Thanks so much for the link. I shall think about the "structure mère"...
For now, I would like to give you this answer.
A girl/boy wants to discover how her/his toy works in breaking it into its constitutive parts. After a while, (s)he is able to describe exactly the diverse parts but absolutely unable to reconstruct it. The description is not equivalent to the understanding....
view entire post
Thanks so much for the link. I shall think about the "structure mère"...
For now, I would like to give you this answer.
A girl/boy wants to discover how her/his toy works in breaking it into its constitutive parts. After a while, (s)he is able to describe exactly the diverse parts but absolutely unable to reconstruct it. The description is not equivalent to the understanding.
I speak intensively about the Cartesian attitude and, doing so, certainly realize an indirect auto-biography. But in fact –and this is the reason why my essay was so short; and this was my subliminal message- there is no distance between the two rei, there is no motivation to really believe there would be one, except if we misunderstand the Cartesian method. This is actually the case in our modern occidental society (my argumentation).
And I was trying to explain that we usually misuse the method because we construct a fictive partition between the object (physics) and the image of that object (mathematics) whilst the reality is a set of “Unikaten”. Unfortunately most of the classical essays on the topic are focusing on that fictive de-coherence.
Mathematics is not the image of what we observe or live our self, it is part of what exists (inert or alive) and, at least at a first glance, all what exists is a set of provisory and seemingly inseparable entities (explaining my title: intrinsic motor…). Mathematics is not and abstract object lying outside of the objects and more exactly as we tend to believe it: in our brains. Mathematics is in some way extending inside these objects, as an unveiled and inner essence explaining how and why they behave like we perceive it.
Objects can contain smaller objects. The inner logic of the greater might be different from the logic of the smaller; the interaction between the two logics can result into a separation, a breakdown of the smaller or of the biggest. In all cases, a code, a law, some systematization is driving the behavior of each object. Not because we have revealed that code with our Cartesian method… but because it is so.
With other words, the use of the Cartesian method should not be an externalization but a deepening of our understanding. It should not result in schizophrenia but in a greater self-coherence.
We should understand that when we understand something about an object that has been analysed with that Cartesian method, then what we have understood is not landing inside our brain but is staying where it was, namely inside the observed object.
This is why I have introduced mathematical objects with real dimensions in my theory (www.cordescosmiques.com).
view post as summary