The Need for a New Understanding of the World by Vladimir Rosgnilk

Presentation text extracted from http://www.khepera.fr/index.php/a-propos-de-l-auteur/source-d-inspiration/jacques-ravatin )

(Extract from Arkologie. No 1. May 1986)

What about our description of the world?

It is strange to start an article with a question! Perhaps. But it seems necessary. It is necessary, because any researcher must, when immersed in a research subject, ask himself how this subject is placed in a larger context, containing it. Few researchers take this step, which means that we are no longer in front of researchers but of THN (high level technician). The CNRS and the University have now reached a point of saturation by the number of these THN. Let us generalize this process envisaged for the researcher to all human being. Our scientific and industrial society has succeeded in imposing on philosophy, linguistics, law, commerce, even morality, biology, medicine, its approach and its method; approach and method generate an assurance in the point of view adopted such that one does not even think of considering another point of view. This is very serious. It is a blockage of research and a fall in quality in this research. So the question asked at the beginning becomes clearer: is our description of the world unique? At another arrangement at the level of thought, do we discover another world?

This question must be further transformed, but before going any further, I think we must ask ourselves how we are in relation to the world, what position do we occupy? We will start from the following assertions: the world is not, it is only an echo of a field of coherence. That it is not, that is what the Eastern doctrines in particular had assured. That it is an echo is another thing, because we are in a race of a second stage, and on the other hand there is this concept of field of coherence; here field is for domain, as for coherence, what will we be able to say about it? There a turning point will take place which will mark little by little our abandonment of the rational approach: no definition will be given, whereas in the usual approach, we start by defining the terms and a classification is also quickly formed.

In this rational world in which we are, it is difficult to get used to such methods: to reason with concepts without having defined them! What must be understood is that the approach for the assimilation of the concept will remain to make the concept better felt and it may even imperceptibly evolve. This does not create a blur between several people trained in this technique but on the contrary will make them accomplices of the same knowledge.

Are we discovering another world? This is a consequence of the launch of the coherence field

It should be understood that the fundamental structure is not space-time but the field of coherence. This field of coherence which will be expressed only by its construction – coherent construction since it is coherence. It is because it will be if you want to think it over time, so if you think it rationally then it may not be rational. But in the rational, this coherence field has permissible analogies which are traces in the rational coherence field of the other coherence field.

But why the other? Because there are only two. There is the rational coherence field and the coherences which are not in the rational, the usual one will say again, belong to the other.

We launch the coherence field, but we will perceive only an echo, that is to say that we will not have everything that has been launched. We must also add this: it is that at the same time that he launches it, the one who launches it, we will call him the obs. [1] , gets into it; that is, it describes and forgets, or ignores the process previously discussed.

The processes presented do not belong to our logic. The field of rational coherence completely ignores them; they are in the other; moreover, the field of rational coherence only becomes a field of coherence when one is aware of the other field of coherence.

Is the structure of the other coherence field more complicated, more extensive than that of the usual, the rational? This is a question which does not make sense because these two fields are not comparable because not very compatible, but the operations in the other field of coherence are much more numerous than those in the usual one.

We will not go further down this path here; we recommend referring to Vladimir Rosgnilk, The Emergence of Enel or the Immersion of Landmarks, Introduction to the Study of Forms and Fields of Coherence . ARK’ALL, Paris 1985 [A].

And the question asked at the beginning finds a rather unforeseen answer because the vision of the world which one has will also be closely related to the explanations belonging to a type of coherence.

So there won’t be one worldview possible, there will be several

That due to the rational coherence field, and those coming from the other coherence field. Here we see that the other field of coherence is richer than the usual one in the sense that it can generate multiple visions of the world. It may even contain inconsistency, what we call islands of inconsistency but we will not discuss it here. These islands of inconsistency are not a sign of degeneration for the other field; they intervene in its greater extent than usual.

One of the two fields of coherence can have in it a “trace” of the other. It may or may not have consistency.

Let us say a few words about the concept of the field of coherence: in a special issue of the journal Science et Vie (Bernard VIVES, Science et vie, 74-78. N ^o 547, April 1963), it was a question of fields of coherence in a footnote, It is pointed out by B. Vivé that they were presented and recorded as a theory at the Institute of Physics of Bern as well as at the Academy of Sciences of Paris in 1960. The notion of Vivé is different from that developed by J. Ravatin in 1976; it is the latter that I present here, because it retains its intuitive character. We see in [A] a number of new terms. J. Ravatin created them because he saw that he could not express the usual language of deep intuitions; this is not a mind game.

René Huyghe in From Art to Philosophy, Responses to Simon Monneret , (Flammarion, 1980) answers a question asked by Simon Monneret about the creation of new terms: “I am deeply hostile to it. It is a process both pedantic and easy; it is one of the faults of our time, where “fine spirits” dream, like the cuttlefish, of hiding in a dark cloud. Too many contemporary thinkers are frantic at the idea of ​​creating a word that is uniquely theirs, or at least the prerogative of a small group. It will be a retreat for them, a jade cave, inside which they will mandarin… ”.

Marc Beigbeder ( Contradiction and New Understanding, Edit. Bordas 1972) in his works changed the spelling of certain words to give a new meaning while keeping the pronunciation, which is a link with the term already in use. This link is important – intuition is reinvested – it is a first detachment. If we create new words, and there are a certain number of them in this approach, and if in addition we give them without definitions, it is so that the readers do not get stuck on the word, avoid being reduced to one. known meaning, avoid reinjecting into this word through which an idea is evoked, the usual meaning (if it is an already existing one). The reader finds himself placed in a sensation corresponding to the surprise which places the word on the background of usual knowledge. What J. Ravatin calls a halo is then created: placing a shape on the background of common knowledge.

Consider a form: it can be considered as an abstraction (when we name it) or seen in its surroundings (a neighborhood of the form)

In this second case, if we look for example at a painting, we use the expressions: foreground and background. The shape seen in the foreground can be detached from the background or on the contrary seen with the background; in the latter case, we will say that we see it “plated” on the bottom. To this shape is then attached a halo [A].

A halo is associated with the sensation mentioned above. It is the latter that will bathe the reader. In this technique, little by little the reader unconsciously detaches himself from the usual field of coherence; the step-out technique is in the step-out. To fully understand this, we must extend in its formulation the notion of Auréolaire, L’Auréolaire is found the most convent in poetry, with the metaphor. The poet, to convey the sensation, uses a process such as: A is to B what C is to D, and we often forget the importance of the sensation felt by the person who hears or reads the poem containing this construction artifice. ; we will write the previous statement as follows: (A, B; C, D); and from these 4 dull arranged as it has just been said, a fifth springs out and this is what we still call the Aureolar. The Halo can therefore be obtained from two processes: by plating or by proportion. By proportion because this metaphor resembles the equality of two ratios such as one finds it in mathematics where one would write a / b = c / d. But there is no fifth term.

We had said “the detachment technique is in the detachment” … So we will now write: (detachment technique, detachment; intuition, reinjection of intuition) involves a halo which will reinforce the first halo obtained as we have seen. seen by tackle; this reinforcement will be done using techniques which are exposed in [A].

The concept of Aureolaire is not within our field of rational coherence, like much of poetry and art in many of its forms. The human being forgets that at times he escapes the usual field of coherence, unfortunately now he has too much of a tendency to bring everything back there, in order to enlarge his coherence and to secure himself, Everything that does not fit there is reverie, sentimentality, fears and misunderstandings of the past, medieval tales. In a word, obscurantism. Ah! what are we not bringing into obscurantism !!! This is the assessment of the RBB [2] . Thus, for the RBB, obscurantism takes on a sort of coherence, and he does not realize that this coherence is that of his state which can be qualified as a “cerebral eunuch”.

Another fundamental notion is that of global

Our usual representation will constitute the local. The local is existence with reference points. The benchmarks are of all kinds: related to distance, time, speed, acceleration, intensity, flow, power, mass, feet, etc.

To give oneself a unity is to be able to compare and therefore to set up a benchmark. In rational thought, we try to put benchmarks on everything that is existing. Above all, what already exists becomes identifiable. Yet the notions linked to feelings and morals are not measurable. They are usually said to fall into the domain called subjective. But here, we are going to take an unusual position: we will not make a separation between objective and subjective, not because this border is rather blurry, but because the fact of objective-subjective thinking breaks a wealth of thought, brings back to the field of usual coherence, if one is in the other field of coherence. Here we are faced with the power of the word imposed by a field of coherence. As a result of this position, the existence linked to moral notions,

And we will naturally go to postulate existence without benchmarks. And any existence without reference will be said to be linked to the Global. It should not be said: it will belong to the Global because at that time, the Global would take on a set character, and a set is identifiable by its content even if it is non-countable; it then corresponds to a reference point in the general sense in which we consider the concept of reference point.

In the other field of coherence, there will be possible “premises”. They are in what we have called in [A] the “Rays of Coherence”.

We begin to see that the notions which appear little by little, attached to the other field of coherence, are not to be used systematically but that they are evocative from which they are a subtle stimulant of the mind. It should be the same for the manipulation of numbers by the Kabbalists, there again it has become too systematic because the sense of number has been lost; one should not reject the operations between these numbers which often occur in Kabbalah, they must be performed wisely, and thus they are fully a subtle stimulus of the mind.

The other field of coherence makes it possible to understand the discovery process as follows:

We can stop a moment when the researcher finds, that is to say, an idea emerges. He then clings to his idea and swells it through a process that is himself. Hanging on is already taking a stand for what it will generate. We must not forget that everything is brain construction. The researcher has thus launched a path which is the beginning of a great research. This beginning was preceded by something which is not in the time scale, for which there is no origin in that scale. Of course, for this to hold, there must be consistency. Let us see an example: the eifs of J. de la Foye and what is in the way of the work of Enel. He manipulates an undifferentiated spectrum, differentiated from states. He espoused the intuitions of Enel, penetrated the works of Morel, Chaisemartin, Chaumery, Belizal and also from his memories during his travels (he was an officer in the merchant navy), the establishment of the vital field correspond to intuitions which are constructions; these constructions will, afterwards, remain as existence. Although he made all his formulation in the usual field of coherence, he was working in the other field of coherence; it is he himself that he has invested; everything happens as an unfolding before the unfolding, it was not in the time scale. Those who come next continue the field of coherence, extend it. The localization corresponds to the unfolding, coherence is expressed in it. There may be after a new winding. It is an expression of the birth of the theory-and-results entity,

It may seem the same or very similar to the sensation of the seeker’s intuition that one has in ordinary thought. It is not so. Moreover, it is only a question of sensation in the usual thought, so it is not contained in it because it cannot be identified. We understand here that construction and coherence are intimately linked and that they are equivalent to creation.

Let us continue our implementation of this new form of thought.

In the usual field of coherence a human being exists in relation to another – there is equivalence in existence for human beings in relation to one another. In this new given point, this equivalence is not. A human being does not exist in relation to others, we say “is not in relation to others”, others are only because he is. Only the one who realizes it can talk about it; we do not have the right to think this same position for others, otherwise we risk falling back into the usual field of coherence.

Nevertheless, it is an excess that will be made even in the other field of coherence. He supports this excess, but you have to be careful.

In rational representation, the individual is led to play the game of scientific pseudo-objectivity: that is to say, we allow ourselves to align the values, compare the results. Pseudo-objectivity is in this possibility of constructing multiple scales of comparison, but this is often arbitrary. The RBBs who apply it as much as they can (it is a justification of their behavior and a necessity to be recognized as a good scientist) extend it to human relations and morality. We arrive at absurdities.

That: freedom that the researcher gives himself in the constructions and projection of scales of values ​​is an illusion. By this addition, he gives flexibility to the usual field and believes that there is an escape route outside of man in a generalization of concepts. The human being, in this field, is caught in a straitjacket: the usual field makes him prisoner. The notion of freedom is then put in place to make him forget this straitjacket. We will say that freedom is a “dilution”. This freedom, on the other hand, is in the other field of coherence; (the one in which the obs. projects itself at the same time as it puts itself inside): moreover in this case, we no longer have to speak of freedom, it is implicitly understood,

The usual field can be redesigned from the other field

Little by little, still without defining itself, the usual field was by construction the negation of the field of coherence since it considers itself universal, wanting to explain the universe that it allows to discover; while with the other field the obs. realizes that he creates because he throws and gets into it at the same time. This replaces the “Know thyself and you shall know the Universe and the Gods” from the temple of Delphi. Likewise the human being who is “the alpha and the omega”. In fact, in most of the works dealing with unorthodox subjects, it is often alluded to the human being who is “the alpha and the omega”; the beginning and the end are given as an explanation (always hasty). This is intended to be a deeper explanation than the one usually given; because it blocks, for the reader, any search for a deeper sensation. If we think about the field that we launch and in which we place ourselves, the alpha is generated by the omega in which it is; alpha and omega are then said to be “dynamic duality” in the sense of creation and containment.

In Eastern philosophies, reference is made to “the truth which is in itself”. The translations and interpretations of this expression are generally bad and perhaps the authors themselves expressed in words what they felt without being too concerned if other more or less erroneous interpretations were likely to appear. In any case, when looking at texts dealing with these questions, it is necessary to put oneself in the state of mind that one must take when reading or uttering a proverb (proverbs express popular common sense ); that is to say, at the same time as one assimilates the saying, the proverb, one must discover his way of understanding.

The form is fundamental in the approach of the global

Indeed it emerges or is immersed in space-time, but also it is the way. At the same time that we set up the model, the representation (s), we must follow the spirit in its approach. It is the object (the model) and the image (the way). From the image one draws the necessary discipline of mind when leaving the usual field, a discipline which in this case is implicitly understood so as not to fall into phantasmagoria, these perhaps not always belonging to the domain of the absurd (most often they belong to it).

Rational thinking has made it possible to eliminate fear of the demands of multiple gods and superstitions. Indeed, the human being having these entities in his representation and knowing them badly, managed to attribute to them multiple powers and to submit to many whims that he fabricated from delicate or desperate earthly situations. These representations, constructed in atmospheres of superstition, were sometimes operative. They corresponded in a model to neighborhoods of understanding susceptible of a certain operative nature. Many wizards must have used these methods.

The gods did not belong to the realm of the absurd. It was necessary to find a coherence for them in a field of coherence.

Even if they are consequences of scales of values ​​in the usual field of coherence, they are placed in the other field of coherence. We therefore distinguish between local and global: the local emerges from the global or immerses itself in the global (the term immergence was chosen by Marc Beigbeder) by what we call with B. Vivès cumulo-decalaires. There is also another concept created by Samuel Franeric: the canal. Cumulo-decal and channel are the local-global passages. Let us point out that local and global are not exactly tonal and nagual of the sorcerer Yaqui, Don Juan, whom Castaneda met (his book L’Herbe du Diable ou la Petite Fumée, Edit. The Black Sun, 1972). The tonal is the protective attitude that an observer maintains in front of the global. It is not the local; it is the serenity of belief in the stability of the local the moment we look at it, appreciate it, judge it, with the impression of living there. But this serenity is put by don Juan outside the observer. It is almost a property, a state of the local in relation to the observer; it must be represented as such in order to feel the tonal as a state on the surface and internally.

The nagual then is understood as a state of relocation by voiloc [3] . The observer makes what he wants a witness, and puts this witness either in his voiloc, or attaches a voiloc to him and relocates. The nagual is the state of all these operations. This is why don Juan says that the nagual is creativity.

Back to the local

Let’s evolve a bit. When we talk about local, we must understand that it is an echo to our usual field of coherence that is launched by obs. There is also a filtering of this echo. This echo is not perfect; this filtering can lead to a reconstruction of a room. We can have other “local”. From the moment when another field intervenes which is characterized by the instability of the reference marks, several representations of the local are possible. We will have several “local”. In the usual field one can suppose unstable reference marks: one will have another representation of this field.

The tonal of which Castaneda speaks is therefore a state of the usual room in relation to the human observer, but it is also a state of the human being in front of the room, that of the “impeccable warrior”. As don Juan says, but that the human being attributes to the local. In reality these two states are in dynamic duality.

Let us recall that what is presented in this work, it is not made of separation between objective and subjective. The mere fact of thinking these two words prevents having access to other representations, other coherences than the usual one.

When working in a field of coherence, it is necessary to relate to the coherence that this field constitutes; the words used in the field of coherence must be rethought at the level of coherence; it is a rule of prudence which should not be neglected and it is equivalent to thinking and thinking what one thinks.

---

Jacques Ravatin (1935-2011) Doctor of Sciences, Engineer was an indefatigable and intractable teacher of what concerns the Theory of Forms and Fields of Coherence. He worked in quantum axiomatics and mathematics in conjunction with various research teams including a group from CERN in Geneva. He had launched in the years 1955 the idea of ​​the existence of systems which he called Non-Cartesian. Around 1972 he created the TOTARIS Association which brought together researchers from all backgrounds in order to explore Non-Cartesian systems and to pursue in-depth investigations on Forms.