Since the ancient years, some humans attempted to speak about the total of things and about
things distant to the space and in the time, after they had observe a lot of resemblances and common elements into their limited experience. In this
same capability I believed, also, without I know well and without I have learned about the observations of Aristotle, in the start of my own attempt.
The ascertainment of certain resemblances, the theoretical possibility for correlations from a phenomenon in order to we explain an other, the
capability to we speak with the broadness of some notions for many things together and with the forms of speech, these gave the optimism and courage.
Since the start of my philosophical effort I could make a lot of thoughts and I sought
logical (reliable) answers about the substance of all things, using certain general significances. Than the first general significances that I perceived
like keys (essential) for the philosophical investigation, they were the significances of the cause, the result and the relation.
Very quickly then, I perceived the long prospect that they gave in my philosophical
investigation the abstract significances of " part " and the " totality ". I demanded, that each thing has the trait to be a part and not
the total. Then, from this consistent observation, I combined the signification of the word " part " with other traits and other similar words, such as
are the restriction, the limits, the obligatory relation of part with the other parts, the obligatory action of part and simultaneously the reaction,
because that is connected permanently with other parts, the inherent change in the existence of part and the impossible for a part is complete,
immutable, without change, nowise. Since the permanent relation (action-reaction) between the parts, I extracted the significance of "
interaction " as a better-aimed word in order to implies the permanent relation that the parts have from each other, in order to they are parts,
I had many expectations and somehow I had a feeling, that is deep the prospect for the
solution of cosmological problems, observing thus theoretically, the permanent relation and the coexistence in the significance of "the totality "
with the significance of " the part ". I did not overtake (avoid) the theoretical observations in the abstract significances as a toy with the
words. I perceived that the obligatory relations that I observed between in certain significations (which were traits of all things), they were
reflect some relations and attributes of all things. So with same logic, as the numbers and their proportions in the mathematics can be applied and
reflect relations of things. If I had a theoretical conclusion, that the abstract concept " totality " should be considered as a stabilized form and
to be balanced always, in order to result some other obligatory relations, which I had deduce for the " parts ", then this same inference I would say
about the Universe too, that we consider as the total of all things and with all ways of interactions…
Paradoxically, while I thought easy about the total of the things, while I was attribute
certain same traits and was observe some obligatory relations (in the significations), with the same easiness I observed theoretically that the things
are more complicated than as long as we observe in our daily experience. The ease with which I was talking about all the things, it was returns in
difficulty, when I was talking about a particular thing! It caused me impression, if I listened to distinguished the things clearly (explicit
segregation), when someone had used words like "independence", and if had define with clarity what is the cause and which the effect. An example. All
things in the thought were parts of a total and nothing from them were not an independent or initial cause. Thus theoretically, we meet a query: how we
determine what is a cause and what is a result between the things, after we do not find the initial cause and never a final result... Because,
theoretically, each thing that becomes cause, this is not the cause to itself and this thing has also a cause and has become with other causes. If the
cause has a cause, then it is not the unique cause. If the result becomes cause, then it is not the unique result. How do, therefore, we distinguish the
initial cause and the final result, after in the thought do not exist a beginning and end? How do we define something as cause, after this has been
created with other causes and is connected with other things that influence it?
By the abstract significations of three words " part ", " change " and " interaction ",
with three only words, all things had become in my thought unstable and without explicit limits of beginning and ending! Really, the easiness with
which I was talking about the total of things, it had cause a difficulty to me, when I was talking about a concrete thing! Than the more abstract
words of the world and with the simplest thoughts, I understood that existed big voids in our knowledge about the visible things, and phenomena of
casual and provisional absence of their relations! However, these same easy thoughts, of which came out theoretically the conclusion for the
complexity of things, these same thoughts led easily to conclusions and solutions about many other problems and about irrelevant problems, which we
consider them more difficult. For example, about the role of the inorganic matter in to universe and the relation of matter with a minimal time of the
change. Another example, about the necessity of interruption in the development and in time of existence of all things, included live things.
I want to remark here, a from the many paradoxically of philosophical enterprise that
had the outcome a book under the title " The Theology of Science ". In the multi-annual daily effort to formulated with consequence the theoretical
thoughts about the traits of all things, I do not used the significance of word " the force ", while it was constitutes a certain phenomenon in
the physics and is described with mathematic precision. Paradoxically, in my own juvenile philosophical effort, it was not used, in order to I avoid
unknown phenomena and because I hesitated to attribute the force as a certain trait for the all things. Well or badly then, I considered that the term "
force " expressed an inexplicable and metaphysical phenomenon, which it should be explained how this is caused and does not to used the term in order to
I give explanations. I preferred use other terms to replace the " force ", some terms which I considered more explicit and sure in order to they mean
something in the things. I preferred to think the things thus as if they were these same where are affects and influenced or have possibilities for
interaction with their move or with the mediation of intermediary things. The term " force " reminded me phenomena that could exist without the material
world, invisible, bodiless and independent existences, something that I couldn't accept into the abstract significance of " thing ". The things in which
I was reporting were inextricable connected means in a total, they are interacted permanently and they could not be maintained or exist without
bidirectional interconnection with the material things, by no way.
Somehow thus, daily on long years I formulated thoughts and reworded them with small
differentiations and so filled many pages… I will not extend here more thoughts, to recount how and what was written in the first book " The Theology of
the Science ". I only stress the big advantage of the human thought and I make comprehensible it, that we can think rightly and with
consistency about questions, which appear very difficult and we can approach in solutions of scientific problems, without need the specialization in
some concrete things (for all cases). Moreover I emphasize, that in certain cases, some of the philosophical and scientific questions, they
cannot be answered with the knowledge of individual things but thus, on the contrary, the questions are obscured and fallacies and biases are caused.
"The Theology of the Science". In that book, which was published in limited number of copies
(in year 2000, publications Dodoni, ISBN 960-385-019-5, number of pages 448),
has become a great and long effort to be answered globally and briefly, the big questions of Philosophy, avoiding I am based on ready opinions or on
previous theories and with the use of daily vocabulary. A multitude of accidental and fragmentary ascertainments in our experience and a lot of
separate explanations can result more fast, more easily and not accidentally. They can through the theoretical analysis of significances, with the
correlation of few general concepts and with our possibility we know all things through some observation of relations and resemblances in the nearest
and the most usual things of our experience. This view, I had aim to prove in this philosophical book "The theology of the Science" and eventually was
written a book tiring and poorly understood. The how it was written (the personal experience) it will is an other more interesting book…