C O M M O N S E N S E

(Worldview of Complexities)

Historical reminiscence: There was a wise man in Hungary, called "The Sage of the Fatherland": Deak Ferenc

(Francis Deak), a common nobleman, who, had the task to dicuss with the "Emperor" Franz Joseph how to

'pacify' the 'Hungarian district of Austria', i.e. Hungary, after the defeat of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848-49.

Oppression and brutal "Austrification" by the Austrian police-state carried the danger of a new bloody fight

by the very independent patriots of Hungary. Deak proposed a peaceful cooperation, a restoration of Hungary's

souvereignty, under the 'personal' union of the "one ruler - two countries" (= emperor AND king). Language

priviledges, money, military, education, tax, etc. etc. are to be separated. The impatient Monarch retorted:

• "We established a working system all over in the "Hungarian District", now you want us to abolish all that
• and build a completely new one? Couldn't we reach an agreement by piecemeal partial compromises,
• without such a big shakeup? "

• "Majesty, I wear a vest with 36 silver buttons. When I get dressed and at the last button I detect that I
• started with the second one in the first hole, I can keep pulling it up and down, it doesn't fit right, although
• it may be practicallay usable: it keeps me warm. So I have to unbutton all of the 35 buttons and rebutten
• them orderly, all the 36 buttons to make the vest fit right."

contry' to Austria - under the same ruler. It brought 47 golden years for both parties of this "Personal Union"

before WWI started in 1914.

• Why this historical reflection?

(keeps us warm and running), serves advancement, it is, as we call it: our reductionist/analytical sciences.

It is based on observation: what you see is what you got, except for some 'meanings': several millennia ago the

shamans, then "gods", profets, the religion-founders, lately scientists, attempted to answer questions beyond the

"what you see", to explain "what we would like to see". Humanity, in the possession of a flexible and abstracting

langauge, invented the numbers, an abstraction of natural observation, played up into mathematics to explain - or

at least better describe - "what you see", to formulate logic into a causality. Then the time became ripe to ask:

what are things really? what are they composed of and how? And the components? science turned into the form of

a reductionist analysis and its mathematical description. The 'laws'.

• The 'vest' was buttoned up into a system of a 'working' scientific formalism.

components did not add up to the 'thing' which was dissected into them. Not by mathematics, not by logic, not by

quality. Not even by causality. The buttons are not 'matched' in the right order and understandability into the 'given'

order of the buttonholes. As it turned out: the formalism is "skewed" into only one side of the inquiry: as the

Top Down. From observation from total to ingredient. There is the other side, which does not surface by doing so:

the Bottom Up way, building up things with all those characteristic, which are qualities of the not-dissected total,

from those ingredients which were identified as its 'components', called the tectology of nature.

• The principle of "add up" got lost in the "take apart" view.

the sum of those parts - and their qualities - which reductionist analysis discovered at its actual level of epistemic

insight. It was considered "a given". Idealistic natural science applied the term: "Self Organized", which may be

an anthropomorphic assignment to nature, that the matter wills and decides to do it. The "how" has no clue, in the

same vague language "it", the emergent, is characterized as "chaotic", meaning: not fitting into our known rules of

the scientific predictions, mening: into proportional quantities and consequent qualities.

Some call it simply a 'nonlinear' occurrence (see below).

• The buttoning-up of the scientific 'vest' is still skewed.

complementary domain of new and unknown nature, using good old analytical-minded logic, reductionist causality,

quantitative proportionality of the existing formalism (i.e. the mathematical equations), and 'observing' a qualitative

consequentiality in all changes, whereas the 'add-on' domain tectology shows a chaotic (see above) emergence of

new qualities, (with an overall confessed) unpredictability in its essence.

The 'more and different' makes tectology a further step in nature's complexity than represented in our past science.

The ongoing endeavors try to set up "theories" of the quantitative nature in a (premature?) move, to save what has

been established during the past efforts and seems to work (as His Majesty said above). Let me mention two

atempts to save the formalistic system:

Chaos Theory(?) It still uses the formalism of the reductionist domain and predicts the unpredictable in terms of

causal mathematics (mostly in hindsight and restricted to certain physical (nonlinear?) processes).

To call it "chaos theory" is a pars pro toto name, that may be stifling further (broader) advancement.

Complexity Theory(?) It uses mostly the computer-science analogy, the steps describing/prescribing the ways from

what we know by what we know to what we know (or: what we would like to know) . Blueprints, software,

subroutines, etc. It does not say anything about the complexity of an acorn to grow into an oaktree - with input of

regulated environmental help. No software, no blueprint. No self-organization. Natural rules and we only know some

of the mechanized ways how our (linear) material-tools work in (linear) steps.

As a former chem. professor said: Matter has a soul, it sits in the flask laughing how it plays tricks on the chemist..

Nature has a way how to build up a uniform complex world, as we observe it, with no incongruent parts/processes,

according to the same principle all over. We just didn't (yet) get it.

• So: let us unbutton the 'vest' ALL THE WAY, and rebutton it all, according to the 'right` way.
• Pulling details here and pushing details there does not help,.