergone infraction is measured. The fact of undergoing infraction to a great extent, can be understood in two ways: as infringing very frequently or as committing big infractions, analogously to as the asserting that someone drinks much can contain one of two meanings, or both simultaneously: that very often s/he drinks—irrespective of whether it is little or much every time—or that—without regard to how often—when s/he drinks does it in abundance. And a distinction should be made between frequency and magnitude of the undergone infraction, since they are in contrary proportions to the felt one: inverse and direct, respectively. Thus, the greater the frequency of the undergone infraction, the smaller is the felt infraction, and the smaller that one, the greater this one. On the contrary, the greater the magnitude of the undergone infraction, the greater is that of the felt one, and the smaller, the smaller also this one. Because of this, two people with the same sensitivity and abstinence of infringing, would feel the infraction increasingly both at the same rate precisely insofar as the undergone infraction grows. But it is necessary to consider that the factors deciding the pleasure are mixed in effect in a very varied way from person to person, and that there are between such factors reciprocal influence; for which such a comparison with respect to two people frequently cannot be performed with subjects selected at random. As large as the felt infraction, and not as the undergone one, is the pleasure by infraction, in direct proportion. Such pleasure, is a direct result of the felt infraction, which, in turn, results directly from the undergone infraction. The order is, then: undergone infraction -> felt infraction -> pleasure by infraction. The considerations made in this section, in respect of infraction and the pleasure by infraction, are equally for observance and the pleasure by observance. Thus, there are two kinds of observance, which in an analogous way to the precedent paragraphs, we will call undergone observance and felt observance. This one, is in inverse and simultaneously direct proportion with the frequency and the size, respectively, of the first, of which is a direct result, besides being a direct cause at the same time of the pleasure by observance. In order to clarify more the difference between, on the one hand, the undergone infraction and the undergone observance and, on the other hand, the felt infraction and the felt observance, we will now see only some of the multiple cases that, up to a certain point, are analogous to these. When the undergone infraction and the undergone observance are continuous lead, even when they are big, to meager felt infraction and meager felt observance analogously to as someone who has an income of a million dollars a day do not feel more pleasure or liking because, directly, of it than someone who is accustomed to earn two hundred dollars a day, obtains once five hundred. On the other hand, we can likewise speak of qualities by infraction and qualities by observance. Thus, the pleasure by infraction born when seeing a person, is often as result of the fact that in her/him there are together qualities by infraction and qualities by observance. And in this way the contrariness appears in one individual simultaneously. Such a pleasure can be obtained of watching a person, without considering their environment, their circumstance, in two ways; for instance: in two photographies: in the first, clearly demure and decent (e.g.: with baby or children's, innocent, tender, loving, compassionate, happy, cheerful, funny, cute, sports, religious, intellectual gesture, attitude, and/or clothing; which usually are seen as observances); in the another, very undemure and indecent (taken off most of the garments and in obscene position, e.g.); or in a single image: simultaneously demure and undemure, decent and indecent (in conjunction, for example, libertine gesture and baby or children's, tender, sports, religious or intellectual garments half taken off). Of course, the pleasure not just can be in whom is watching the contrariety, but also in whom is carrying out it.
The presence of a contrast—or oppositeness—in space or in time or in both simultaneously, is always indispensable to the occurrence of pleasure. Without such a contrariety there cannot exist pleasure. Nonetheless, it is not necessary that such a coexistence of the opposites be in the reality, but can be a combination of reality with fantasy and memories. Thus, during the isolated states of observance and infraction, in her/himself or in others, a subject does not feel pleasure unless said states are by her/him related, by means of fantasy or of memory, with opposite states (of infraction or observance), belonging to the future, present, or past, with what infraction - observance contrasts are formed out of the present reality or in combination with it. A person obtains pleasure by infraction by infringing until a certain point; e.g., by taking off an garment in a party; but if s/he wants to continue feeling that pleasure, after a while s/he requires to infringe anew, to a point lower down (by taking off another garment) in relation to the one that s/he has already reached, or to the same point in which s/he is, by means of a previous observance (by getting dressed over to undress once more). When this alternation between opposites occurs—as, in this case, between observance and infraction—we will say that there is alternate or temporal contrariety. And when the opposites appear simultaneously, we will say that there is simultaneous or spatial contrariety. For example, when a person is in infraction, not as process, but merely as state, it is necessary, so that the pleasure can occur, that the aforesaid state be accompanied by an observance state; or to put it more generally, a contrariness of states is necessary. In this way, someone who in a party undresses partly, s/he can after it (state of infraction), in spite of not going further nor, by getting dressed beforehand, to do it again, to continue obtaining pleasure by infraction if those around her/him are, in contrast, entirely dressed (state of observance), or, if they are not so, if thus s/he imagines them. So a case in which the pleasure by infraction could not occur, would be the one of someone who were always entirely without clothes close to equally naked people, as much, both states, in the field of reality as in that of fantasies and memories. There would be uniformity in space and time; lack of any contrast, simultaneous and alternate. And, on the contrary, a case wholly favorable to the emergence of pleasure by infraction, is in whom undresses, in an infractive way, in front of dressed people who thus remain, which in itself doubly involves contrariety: spatial and temporal, simultaneous and alternate. The valuation of any thing is directly proportional to the magnitude of contrast with its opposite in space or in time, this is to say, simultaneously or in an alternate way. For instance, the fact of seeing naked people in a nudist beach is valued and is pleasant only for the reason that in other places to see nude people is rare (simultaneous or spatial contrariety). If everybody were used to walk naked in any place (simultaneous or spatial equality), nudity would neither be valued nor its existence would be pleasant. The simultaneous presence of opposites allows the valuation of each of them and the obtaining of pleasure by means of them. When the simultaneous contrariety does not exist, but a spatial equality, the pleasure is possible by the agency of an alternate or temporal contrariety. For example, if all the people who one sees walk naked, nudity can only be valued if a prior or subsequent lack of nakedness exists, that is to say, an alternate or temporal contrariety. When the contrariness is alternate and the contrast stops being recent, a state of monotony and impossibility of valuation and pleasure occurs, which makes necessary the existence of a contrast in inverse direction, and so on, in a cyclic way. When equality is spatial and temporal the existence of valuation and pleasure is totally impossible. Briefly, there are two ways of valuing, for example, nakedness: by watching the people of a nudist beach through the television while one is in a non nudist place (simultaneous contrariety), and by participating in the nudity in a nudist beach after some time of not doing it (alternate contrariety). On the other hand, the process of fulfilling—a date, a promise, etc.—can produce pleasure by observance. Nevertheless, when between people all what has been intended to be fulfilled is fulfilled already (absence of alternate contrariety), the pleasure by observance does not arise, unless such a temporal equality is where difference exists, or contrast, spatial or simultaneous; for instance, a couple can feel pleasure from the own observance merely by perceiving, imagining, or remembering that other couples live a life of infraction. Therefore, where every commitment is fulfilled and there are only people in the same condition (and there are neither fantasies, nor memories of states or processes contrasting with the present reality) the pleasure by observance does not occur. And conversely, the most propitious to its occurrence with its greater intensity, is the coexistence of both contrarieties. The aggressiveness of the pleasure by infraction and the protectiveness of the pleasure by observance, in many cases appears simultaneously even in very small details, as, for example, a degrading appellative said affectionately in diminutive.
To perceive, to imagine and to remember, as we have seen, are the means through which pleasure can arise among people. Now, we need to distinguish the degree in which the means mentioned earlier determine pleasure; from more to less: reality, memories, and fantasies. In the reality, of course, is where the most powerful source of pleasure resides; and then, memories are more effective than fantasies. But the latter only means that a certain act (e.g., a kiss) is more able to produce pleasure when remembering than when imagining, despite the fact that the vast majority of the individuals ordinarily obtains more pleasure from fantasies than from memories, on the grounds that these, which were real facts, are generally rather less conveniently occurred, or more limited, than those. On this account—because memories are more effective but more difficult, and because of fantasizing although is not equally effective is easy—memories and fantasies usually appear mixed; for example: the memory of a date in which only there were words that the mind improves by adding fantasized kisses. So the order is, from more to less effectiveness: a real hug, that remembered hug, the same fantasized hug.
There is among humans the tendency, which is a ordinary cause of judging and acting mistakenly, to see in a non-conscious way as inseparable from one another attraction adjectives, on the one hand, as well as repulsion adjectives, on the other hand. The fact, though, is that there is no inherence between any couple of attraction adjectives nor among repulsion adjectives. From the existence of a repulsion quality in something or someone it cannot be deduced that perforce another repulsion quality exists there, nor some attraction quality. And vice versa: where attraction qualities exist, other attraction qualities or repulsion qualities not necessarily exist. On account of this, it is an error to think that if the voice of a stranger who telephones is nice, this one should moreover be cultured, or honest, or clean, or happy, or attractive. Someone who is, for instance, intelligent, nothing is necessarily apart from it. From intelligence, as from any other quality, condition, state, or circumstance, nothing except the same intelligence—which would not be properly a deduction—can be necessarily deduced. Likewise, ignorance, for example, can, in a non-necessary way, to be accompanied by any other quality. But not just no quality is inherent to another quality, but there is moreover no quality that cannot be accompanied by any other quality, whether adjacent or crossed opposite. Thus, there can exist a person who is simultaneously forgetful, intelligent, honest, undemure, timid, attractive, prudent, envious, haughty, ingenuous, distrustful, frivolous, punctual, courteous, impulsive, easily frightened, irritable, illiterate, thoughtful, lascivious, affectionate, persistent, deaf, married, devotee, bisexual, reserved, grandiloquent, cruel, submissive, dirty, finicky, conformist, diligent... The foregoing, of course, does not exclude that someone can have purely attraction qualities, or repulsion qualities. The concept of idealization is in relation to the aforesaid; idealization entails seeing in somebody attraction qualities to such a degree or number that exceeds the real one. For example, the individual in whom degrees of generosity and honesty higher than the real ones are seen, or to the one who a honesty that s/he does not have is attributed, is idealized. Idealization has its origin in subordinating the reason to the desire of knowing someone who has identity with an ideal. On the other hand, there is a way of self-deception opposite to that of idealization, which we will denominate: unmoralization. This, involves attributing to a person qualities exactly opposed to those of someone who idealizes. Idealization occurs between those who look for pleasure by observance. Unmoralization, between those who look for pleasure by infraction; in those who, by subordinating the reason to the desire of such a pleasure, they see by exceeding what is real as immoral others as their desire wants. The one who has the habit of unmoralizing, does not believe easily that someone who undresses to pose for some magazine, appreciates, and achieves to a certain extent, values like faithfulness. However, unmoralization not only follows from the desire for the immoral, but, absent such a desire, likewise from the common tendency to deduce from given qualities others of the same type, as, in this case, repulsion qualities. Thus, unmoralization is an error that nigh on every human being has ever committed. And the same can be stated in regard to idealization, in a wider sense than the one seen before: besides the desire or yearning of moral, observance, idealization is very frequently committed. (There cannot exist confusion in unmoralization - idealization with underestimation - overestimation. The first pair concerns essentially the moral aspect; that is why it solely refers to people. And the causes are different.) It is remarkable, once more, the omission, in another monopolar error, by humans of the opposite here dealt with.
4.9 The Essential of Love In the pair repulsion - attraction, the pursued goal is the attraction, driven by the repulsion. Love, on the other hand, is nothing more than a complex manifestation, at the level of life, of the attraction that with repulsion regulates the behavior of atoms and molecules. Love is in the life that has reached a certain degree of evolution, what in the inanimate world attraction is (e.g., electromagnetic and gravitational). While any attraction opposite and any repulsion opposite is important, love is, among living beings, the attraction opposite par excellence. For this reason, with the objective of understanding the human interaction, we will concentrate on what love is in essence, with the aim, with preference to any other objective, of knowing how it interacts with its opposite: the essential of hate. Love is essentially a desire of good for the loved being or thing, concrete or abstract, and a desire likewise to be close to her/him/it. In any kind of love (in couple, maternal, paternal, filial, to things, etc.) both features are present. Invariably in love there is the desire of good; in many cases, despite the absence of the wished proximity or union with the loved person or thing; and, on the contrary, in other many cases, precisely thanks to this distance or separation. The desire of good is a desire of protection, of defense, of care to the object of love. However, any desire of protection—of good—is strictly speaking no more than a desire of self-protection. Even more, every act has as objective self-protection. But there are two different ways of self-protection, which we will distinguish with the names immediate self-protection and mediate self-protection; to which there correspond, respectively, egoism (repulsion opposite) and altruism (attraction opposite). Thus, an altruism act as to enter a house in flames with a view to putting a child in a safe place, is before anything else a result of an attempt of self-protection (mediate, via protecting the child), because it is originated from the desire that the altruist has of saving her/himself the pain that would produce her/him the child's suffering. And the same occurs in each act that aims at protecting the other people. The action of giving food her/himself (although that someone decides to share it equally with another), can, in a broad sense of egoism, be described as egoistic, while as altruist the one of giving food to another (even though who gives it, equally gives it her/himself). Thus, egoism and altruism, respectively, are to give her/himself and to give another a benefit. Giving sustenance to a son can be seen as an act of altruism, but likewise as an egoistic act insofar as that good is carried out by reason of being seen the son by his benefactress/benefactor as something of hers/his, in a similar way as everyone sees normally their own arms. Nevertheless, even anyone who tries to benefit someone who is not nor considers as from their people, acts for egoistic reasons, because the end that s/he principally pursues is to remedy or to avoid the own suffering or the own displeasure, as well as to obtain satisfaction for her/himself. The concept of mediate self-protection, is limited to comprise the protection given by somebody to her/himself by means of the protection to another in the most sincere and selfless way; it excludes, therefore, any protection given in a selfish way, that is, with the purpose but without the desire to protect and in many cases with desire to the opposite. What is important to highlight is that even the most honest and unselfish way to give protection to another being or thing, implies before everything else an attempt of self-protection, albeit by means of the protection to the being or thing beforementioned, which is the object of the own estimation or love. Analogously to self-protection, we will call the egoism implied here mediate egoism. Thus, altruism, strictly speaking, is mediate self-protection, mediate egoism. And what here we called immediate self-protection, or immediate egoism, corresponds to the common concept of egoism, where protecting her/himself is not by means of the protection to another, or it is only waiting for obtaining a benefit, apart from the mere good state or liking resulting in the object of favor, which in the mediate self-protection is sufficient. In fact, every act, of any living being, aims self-protection, given that, in a mediate or immediate way, looks for giving satisfaction to the own needs or interests. Self-protection, as we have seen, can be by means of protection to another. Nonetheless, at the same time it happens that any way of self-protection is accomplished by the instrumentality of a self-aggression. Every act looks for self-protection, and this one is never obtained but by means of self-aggression. The aim is self-protection (attraction contrary); self-aggression (repulsion opposite) is the means. The concepts of aggression and protection, will be extremely wide here. In this way, the aforesaid can be otherwise expounded, more concisely and generally: it is not possible to take a step forward without moving back. Every step forward is, at the same time, a step backwards. Nothing can be obtained without a cost. Every profit implies a loss. Nothing is possible to earn (attraction opposite) without losing or investing (repulsion contrary). For instance the act of reading some book can provide to the reader a gain (self-protection) in a certain information; profit obtainable only by means of an expense, investment, or loss (self-aggression) of energy. And in like manner, the attainment and digestion of an apple imply an expense of energy leading to an achievement—a renewal or a gain—of the same energy. Sometimes, self-aggression occurs to such a degree, that their author does not seem to pursue self-protection. However, always, even in cases of death, the pursued aim is self-protection. For example, someone who loses their life in the endeavor to save a child from the blaze, can have acted with all due caution, considering beforehand very probable, or certain, their own death. But the decisions to carry out this kind of acts, result from considering, sometimes right away and in an unconscious way, that the anticipated ending is preferable, for her/himself, to the ending with lack of attempt. In any case, such a struggle carried out with lack of foresight, by mere unreasoned impulse, implies a similar preference and, therefore, search at the same time for self-protection. Life is no more than a means used to self-protection, insofar as this is a cause of pleasure; but when this pleasure becomes impossible to obtain, or it is seen as such, and at the same time the only form of self-protection that there is is to avoid pain, the only means that there are sometimes towards self-protection is to try one's death. In the pair death - life, life is the means to which the living being gives preference, in the same way as gives it to the pleasure by observance, to heterosexuality, and to coitus. Death, by contrast, is only a last resort—to which we can come when the ascent towards the attraction opposite is impossible—in the same manner as the pleasure by infraction (repulsion opposite, as above mentioned, when it results from a high degree of discomfort), homosexuality, and the masturbation. But this status of preferential opposite, does not remove from life its role of mere means, towards protection. Naturally, death and life can be seen as pursued aims, for instance, by someone who commits suicide and by anyone who deliberately recovers from a serious disease, respectively; but both death and life are not ends in themselves, whereas self-protection do is so, pursued as much by suicides as by convalescents but by contrary means. Life, in summary, does not have as a chief purpose to continue life,* nor to look for death, but self-protection by means, preferably, of life, and, as a last resort, of death. On the other hand, the fact that every step forward implies a step backwards, does not mean, of course, a lack of advance, but merely a cost of the advance, because life is in such a way that its general march is taking forward longer the steps than backwards. Progress (attraction opposite), which is the aim, only can be reached by means of regression (repulsion contrary). * The essential features of life dealt with in this section, are in all the particular cases of living beings of any species. Nevertheless, the life at the general level—at the level of species, at the universal level, and at the level of any isolated system that includes it—has different characteristics. I will also speak of it in the section “Death - Life.”
Altruism differs from love above all else in that involves necessarily acts, of protection, while love, which although does not exclude such acts, can be limited to desires—having genuine willingness to protect—for varied causes; just as the fact that the object of love is already enough protected (in which case, the desire of protection does not stop, but it is reduced to want that that state persists), or, more commonly, the lack of means to provide the necessary protection. A difference analogous to the one that occurs between “to love humanity” and the most common meaning given to the word “philanthropy.” By definition, any altruism, like philanthropy, always supposes love, whilst this one not invariably becomes altruism or philanthropy. In addition, altruism solely refers to the act from one human to another; love, instead, to the desire or act not just among humans, but from a human towards her/himself, towards animals (y from these, to themselves, to each other, to humans and things) and toward absolutely all the rest that exists, either in reality or in fantasy. In consequence, the concept of love embraces much more than that of altruism.
Any source of satisfaction, can be a cause of love. So, for instance, a person and a canary usually give rise to love since they give satisfaction to somebody. And in the same way, for example, an idea and an automobile, and a canary and the person even though not only do not know that there is someone who loves them, and they have never tried to arouse love, but, and often precisely thanks to it, they have made efforts to not inspire it. Love can occur when satisfactions are involuntary and when they are intentional alike. As we saw above all relating to the sexual aspect, satisfactions can take place by means of observance and infraction. And thus, love can be a fruit not just of the pleasure by observance, but, and in keeping with the principle of two causes, also of the pleasure by infraction. Indeed, a person can feel love towards another not only because this one is faithful to her/him or for the reason that s/he sees in her/him virtues, but in view, likewise, of the fact that that another person is to her/him unfaithful or s/he has other habits normally seen as infractive and, in this way or in other ways, s/he is aggressive. Cases, these, non-infrequent in non-low degrees of infraction, and very frequent in the moderate ones; as, for example, in the midst of elevated love and observance, a person intimately let fly in search of pleasure an obscenity, which in such a bond acts as in the dough of a sweet bread often a pinch of salt. The pleasure by observance and the pleasure by infraction in many cases are causes of love in a combined way simultaneously or alternately, in an analogous way as usually foods are combined, with opposite tastes, as, for example, the sweet with the salty, the sour, and the bitter. On the other hand, an act for the benefit of someone proves love insofar as it results from an effort or a sacrifice. For instance, although numerous people have far more money than others by virtue of the fact that they or their ancestors have sacrificed themselves and worked much more efficiently, the already opulent people have to strive at present far less than when they was poor or than other very needy people to obtain an apple. By reason of this, it usually happens that receiving as gift one hundred apples from someone who is wealthy, is considered as a proof of less love or interest than to receive only one from someone who faces such hardship, that this generosity requires from her/him a greater sacrifice than the one that, presently, it requires from the rich the parting with one hundred. (Although it in the union of people is not in many cases what is needed, and not even the important thing.) An important cause of love is the love received, given that it is on its own a frequent source of satisfaction. In this respect, it is necessary to see that since love implies the valuation of the loved being or thing, and in turn such a valuation necessarily supposes in the lover the judgment that distinguishes from others the object of their love, a protective act—or, in some cases, aggressive—proves love in direct proportion to the degree of exclusivity or privilege with which it is offered. Thus, for example, somebody proves more love for a person who is in a group of one hundred, by giving only this one—none the others—an apple—or the tiniest and cheapest (but, in this case, non-insignificant) apple-shaped decal—than anyone who gives her/him one hundred apples and the same each of the rest. In the first case, the person/object of the gift feels more valued, on account of the fact that s/he is included in a unique place, or of very select people, favorably. And such a convenient inclusion, which is an attraction opposite, is an object or aim that, of course, only can be accomplished by the instrumentality of the exclusion, which is the repulsion opposite, of other people. Life would not be possible at all with the absence of the possibility of valuing, loving, and receiving valuation and love the individuals. And valuation, and consequently love, is impossible without exclusion, in all cases. For instance, the mentioned one hundred people equally bestowed, can consider their apples as proofs of valuation or love if there are other groups of people who were excluded from such a gift or prize. However, in lack of any exclusion, because all equally received present or prize, or because the rest was not considered, there is no possible way to prove love or valuation.
There are pairs of opposites, in which each opposite is composed of a set of qualities or characteristics, some of which have a certain contrariety among themselves. Nevertheless, in these cases the classification repulsion opposite - attraction opposite is also possible, taking into account the most prominent features in each of the poles. Of course, both femininity and masculinity vary from place to place and from time to time. At the present time in the countries that have reached the highest degrees of progress, some of the features of these qualities have changed in such a way that the polarization between these two opposites is smaller than in other times and than in other countries of less progress of nowadays. However, the degree of contrariness—of polarization—between femininity and masculinity is and will be always necessarily very marked in some of their essential features. Both femininity and masculinity in their most traditional and polarized forms, show more markedly the asymmetry that, analogously to any other pair of opposites, in this pair exists. Masculinity (attraction opposite) exists in men as a reaction to (against and towards) femininity (repulsion opposite), while, on the contrary, femininity constitutes an action or quality whose reason for being is essentially to give rise to masculinity, to originate it and to motivate it; to cause it. The feature of asymmetry consisting of the reactivity of masculinity against femininity, is manifest in the fact that, normally, the greatest insult that can be made against a man, is to question his masculinity or his virility, while, normally, the questioning of femininity is not so worrying for women. This is owing to the fact that masculinity mainly entails qualities difficult to obtain (strength, independence, bravery, for example), whereas femininity involves substantially—with historical and geographical variations—the relative absence—or smaller presence—of those qualities, and the presence of other qualities less difficult to obtain (for example, beauty). It is more difficult to be masculine than feminine.* The valuation in the relationships between opposite sexual genders, is strongly concentrated in masculinity. In diverse cultures it is relatively normal that women take each other by the hand or they greet each other with a kiss, because the “charges,” so to speak, of these equal signs (both negative) are relatively weak, whilst owing to the fact that the “charges” are relatively strong in the masculine signs (both positive), such an approach is rare between men. The popular phrase “behind every great man is a great woman” is to a great extent true. In a broader sense, the woman (repulsion opposite) is the cause of the man (attraction opposite), because, besides masculinity itself, a large share of the achievements derived from the masculinity of men is inspired by women, by their femininity. Masculinity is then not only a reaction against femininity, but at the same time a reaction towards femininity. Against this one because men make efforts to not be feminine and to be masculine (efforts much greater than the ones that women make to not be masculine), and towards that quality because towards women (towards their attractive femininity) point the efforts of men to excel by the agency of their masculine actions. In addition, these features and this asymmetry** in the pair femininity - masculinity, are present also in the behavior of the females and males of many other species of animals; and from the biological viewpoint we can also say that the female in general is the cause of the male because she is the one who gestates him, gives birth to him, and in many cases even nurses him and takes care of him in childhood. The ignorance in the human being in respect of the cardinal concepts of the Theory of Universal Equilibrium, is a result of the fact that has undervalued, minimized, and in many cases flatly ignored the function of an entire half of the Universe. Among multiple examples that I can give, it is the use of the word “man” to refer to the 'human being' in general, and also the presence of masculine forms without their feminine forms in words of many languages. * This, without considering the difficulties resulting from femininity on account of the discrimination prevailing against it. ** In other species of animals there are differences in these respects; but necessarily in all cases in which there are opposite sexes there is asymmetry, and this one obeys the principle of bipolarity.
Any pleasure is a result of the satisfaction of a need. Whenever a state is reached in which the satisfaction of a need, as, for example, the need for security, is so high that pleasure can no longer be obtained from the satisfaction of that need, On the grounds that the engine of life resides in the satisfaction of needs, every time a need is felt as satisfied to the full, is replaced by a need—felt or undergone—for said need to exist over again, unsatisfied, so that the process of the enjoyment and sense of life can be renewed and to continue. Life is the cyclic repetition of the same needs, and the causal process satisfied need -> need of dissatisfaction is the link that unites and makes possible those vital repetitions. Such a causality is so indispensable to life as the causation unsatisfied need -> satisfied need (that is, need -> satisfaction). Every pair of opposites implies an interaction in which there is a pair of different causalities, which operate altogether, in harmony, to make possible the existence and progress of everything what exists. The evolution of life, in any form, and that of the Universe as a whole, as well as the smallest movement of any object, is always a result of that double causality between opposites, which we will distinguish with the following denominations: renovative or medial causality (repulsion contrary) and final causality (attraction opposite). The renovative causation consists in the generation of a repulsion opposite starting from an attraction contrary. This type of causality, is not an end in itself, but merely means, indispensable, to the reiterative renewal of the final causality. The medial causality is renovative, its function is to make possible the cyclical continuation of the final causality. The final causation, on the other hand, consists in the generation of an attraction opposite starting from a repulsion opposite. See Figure 3.
Figure 3 The renovative or medial causality and the final causality, perform analogous functions to those of the medial opposites and the final opposites, respectively. The first constitutes the means towards the second, which constitutes the aim.
When the need of protection, for example, has been satisfied to the max, a need of aggression is originated, which can give rise to another need of protection, which is the aim; and analogously occurs in other pairs of opposites. Pairs of essential opposites, like insecurity - security and aggression - protection, occur continuously in all the individuals finally and renovatively. Instead, other many vary from individual to individual, because they are not essential, but different optional forms in which the essential opposites can be carried out; for instance, in the pair infidelity - fidelity the renovative causality, fidelity -> infidelity occurs not in all people, for the reason that in many of them—the comparatively conservative ones—the need of fidelity (the need for security) never reaches full satisfaction. Only the people who have reached a certain degree of liberality get to feel so satisfied their needs for security and fidelity, that they feel the need of infidelity, in order, from the infidelity already satisfied, to be able to feel again the need and valuation of fidelity, which is the aim. (As well as in the conservative people the need of security in many cases is not wholly satisfied, in the liberal people in many cases the need of insecurity is not satisfied in entirety either, and on this account, for example, the infidelity or other forms of infraction go on or constitute well-nigh the only pathways to obtain pleasure.) Every living being is in life as a gardener in an enormous garden in which s/he daily must water the plants and remove the fallen leaves: at the end of their working day a part of the soil already lost humidity anew and there are other dead leaves in the ground. But the beauty of life, its sense, its reason for being, what in brief makes it desirable (worthy of being valued), possible, and prolongable, is the periodic reward for that gardening work; i.e., that periodic noticing the difference between the dry soil and with dead leaves and the humid soil and free from dry leaves. The difference between the uninterrupted life (throughout the individual cycle or perpetually in an isolated social system) and the perpetual absence of life, is in if that watering and cleaning is continuously a process or a state, respectively. Life is, and it can only be a process that is perpetuated. On the contrary, any state that is perpetuated—without a process of continuous or frequent change that sustains it—is utterly alien to existence of life.
CHAPTER 5 Equilibrium Between Opposites 5.1 A Magnet and the Theory of Universal Equilibrium At least, a great part of the key of the functioning of the interaction, repulsive or attractive, among the animate parts (individuals, nations, worlds, e.g.), opposites or of the same side, and among the inanimate ones (e.g., galaxies, galaxy clusters), can be discovered in a magnet. In fact, the Theory of Universal Equilibrium is a result to a large extent of extrapolating four properties of a magnet to the interactions between all the matter. A magnet, namely: 1. - It has inseparable poles (at the general level). 2. - It is turned into two magnets when is divided; and two magnets, into one when is joined. 3. - It generates attraction by means of repulsion, and repulsion by means of attraction. 4. - It has magnetic poles of equal magnitude and of opposite polarity or sign. Starting from the second chapter we have dealt already with the first point (on which partly, widespreadly to all pairs of opposites, the principle of bipolarity is based). And until the end of the book we will continue to see at every step that, of necessity, in each pair of poles is such a property. Seemingly, the second property is nothing but another form of enunciating the preceding one. Nonetheless, in reality they are not the same, because the impossibility of separating two parts does not have necessarily to be so: it could, for example, be because the matter of the magnet were united with so great strength that no force could separate it; or because being possible the separation, this one destroy, as an effect, the resulting parts, in the same way as occurs in a living being due to the division of their vital parts. A magnet is very different from both cases: it can easily be cut and, though, defeats, so to speak, such a separation by originating a new magnet (of lesser strength) in each resulting part. A little later, in this chapter, we will see in detail how this phenomenon occurs among living beings. We have been demonstrating—and in such a direction we will now continue—that attraction is caused by repulsion in the sense that attraction opposites (e.g., liberation, satisfaction, easiness) are aims attainable only by the instrumentality of repulsion opposites (e.g., conservation, need, difficulty). Of the inverse causation, e.g., satisfaction -> need, we have already spoken in the section “Renovative or medial causality and final causality” and we will return to it in the section “The size of the Universe.” The fourth point, put more plainly, consists in that a magnet has, in all accuracy, equal amounts of repulsion and attraction. This is to say, there is a balance between repulsion and attraction; balance that necessarily also occurs, as we will see from here onwards, between all the other opposites that constitute effective (producing change) influences.
Both impudicity and pudency exist because people value them desideratively; in most cases they are consequence of that valuation. In addition, the existence of pudency is only possible if there is impudicity, and vice versa, because if there were solely one of the two qualities, would not be felt in any way—since contrariety would not exist—nor, in consequence, would be valued. Not just the fact if this pair of qualities either exists or does not exist depends on whether or not there is valuation towards them: also the extent to which they exist depends upon the degree of valuation; and conversely: the degree of this valuation depends on how much impudicity and pudency are present. When the level of impudicity is low, this is highly valued; when the level is high, it is little valued. But these growth and reduction in valuing the impudicity, occur to exactly the same degree as in valuation towards the pudency simultaneously a decrease and an increase, respectively. To put it another way: when impudicity increases too much, consequently it is less valued; at the same time the presence of pudency is more valued, and, therefore, this one tends to increase and that one to decrease, and for that cause the balance occurs in effect between the amounts of these two opposites within an isolated social system. These changes of valuation and consequent conduct, are the same ones that those already seen, in the third chapter, when speaking with regard to the pair need - satisfaction; but now not at the individual level, but at the level, higher, of any system—isolated from others or any significant external influence—of individuals (from a few to thousands of millions or any plurality) in communication with one another; or also, at the level of systems like the abovementioned, in reciprocal communication or relationship and isolated as a whole. The habitual degrees of both impudicity and pudency, are from individual to individual from equal to extremely varied. For this reason, within an isolated system there are on the one hand those who are described as undemure, and on the other hand those who are considered as demure. In other words, there are two opposing sides, with people, on the one hand, who identify with one another, they feel mutual attraction and form alliance against those who, on the other side, due to having in one of those qualities equality or similarity to one another, they mutually sympathize with one another and join forces against their opposite. Repulsion and attraction exist simultaneously, and, as an effect, separation and unification. Repulsion between the camps, and attraction among the members who make up such camps. And this repulsion between opposites, performs a function, among others, decisively balancing between the two factions, forasmuchas as soon as, for instance, impudicity begins to increase too much with respect to pudency, not only the attraction towards it among those who receive it and defend it diminishes, and among those who refuse it the mutual attraction grows, but simultaneously the undemure people's repulsion against pudency decreases, at the same time as in the followers of pudency the repulsion against impudicity increases. Both repulsion and attraction jointly decide the balance between opposites within an isolated system. From the moment when an opposite surpasses the other, loses strength on account of the fact that, due to its surplus, begins to be less valued: it is less defended and attacks its opposite, as a result, with less effort, with more weakness if the degree to which exceeds it is greater. And simultaneously, the opposite that has been exceeded, by virtue of the fact that, owing to its shortage, starts to be more valued, gains strength: consequently it is more defended and fights more against its opposite, with more strength insofar as the degree to which is exceeded is greater. This implies the following: the greater the disequilibrium, the greater the tendency to equilibrium, within an isolated system. In fact, in a system in which the opposites are those that decide to what degree exists—and thus it is in any isolated system—in a natural way, under such conditions, the opposites always reach equilibrium, sometimes after some time, without the need that they agree it between themselves or the parties involved have that aim in mind. Law of equilibrium between opposites: within any isolated system, any pair of opposites is always in equilibrium or in the process of equilibrium. In order to illustrate in another way how this process occurs, it will be useful to compare it with the one that occurs in a liquid in two communicating vessels. As it is known, a liquid reaches one level in containers connected or communicated with each other. If, for example, being in equilibrium, the vessel A (see Figure 4) receives a liter of water, would have in it an excess of one liter and in the vessel B would have a lack of the same amount; but it brings as a result a tendency to equilibrium that, if nothing stops the free flow from a vessel to another vessel, materializes in an indefectible way.
Figure 4 A liter added in one go in one of the vessels, is origin of an abrupt disequilibrium and an equally sudden equilibrium, which starts from the moment when the added water touches, and, therefore, presses or influences, the liquid in the vessel. The disequilibrium, in this case, exists momentarily. In other words, equilibrium is completely accomplished in an instant. Instead, the tendency to equilibrium and the beginning of this one are immediately after the pressure or excess in the system. On this account, there is no perceptible disequilibrium when the water added in one go in one of the vessels is in no great amount in proportion to the one that exists in the system; as, for example, in drops or a flow from domestic tap in the case of a system of six liters. Naturally, the speed with which the equilibrium is accomplished, will depend on how much both containers are connected or communicated with each other. It will not have between both levels any difference if the connection or communication between the vessels is of a diameter of three centimeters. But there will be it, during the addition, if the way has a width of one millimeter; although after the cessation, or enough reduction, of the increase of water the equilibrium is completed little by little. All that has been said up to here with reference to the equilibrium in containers that are connected or communicated with each other, in an analogous way it occurs between values or effective influences existing within any system of individuals in communication with one another. A proportionally high amount of impudicity suddenly added in a system, without any addition of pudency, is not something that often happens. An example of such a case would be the following: to an isolated system constituted by little population (about five hundred individuals), a ship arrives carrying a hundred of nudists, who flood at once with such a practice the streets. The reaction of pudency against that excess of impudicity, would be equally sudden. But there would be a momentary disequilibrium due to the time that, for inhabitants and authorities, would be necessary in the execution of the measures taken against the spare impudicity (which to a great extent would depend upon the effectiveness and amount of transport and communication routes there). Instead, if the nudists enter not en masse (not in spurts), but one by one (drop by drop), the equilibrium would be produced, by means of the intervention of the authorities, proportionally to the disequilibrium, and this one would hardly be noticed. The first case, the hundred who enters suddenly, constitutes an invasion. The second, a succession of incidents, which is the closest to normal. In effect the equilibrium that occurs between the valued contraries or effective influences is, in its dispersed and frequent and even continuous excesses later appeased, comparable, more than to the flatness in the levels of water in vessels, to the variably rough waving in the surface of the ocean, which notwithstanding the above mentioned roughness, is always approximately in equilibrium, simultaneously or alternately. It should be made clear that the equilibrium between opposites not occurs—except by chance—among the numbers of parts (individuals, for instance) of which the opposites consist, but between the amounts of the effective influence that on the parts of the system the opposites exert. These quantities—of number and of effective influence—usually occur unequally distributed between the parts, without prejudice to equilibrium. In a few words, the equilibrium between opposites is quantitative, not numerical or distributive. In order to understand better this question, it is worth noting that the contraries are a pair of effective influences or forces, and that between these is where the equilibrium occurs. Thus, between two opposing armies—that is between two opposing effective forces—can exist equilibrium even though the soldiers of one are three times more numerous than those of the other. And likewise, in a small isolated system, as, for example, a town, a high degree of impudicity of a single inhabitant could, by her/himself, maintain pudency in all the rest of the people. Such a variable relationship between the opposite and how many parts constitute it, is analogous to the one existing between the mass and the volume of the bodies: it is the mass, and not the volume, what counts in the scales. In the (international) balance of power, each time the strength and effective influence of the supporters of one of the camps increase, they arouse distrust in other parts and provoke in these ones actions against the alliance that the parts of the aforesaid camp form. Whenever one of the camps begins to seem threatening on the grounds of the amount of power and effective influence that exerts, other camps oppose in such a way that the balance between opposites always tends to take place and is always realized, one way or another: by means of a bipolarity or a multipolarity, simultaneously or alternately. That preventive suspicion not only opposes the existence of a monopolarity or unipolarity, but gives rise to the existence of the balance of power and effective influence between opposing sides, within an isolated system. One of the causes for which humanity has not noticed, except to a very limited extent, the equilibrium between opposites, is not to have observed that there is a causal link between the opposites. Without such a knowledge, it is easy even to think that the existence of an opposite without the other is possible. Another cause of it is the fact that any social system, civilized, in the Earth is in communication, and, wherefore, externally influenced and in disequilibrium. Indeed, in the same way as any isolated system is in equilibrium or on the way to equilibrium, any system in communication, external, is imbalanced or in the process of disequilibrium. Only the Earth as a whole, and not some other system—with relatively advanced progress—in it, is unconnected (externally), isolated, in equilibrium or on the way to equilibrium. In subsystems the disequilibrium can be so great that an entire country, or a city, can be monopolarized in the same way as it can be an individual, a group, or a company; a bar, for example, usually contains in itself only people who, to a lesser or greater degree, drink; generally there is not in it the bipolarity drinker - teetotaler (and if any, at some time, it will most likely not be in equilibrium); though, such a group of individuals similar among themselves, only is possible within another group (e.g., a city), or in relation to it, where there is simultaneously abstinent ones (simultaneous contrariness or bipolarity); or when in that same group, being in isolation, there is alternation between the habits of drinking and of abstaining. And, likewise, a city can, or even a country, to constitute entirely a sort of bar; but only in connection, simultaneous or alternate, with its opposite. This fact that there can exist a great group of people similar to one another (drinkers, or nudists, or poor, or pacifists, or dishonest, etc.), combined with the ignorance that any state and any conduct have their cause and measurement in their opposite state and behavior, easily it leads to think wrongly that the extension of a group of such a homogeneity could grow up to become global, that is to say, until an isolated monopolarity is shaped. Although in these cases I have spoken on excesses of impudicity with respect to pudency, in the cases of excesses of pudency in relation to impudicity the same happens. The tendency to equilibrium and the resulting equilibrium equally occur—simultaneously or alternately—in all the excesses of any opposite, regardless of whether it is a repulsion contrary or an attraction opposite. The Universe is qualitatively asymmetric and quantitatively symmetrical.
5.3 Laws of Conservation of Contrariety and Equilibrium 5.3.1 Law of rebipolarization Just as it happens that when breaking a magnet into two parts these ones are turned into smaller magnets instead of into monopoles, when isolating or separating the opposite poles or camps of which a social system is made up the result is not a pair of monopoles, but two smaller bipolar systems. When isolated, the social poles in consequence are bipolarized. If, for instance, in the case of an incommunicado (isolated) town in which it is only one person who with their extreme impudicity gives support to the pudency of the others such a person is a woman sex worker obviously lewdness in any public places, she will bring as reaction most of all in fathers, brothers, husbands, boyfriends, and friends of women, so great repulsion and criticism against such an impudicity, that there will be no woman who wants to follow or imitate her. Such a meretrix would be the most frequently pointed out example of avoidable feminine conduct; and her name, the alias that to any woman would be more insulting and degrading than any other, and, therefore, ordinarily used in fights, intrigues, and gossips. Those would be the causes that there were repulsion in the others towards impudicity, and wherefore attraction (valuation) towards pudency. But if, for fear of the undemure influence, one day the sex worker before mentioned were exiled by the town—leaving thus only demure people—due to no longer having any source of impudicity, this would begin to be fewer feared, simultaneously to be wanted, and therefore, at the same time, pudency would start to be fewer wanted and to be feared. Thus, there would come the moment, not long after, when the behavior of one or more of inhabitants would become lax, replacing to the earlier moved away this new impudicity. In this case, and we will hereafter see others, rebipolarization occurs among people; but it can also be in them. I will call one and the other form of contrariety, respectively: social bipolarization (attraction opposite) and individual bipolarization (repulsion opposite). When a group of women or men is isolated from their opposite sex during a long time, new “men” or “women” arise, respectively, within that group (social rebipolarization). Of course, the equilibrium does not occur among the numbers of such individuals, but between femininity and masculinity. If a group, for example, of men is completely isolated from women, the valuation towards masculinity diminishes among them—after some time—because what motivates to value the possession of such a quality is the presence of women, who request it in men. In the absence of these, there is not in the men reason to continue making the effort to be masculine. Because of this, at the beginning of such an isolation, one or more—those who are more prone to it—are feminized, become “women,” substitutes of them, thus giving sustenance to the persistence and revivification of masculinity in the others. Without such a new femininity, there would not be masculinity either. (To describe as homosexual such new relationships, would be erroneous in a way: though there is sexual equality from the biological point of view, there is oppositeness in the roles that the individuals socially value and adopt. It is necessary to take into account that if were entirely feasible and affordable to anyone a biological change in that respect, would be performed by a great number of those who feminize their conduct, and thus would be new women in the strict sense of the word. In a less strict sense, which in the equilibrium between contraries it is the important one—determining—given that there are new women there is also new heterosexuality. And it would only be possible to describe as homosexual the relationships between the people who have decided to be women or to continue being men and habitually act and dress, respectively, as women and as men.) Any individual who isolates her/himself from sexual relationships and couple love (that is to say, s/he stops having a partner), when fantasizing that s/he has sexual or loving relationship and when masturbating is bipolarized (individual rebipolarization): there is contrariness in her/him at the same time between femininity and masculinity: someone who merely fantasizes the relationship, creates by means of the imagination the absent opposite; someone who masturbates, incarnates or represents it concretely with another part of their own body or with some object. The individual bipolarity in people varies to the degree to which the external noncommunication, that is to say, the isolation with respect to other individuals, varies in each one. The exiled person who in the town mentioned before, in communication with others, was a single pole, in herself an disequilibrium (as long as pudency in her was much less than her impudicity), when is isolated, for instance in a cabin on the outskirts of the town, and when not finding any pudency by contrast with which her impudicity can still be valued, is bipolarized (individual rebipolarization) by remembering or fantasizing scenes in which she appears within a social system in which there is likewise pudency and in which, consequently, her impudicity is valued by other people; or, when losing valuation towards impudicity, becomes at the same time or alternately, demure too. Thus, in external isolation, but in communication with her memories, fantasies, and actions, that person (in a natural and inevitable way) recovers the lost opposite, and she is equilibrated in herself (in her individuality) analogously to how it occurred in the social system to which she belonged. The fact that a person pronounces, thinks, evokes, fantasizes or s/he does in solitude something demure or undemure and for that reason s/he feels pleasure, means that s/he acts, respectively, with impudicity or pudency likewise, in an alternate or simultaneous way. Also, when people feel the need for dialogue and are isolated, an intraindividual contrariety—a bipolarity—arises in every one, a monologue as a dialogue between two parts within the individual,* where an internal part takes the place of the absent external part (another individual). This individual bipolarity usually occurs in an intermittent way in many individuals in any normal conversation (and, of course, such momentary internal dialogues only occur when a fleeting isolation exists at the same time, on the grounds of reciprocal noncommunication or due to interruption of attention—towards the other person—on the part of the one who chooses the dialogue with her/himself). But such a bipolarization is commonly more marked in those who are isolated for hours; and even more in those who, for various possible reasons, live for a long time in extreme solitude. Likewise, we must distinguish two forms of social bipolarity: internal bipolarity and external bipolarity. The internal rebipolarization occurs when an opposite or pole after isolated (monopolarity or unipolarity) is divided into two opposites, as it occurs in the case of the poles of a magnet when separated. The external rebipolarization, instead, occurs when an opposite or pole after isolated begins to interact contrarily with a part other than that from which it was separated. One or another form of rebipolarization usually happens when an opposite is isolated from its opposite. When I speak of rebipolarization, I mean that at least one more pole arises (internally or externally) after a bipolar or multipolar system is monopolarized or undergoes changes aimed at a monopolarity, in such a way that the result is, at a minimum, a new bipolarity, or sometimes a multipolarity. Thus, when a country or bloc of countries is isolated from its opposite (for example, because this one is defeated) and therefore becomes a unipolarity (monopolarity), there are consequently several possible forms of rebipolarization: the country or group of countries is divided or loses social cohesion or the social discontent or unrest increases, or the competition among its constituent parts increases, there is a replacement of the external aggressiveness with an increase of internal aggressiveness (internal rebipolarization); or it starts to compete with another country or bloc of countries, this is to say, there is a shift of aggressiveness or rivalry from a country or group of countries to another country or group of countries (external rebipolarization); or as a third option a form of rebipolarization or alternate contrariety occurs, of which I will speak in the next section. Also, these forms of rebipolarization can appear in combination. Another clear example of the tendency to the (external) rebipolarization of an isolated system when monopolarized, is the fact that after dissolving the Soviet Union in 1991 (the Commonwealth of Independent States was founded in December 1991, which marked the official end of the USSR), the European Union was formed, in 1993 (the Maastricht Treaty on European Union was signed in February 1992 and entered into force the following year). It cannot be said that a result of the end of the Cold War is a unipolar world. Presently the world does not constitutes a unipolarity, but a multipolar system (the United States, the European Union, Japan, and China). In the international balance of power, speaking of the military capability or power of a country (for instance, the United States) is not relevant whether this one does not use that capacity to attack or threaten to attack and seriously endanger another or other countries of the utmost importance within the system, because in that way it does not exercise vital influence on these ones. The equilibrium between contraries does not occur between the military capabilities or powers of countries, but between the aggressivenesses or aggressions (attacks and/or threats of attacks) of countries. In this kind of equilibrium what matters is aggressiveness (which is a form of influence), and the aggressiveness or competitiveness of the economic competitions is prevalent at the current time, not the military aggressiveness, at least not one that on the part of the United States vitally harms the interests of the other most powerful countries in the world. If the United States used their military capability to attack or threaten to attack and seriously endanger countries like Russia, the European Union, China, and Japan, the result would be an alliance among the military capabilities of these countries, and a military bipolarity and a tendency to the worldwide military equilibrium would take place; only for the reason that the military capability would have been translated into military aggressiveness. Notwithstanding this absence of American military aggressions of vital global importance, there is no absence of distrust in other countries towards the United States owing to the wars led by them (in Iraq and in Afghanistan) since the end of the Cold War (and therefore given the superiority of their military capacity), and to the disequilibrium that it has meant are due the September 11 attacks against the United States in 2001 by al-Qaeda, and the leak of hundreds of thousands of classified documents from the United States to WikiLeaks and their publication in 2010, facts that are a result of a tendency to equilibrium in any isolated system. The cases of the leak of classified information and of their publication, simultaneously provide examples of the tendencies to both the internal and the external rebipolarization. An outcome of the foregoing is the first law of conservation of contrariety and equilibrium: Law of rebipolarization: in any isolated system, any opposite when isolated from its opposite is internally divided into two contraries in a balanced way (individual or internal social rebipolarization) or another opposite externally arises with which it interacts in a balanced manner (external social rebipolarization). * Similarly to the case of the word “atom” from the physical point of view, the term “individual” is inappropriate from the psychological point of view, since the individual is divisible and in fact is bipolarized frequently, as a result of isolation with respect to other individuals.
5.3.2 Law of alternization When the water of one of two communicating vessels is momentarily struck downward with a piston, a simultaneous disequilibrium between the water levels takes place momentarily in the one and the other vessel, because the water level drops momentarily in the vessel in which the pressure of the hit was induced, while it rises in the other vessel. Nevertheless, then the disequilibrium is reversed, since the water level rises in the vessel in which it had dropped and it drops in the vessel in which it had risen. That rocking of the water from one vessel to another implies a succession of simultaneous disequilibriums that are reversed, in the same way as happens with the movements of a scales in balance when one of its sides receives an impulse downward. The alternation of inverse disequilibriums forms a sort of equilibrium, which we will call alternate equilibrium. This means that an attempt to induce an disequilibrium in that way is in a way unfruitful, because otherwise, alternately, the equilibrium remains, is conserved. The same occurs within any other system internally in communication and externally isolated. Second law of conservation of contrariety and equilibrium: Law of alternization: in any system internally in communication and externally isolated, forcing a simultaneous contrariety or disequilibrium results in an alternate contrariety or equilibrium. Briefly: every simultaneous disequilibrium is an alternate equilibrium.
5.4 Difficulty - Easiness We have to differentiate two types of difficulties and two types of easinesses. For instance, the fact that a poor person decides not to work, it implies medial easinesses and effectual difficulties. That is to say, that person decides to follow an easy way by not working, but that lifestyle result in difficulties, in problematic consequences of that chosen easiness. Contrarily, the decision to work implies medial difficulties and effectual easinesses. When classifying here the pair difficulty - easiness, I refer to effectual difficulty - effectual easiness, respectively. The purpose in life is easiness, which only can be obtained by the instrumentality of the existence of difficulty. The effectual difficulty is an opposite that arises distensively, and the effectual easiness arises from tensive actions. In other words, the existence of difficulty is easier than that of easiness.
5.5 Aggression - Protection One of the most important pairs of opposites among living beings is aggression - protection, on the grounds that every action of any living being aims protection (and not precisely life, nor death). How we could be protected without the existence of aggression? Every protection (attraction opposite) is a reaction against an aggression (repulsion contrary). So since protection is the objective of every action of living beings, aggression is the cause of every action of living beings, through protection. Protection is the aim (objective) in life; and aggression is the cause, the basis of life. Aggression is the foundations on which life is built. So if aggression did not exist, life would not exist either, given that protection would not exist. In fact not only every protection is an effect of aggression (present or anticipated), but the amount of protection within any isolated system, is equivalent to the amount of aggression (current or anticipated) within that system. Like in any other pair of opposites, in the pair aggression - protection there is equilibrium in any living system externally isolated and internally in communication. The pair aggression - protection is qualitatively asymmetric and quantitatively symmetrical, just like any other pair of opposites. In chapter 4, in the section “The essential of love,” we saw that the individual (of individuals) life does not aim life nor death, but protection, by means of life preferably, and by means of death as a last resort. Every action aims the search for pleasure or the avoidance of pain, and anyone of these two objectives only can be reached by means of protection, which, in turn, only can be reached via aggression. Aggression -> Protection - Attainment of pleasure -> Life and Death Protection, whether as action or as state, only can cause pleasure when there is need for protection. In all living beings, when the need of protection is fully satisfied, and therefore no longer there is need for protection, that need is replaced by a (undergone) necessity of new need of protection, because this is what makes possible a new attainment of protection and, as a result, a renewal of the pleasure lost by means of the total satisfaction (satiety). The only way of creating that new need for protection is by the instrumentality of the presence of new aggression. On this account, the (undergone) necessity of need of protection, unfailingly creates a (felt) need of aggression, which impels individuals to look for aggression and to produce it (when it is not found or it is found in an amount smaller than needed). Figure 5 shows a social macrosystem externally isolated and internally in communication, as the planet Earth. In the first level it contains 3 social subsystems, similar to countries or blocs of countries in the Earth, in reciprocal interaction. Each of these three groups, in turn, contains other social subsystems, in reciprocal interaction and with the outside world (this is to say, with systems of the higher level). The intense blue color and the distance separating the groups A and C represent repulsion among these. The subsystems within the groups in repulsion, in hostility or war (A and C) are more united than those of the group B, which is relatively outside the aggressions. The attraction and protection among the subsystems are due, respectively, to a great extent to the repulsion and aggression among the systems within which they are.
The amount of protection or attraction within any subsystem is largely an effect of the amount of aggression or repulsion between that subsystem and another subsystem of its same level. For example, the amount of rapprochement, union, and solidarity among the connationals is to a large extent a result of the amount of estrangement, separation, and hostility in relation with the foreigners. The greater the repulsion or aggression between two social systems, the greater the attraction or protection among the parts, the subsystems, making up those systems. The progress of living beings is directly a result of protection, and is indirectly, primarily, a result of aggression. In a few words, the progress of the living beings in a system only can reach the degree that the aggression (present or anticipated) reaches in that system, because only that level of protection can be reached.
5.6 War - Peace The same way as protection is impossible without the existence of aggression, the existence of peace (attraction contrary) is impossible without the existence of war (repulsion opposite). War is the foundation, the means, the cause of the existence of peace. Without the existence of war peace would not be valued and, wherefore, would not exist either. And without the existence of peace life would not be valued and this one would not exist either. War (aggression on a large scale) is the engine of progress and life (protection). There is a great variety of ways of satisfying the daily need of aggression that people feel as a means to value life by protecting themselves and protecting, either in reality or in fantasy: toys, computer games, sports, movies, plays, literature, music, for example. These resources of satisfaction of the need for aggression whose aim is to make possible protection, above all contain subjects related to war at periods in which the need of war is present, which occurs periodically depending on the need of protection on a large scale. Although there are many forms of simulation of very serious aggressions and protections, which play a pivotal role in the satisfaction of the need for aggression and protection spoken of earlier, such simulations cannot and will not ever throughout replace, far from it, the real forms of very serious aggressions and protections, because of the fact that both progress and life are not simulations, but very serious and very strong needs, which can only exist and advance as an effect of equally serious realities. And it is not something for whose existence the knowledge or awareness of the participating living beings is necessary; the Universe is in such a way that without regard to the awareness of the way in which life is sustained and progresses, the living beings follow their fundamental individual and collective needs and that way fulfill the progress and evolution of life as a whole. The amount of attraction (or protection, where appropriate) is greater and the amount of repulsion (or aggression, where appropriate) is smaller among the systems of the lower levels than among the systems of the highest levels, as can be seen in Figure 6. For example, attraction and union are stronger among the quarks of one proton than among that proton and other protons; attraction and union are stronger among the protons of one atom than among the protons and electrons of that atom; attraction and union are stronger among the protons and electrons of one atom than among that atom and other atoms; attraction and union are stronger among the atoms of one molecule than among that molecule and other molecules; attraction and union are stronger among the molecules of one cell than among that cell and other cells; attraction and union are stronger among the neurons or cells of the nervous system of an individual than among the different parts of the personality of that individual; at the same time, attraction and union among these parts of the psyche of an individual are stronger than among that individual and other individuals; simultaneously, attraction and union are stronger between individuals (for instance, between the members of the couples) than among couples; attraction and union are stronger among the couples or the families of one community than among that community and other communities; attraction and union are stronger among the communities of one city than among that city and other cities; attraction and union are stronger among the cities of one state than among that state and other states; simultaneously, attraction and union are stronger among the states of one country than among that country and other countries; also, attraction and union are stronger among the countries of one bloc of countries than among that bloc of countries and other blocs of countries; attraction and union are stronger between the blocs of countries of one world than among that world and other worlds; and so on. And this greater attraction in the low levels equilibrates with the greater repulsion in the high levels. This qualitative asymmetry among the low and the high levels, is due to the fact that the repulsion of higher levels produces attraction in all lower levels (at least in all the levels of systems composed of animate matter), making stronger attraction insofar as levels are lower. When there is repulsion (or, where appropriate, aggression) in a high level of systems, attraction (or, where appropriate, protection) increases and repulsion diminishes in all the subsystems of lower levels. Thus, in a low level of systems, as, for example, that of individuals, the attractions generated by the repulsions of the highest levels are accumulated, for instance, by the interfamily conflicts, the sport rivalry among the cities of the same country to which the individuals belong, the competition among or between the political parties, etc.; and this is why there is greater attraction among individuals than, for example, among or between political parties. When there is war or hostility, that is to say, repulsion, among or between countries, normally attraction, union, and protection increase and repulsion, disunion, and aggression diminish among the political parties of each of countries; but also attraction, union (social cohesion), and protection are increased and repulsion, disunion (hostility), and aggression decrease among all the parts or systems that are in the lower levels that constitute each country: among states, among cities, among communities, among families, among individuals, among the parts that form the personality of the individuals, and possibly even among the cells of individuals. In the highest levels, as, for instance, that of political parties and that of companies, attraction can be so scant and repulsion so abundant that the predominant is repulsion or rivalry; though, even in these levels attraction and union (or cooperation) increase and repulsion or disunion (hostility) decreases when they are in a country that is in war or conflict with another country or its equivalent in the matter of national security (for example, a terrorist organization). In short, in the systems of the lowest levels the predominant is attraction, while on the contrary in the systems of the highest levels what predominates is repulsion (or hostility, where appropriate). And both opposite predominances are in equilibrium with each other, in an interlevel equilibrium. In the light of these considerations, we can understand better not only how aggression and protection and war and peace interact, but also repulsion and attraction in the Universe on a larger scale, in the inanimate matter, as we will see a bit later.
5.7 Law of Unself-destruction The existence of wars in which a large part of humanity has participated, as well as the rampant proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, make think that an uncontrolled war that would destroy humanity or would make it go back in its progress could break out. Nonetheless, the need for mass aggression that is satisfied by means of wars never exceeds the limits of the need for mass protection, and contrary to what is commonly believed, the aggression in wars does not aim the aggression itself, but the satisfaction of the need for protection, by the instrumentality of the only possible way: aggression. That is to say, aggression is never an end in itself, but only a means to protection. On account of this, as soon as a war satisfies such a need for protection, aggression decreases. And that is why an uncontrolled and untrammeled world war due to an insatiable and unbridled need for aggression would not be possible. Although it do would be possible that an accident triggers a nuclear catastrophe so great that annihilates humanity, the before mentioned limitation to the capacity of destruction is determinant in the evolution of living beings. Law of unself-destruction: the self-destruction of any isolated social system is impossible except in an accidental way.
5.8 Death - Life As for life and death, it is commonly believed that, one way or another, eternal life could be reached, which implies the belief that life can be independent of death. However, such a life, devoid of death, in no place nor time can exist, owing to the fact that the perspective of death is what leads the individual to value life. Life is maintained only when the one who has it values it, and the one who has it only values it when sees the possibility of not continuing having it. Thus, life by no means would be valued in the absence of the possibility that death occurs, and, in consequence, could not exist. The only possibility that life (attraction opposite) exists is by the instrumentality of the existence of death (repulsion opposite). If death were not possible, there would not be any need to be protected and nobody would be protected; i.e., there would not be any progress and in fact life, which is a constant process of protection, would not exist. Death is the sustenance, is the foundations of life. Life is the aim or objective; death, known as possible, the means towards it. The existence of death not only is indispensable to the existence of life, but so that life can be possible, it is necessary that its duration does not exceed a certain limit, that it is not too long. If life is too long, its valuation decreases and progress is reduced. In fact it is necessary that the duration of life be short in order to be perceived as such and that individuals feel impelled to accomplish as soon as possible any actions implying progress. The possibility of death is not just the cause of the existence of life, but the degree in which there are life and progress depends, in direct proportion, on the degree to which such a risk is present. The greater the danger of losing materially or in prestige in an undertaking, the greater the strain and care usually devoted to it; by thinking, discovering, and creating ways of improvement. But when life is in risk, such determination and attention are much greater: in the construction of buildings, bridges, airplanes, automobiles, etc., and in these and a great quantity of other advances in times of war or as a precaution against it. Whereas mortality is unavoidable in the case of individuals, in the case of colectivities it is only possible; immortality in these ones do is possible. The mortality of individuals (repulsion opposite) is the base, the cause, the cost of the immortality of colectivity (attraction contrary). The ineluctable mortality of individuals is the way in which life ensures the existence of the possible collective immortality. The finiteness of parts (individuals) in the prolongation of life is the cause of the infiniteness of whole (colectivity) in the prolongation of life. The collective life can be eternal because the individual life is temporary. Temporality (repulsion contrary) is the cause of eternity (attraction opposite).
5.9 Uselessness - Usefulness and Imperfection - Perfection The repulsion opposites uselessness and imperfection, constitute the means, the base, for the existence of their respective attraction opposites usefulness and perfection. Both the useless and the useful in an absolute or perfect way, cannot exist. (Something absolutely useless, would be useless for everything, and something absolutely useful would be useful for everything.) Everything is relatively useless and useful simultaneously, as long as everything is imperfect. Without the existence of the useless, the useful could not exist either, given that it could not contrast with anything. Everything that exists in the Universe is relatively imperfect or, in other words, relatively perfect. Which is another way of enunciating the fact that all that exists is owing to contrariety. Contrariness, relativity, and imperfection can be clearly seen in everything that exists. This relative imperfection that exists throughout the Universe, is the reason for which the Universe seen as a whole and not in its parts, is perfect in an absolute way. In other words, the Universe is absolutely perfect, because everything in it is relatively imperfect. The relative imperfection (repulsion contrary) is the cause of the absolute perfection (attraction opposite). In order to see more clearly the above, it will be necessary to distinguish two ways of observing the Universe, as well as the life in it, which we will denominate external point of view or external perspective and internal point of view or or internal perspective. The scope of the Theory of Universal Equilibrium, is due, to a great extent, precisely to the observation of the Universe, and life, from an external point of view, contrary to normal practice, always to date, in humanity. From the interior, seen in its parts, the Universe is imperfect in all. But seen in its entirety, from the outside, is entirely perfect. The external and internal viewpoints, lead often to conclusions opposite to each other. Nevertheless, as we have seen, both perspectives are right. It is true that, from an internal perspective, the Universe is imperfect, and it is equally true that it is absolutely perfect, from the external perspective. The external point of view, when contradicting the internal one does not refute it, but complements it. And thus, for instance, whereas the useless is internally useless, it is externally useful, since the useless gives rise to the existence of the useful from an external viewpoint. Likewise, whilst the inconvenient is internally inconvenient, it is externally convenient.
CHAPTER 6 The Future of Humanity 6.1 War - Peace In compliance with the law of unself-destruction, there are high probabilities that humanity survives for a long time while it is still isolated from other civilizations. However, the probabilities are not so high if humanity makes contact with some extraterrestrial civilization, especially if this one is more advanced than ours. The systematic exclusion of repulsion opposites, has led humanity to idealize up to the present time the qualities of the extraterrestrial civilizations more advanced than ours, on the basis of the mistaken assumption that the growth of progress implies an increase of peace in behavior. Nevertheless, since progress is directly proportional to the present aggression, the probabilities of contacting with a civilization very advanced and very bellicose are as high as the probabilities of finding a civilization very advanced and very peaceful. There is not and there cannot be in all the Universe any isolated civilization in which there can exist purely peace. It does not matter how many centuries or millennia a civilization is more advanced than ours, although there will be in it a considerable progress in administration of justice, this one will only exist as a reaction to the presence of extremely grave injustices. And that extremely unjust part will have power, technology, and knowledge halfway as advanced as those of the just side.
6.2 Conservatism - Liberalism The observation of the direction in which the human progress has been occurring, allows to predict that liberalism (attraction opposite) will continue increasing gradually. It will not imply the disappearance of conservatism (repulsion opposite), except as we know it today. What is currently considered as liberal will in the future be regarded as conservative. Sensitivity (attraction opposite) is generally united to liberalism, causally. Among the most sensitive people (for example, the human and animal rights defenders) the liberals predominate over the conservatives. Sensitivity is another quality that has been growing with the progress and that will predictably keep growing, with a gradual redefinition of the relative insensitivity. The people who possess sensitivity in an eminent degree and those who possess it scarcely, usually are considered, respectively, very insensible and very sensible by the scarcely sensitive people, in the same way as those who possess intelligence to a high degree and those who possess it meagerly are usually labelled, respectively, as idiots (or mental ills) and brilliant by the idiot people (or mentally ill).
CHAPTER 7 Theory of Gravitational Repulsion 7.1 The Origin and Expansion of the Universe As stated in the Theory of Universal Equilibrium, any form of attraction is a result of the existence of repulsion, which simultaneously is quantitatively equivalent to that attraction. The same way as, for instance, the attraction or protection that unites the constituent states of a country is due to a large extent to the relative repulsion or aggression among that country and others, the attraction that unites the constituent stars of a galaxy is owing to a great extent to the relative repulsion among that galaxy and others. Stars are like the citizens of a country (galaxy) who are attracted and united to one another (gravitationally) to a large extent because they are in war (in gravitational repulsion) with other countries (galaxies). To put it another way: citizens are like the stars of a galaxy (country) that are attracted and united to one another (protectively) to a great extent because they are expanding (in war, aggressively) from other galaxies (countries). As mentioned in the section “War - Peace” of chapter 5, repulsion is greater in direct proportion to the size of the structures of matter. And conversely attraction is greater in the smallest structures of matter. (See Figure 6) For example, attraction and union are stronger among the quarks of one proton than among that proton and other protons; attraction and union are stronger among the protons of one atom than among the protons and electrons of that atom; attraction and union are stronger among the protons and electrons of one atom than among that atom and other atoms; attraction and union are stronger among the atoms of one molecule than among that molecule and other molecules; attraction and union are stronger among the stars and the planets that orbit them than among stars; attraction and union are stronger among the stars of one star cluster than among that star cluster and other star clusters; attraction and union are stronger among the star clusters of one galaxy than among that galaxy and other galaxies; attraction and union are stronger among the galaxies of one galaxy cluster than among that cluster and other clusters; attraction and union are stronger among the clusters of one supercluster than among that supercluster and other superclusters. The predominant attraction in the relatively small structures of matter equilibrates with the predominant repulsion in the largest structures. This qualitative difference among the small and the large structures of matter, is because the repulsion of the largest structures produces an increase of the attraction and a diminution of the repulsion in all the lower levels of substructures, with which attraction is accumulated insofar as the structures are smaller. This explains why the farther away from us galaxies are, the faster they move away from us. Which is analogous to the fact that the repulsion that one feels for the people of a country against which the own country is in war increases the attraction that one feels for the people of the proper country. The interlevel equilibrium means that the predominance of the gravitational repulsion among the superclusters of galaxies, in the higher levels, equilibrates with the predominance of the gravitational attraction among planets, in the lower levels, possibly including the electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear attraction, among molecules, among atoms, and among subatomic particles; in the latter case, the enormous repulsion among the superclusters of galaxies and among other large structures of matter equilibrates with the enormous attraction among quarks and among other relatively small structures of matter. The gravitational repulsion does not constitute a fifth fundamental interaction, but another aspect, complementary, of the gravitational attraction. The gravitational attraction is a result of the gravitational repulsion. Figure 6 An extreme diminution of every repulsion in the Universe, would cause an extreme diminution of each attraction, in such a way that all matter would dissolve to the degree of being undetectable, as if it did not exist. The dissolution would be in multiple points of the Universe. (The reader can see in Figure 7 a simulation by computer.) Put another way: the Universe must have originated at multiple points, by forming small agglomerations of matter as a result of the presence of repulsion among those multiple agglomerations.
Figure 7-10
Figure 7-11
Animated simulation:
Galaxies, like states by means of war, formed/consolidated by the instrumentality of repulsion. Forasmuchas matter is concrete, even, strictly speaking, in its gaseous state, is a result of space, as long as this one by deforming concretizes it, constructs it. The deformation (repulsion opposite) of space is the cause of the formation (attraction contrary) of matter. The interaction between gravitational repulsion and gravitational attraction, as well as the expansion of the Universe and its structure on a large scale, can be clearly exemplified by the following analogy: it is necessary to imagine an enormous cloth covered with grains of sand. That cloth inflates at multiple points forming protuberances similar to soap bubbles (distortions of space-time). When this occurs, many grains of sand slide down the surface of the cloth, forming agglomerations, in the form of filaments, among the bubbles. This analogy not only agrees with the astronomical observations that have been made on a large scale, but moreover explains clearly the reciprocal causality repulsion -> attraction -> repulsion: the convexities (gravitational repulsion) of the bubbles produce the concavities (gravitational attraction) among them, and the concavities (gravitational attraction) among the bubbles, in turn, produce the convexities (gravitational repulsion) of the bubbles.
7.2 The Size of the Universe Throughout this book we have seen that the Universe is constituted in a much more intelligent way than it was thought before. And in fact when researching, it is necessary to take into consideration such high intelligence, because it constitutes a guide towards new discoveries. An Universe so wisely constituted in favor of life would not imply the absurdity of being in such a way that the living beings who it contains were someday suffocated by the lack of space and knowledge. In other words, it would be absurd, and therefore impossible, that the Universe were finite, no matter how large it were. The wisest thing would be an Universe that without being infinite in itself it were so for the living beings. And examples to solve such a problem in this way already there are them in the relation of living beings with the Universe. Every time, for example, that a discovery is made, each answer to the resolved question brings with it new questions, with the result that a complete knowledge that concludes the vital task of researching and knowing new things, is never reached. The mystery is infinite (for the living beings). It is interesting the intelligence that this process implies because it does not involve a continuous frustration, which would be counterproductive because of the discouragement that would bring, but a renewal of the mysteries that answers bring with itself, that is, the satisfaction of the need of knowing. Even though many people do not notice any question in the answers, many others do find them. For instance, even though after my researches I have found answers to many questions, now I have many more unanswered questions than at first, and, though, I do not feel frustrated, but only challenged to make other discoveries, fortunately. Also, it should be noted that the fact that the questions appear as the discoveries are being made is wiser than its total (infinite) appearance in one go, because the latter would be very crushing. These natural forms of stimulation of the continuation of a certain activity, are artificially used by many companies to stimulate their customers to keep buying indefinitely at them, by giving them in purchases points or reward coupons redeemable for discounts in future purchases, or for more merchandise or more services. The questions that come with answers when researching, are like the points or reward coupons that come with merchandise or services when buying. In both cases the tendency and purpose are to an infinite activity. The advances of science and technology, will in the future allow to discover some analogous form of a kind of enlargement of the Universe that takes place as the living beings try to find limits to its size. It is possible to predict that the Universe is neither finite nor infinite in itself, and that to wonder in this regard does not make sense in reality. It is only possible to speak of a Universe that is to us infinite.
REPULSION - ATTRACTION Darkness - Light
Appendix: Another Example of Rejection of Repulsion Opposites The human being's rejection of repulsion opposites is systematic. It can be found everywhere. For example, in the publication of letters to Nora Barnacle, from Joyce, and from Freud to Martha Bernays. Doubtless a central reason for the publication of such letters, is to enable to know somewhat more Joyce and Freud, by means of their personal aspects. Notwithstanding, in one and the other case, to my knowledge (in Spanish; but I would not be surprised if the same were in any other language), only the letters of Freud and Joyce, and never those of their partners, are published. Which is absurd. Undoubtedly the letters written by partners of protagonists of history to these, do not possess, in most cases, the mastery and luster in science or art that distinguishes, or is attributed to, those who made them the object of love. Nevertheless, to know any person really it is indispensable to know what s/he loves, or protects, or values, or seeks, or wants; just as what s/he hates, or fights, or scorns, or avoids, or fears. Thus, trying to know Freud without knowing Martha Bernays is, partly, as ineffective as an attempt to understand what is an action scorning to know also the aim or the reason that impelled it. (Although it is possible to deduce the strength and direction with which a car crash occurred, and with these data it is possible to predict the collision, from the action neither the reason nor the state of mind are deduced with certainty: the crash, may have its origin in sadness just as in joy, or in excessive doubt just as in too much confidence, for example.) About someone who often laughs it can be said that s/he is cheerful, but that is less to know that someone than to know also the company and circumstances with which s/he is when laughs. About those who constantly smile, a single judgment can be enunciated; but these can be four persons very different among themselves: two favorably accompanied: one smiling thanks to this, the other despite this; two adversely accompanied: one who smiles for this reason and the other in spite of this. Thus, the knowledge around Freud and Joyce that their letters allow to reach, is reduced to the descriptive thing, to consequences the causes of which are unknown; by which they are not less unknown. As a defense of such omissions, it could be argued that the mail of the partners, women or men, of outstanding men and women is mediocre to a large extent, and even obtuse, ambiguous and with many and various flaws; though, not only this does not downplay the importance of it, but it makes it significative in a special way. A very erroneous and frequent concept of genius is the one that ignores its motivational aspect. A genius, just like it happens among common people, in many cases is to a great extent an effect (attraction opposite), one way or another, of their partner (repulsion opposite). The end, in this case, is certainly to know Freud and Joyce; but the means to a great extent are Bernays and Barnacle; means that, as commonly it happens before repulsion opposites, are underestimated or, flatly, are passed by. The single letters of a member of a couple who corresponds are as absurd as in the boxing it would be that all the cameras focus on the champion alone, looking this one like someone who boxes with nothing. These simple facts are very appropriate for, metaphorically, adding that a high proportion of the poor understanding of the Universe by the human being thus far, is a result of the fact that while everything that exists has its sense in a dialogue between opposites, humans have wanted to decipher everything from a monologue, unreal, which they have seen in attraction opposites.
|
