Juan Arana's Cellar...

cover the cellars of the universe

It's 8:46 on 12.7.2018. In Marbella. I woke up early, arround four, and have been reading since then. I just finished The cellars of the universe of Professor Juan Arana. I have written down that I bought the book in July of last year. I seem to remember that I did it because somewhere I read that it was about causation. And in my old hypothesis, causation plays a fundamental role.

I also noted that I started reading it on 15.9.17 on page 310, which is where chapter 12 begins, whose first section deals with the classic final cause. I read and then underlined until page 314 and I left it for other priorities. A few weeks ago I started it from the beginning until I finished it today.

The book addresses very specialized and very difficult questions for me. But I think I have understood enough of its content and it has been very pleasant thanks to the clear and funny style of Professor Arana. In any case, my interest in reading it was not to increase my knowledge about "natural determination and its hidden mechanisms", which is the subtitle of the book. My intention was to see what could affect my ideas since they have and need a strong component of causality. Or at least that seems to me.

As usual, I read with the pencil in my hand. And while reading, in some shallow parts and in others deeper, I have highlighted a lot. And I have written down seventy pages with phrases or paragraphs to be reread. I'm going to do it now and try to write the ideas that made me write down these pages at the time.  

To focus on what I wanted and still want -to me and for possible readers of this note- I will write my idea and its possible "necessity" of one or two causes. Or a law. Or of both or other things.

My basic idea is that Man has as his priority the vital objective of his own survival. And the imperative duty to try so. Indistinctly of whether he achieves it and of he having other natural or transcendent objectives.

I have justified, this idea, which came to me through intuition, in several ways. But the one that seems clearer to me is by observing the behavior of the species we know. Of all known existing species, although I think it's enough with the sexed ones. Or even, within them, the current mammals: some 6,000 species that are the most similar to Man and represent a well-known and easily observable universe.

Both philosophers and biologists have sought for centuries the objectives or purposes of Man and the how and why of the evolution of living beings. And they have given many and different answers (materialistic, spiritualistic, transcendent), more or less biased depending on their beliefs. But they have not given a common and universally accepted response. I think that by wanting to obtain it from what the men is and where does he come from and where is he going. But these are issues that are not known. Or that they produce different answers according to the beliefs that each one has about the nature, origin and destiny of human beings. And besides, Man is usually seen as universorum, (Kant dixit) of all men, not as an entity or as a whole, singulorum, of the species.

For my idea I have as starting point the behavior of living beings as such. As I said we can, for ease, take mammals as a universe. And I think we can say: all existing mammal species, including man, live and reproduce so that their descendants do the same: live and reproduce successively and iteratively. Those are the facts: reliable, verifiable and falsifiable.

And here comes causation: the "why?" and the "for what?" of that common, perennial and primary behavior of all mammal species. And of the Homo sapiens species as a species of living beings. That if necessary, it can be extrapolated to all living beings.

My previous idea is that there could have been an internal or external efficient cause, that caused, or ordered, the first living beings not only to live, but to reproduce. And reproduce by transmitting this order with instructions so that also their successors will try to live and reproduce iteratively.  

We do not know who the agent was nor we care, since we draw on from the behavior of our "patients": the living beings that reproduced. It seems that the agent would be the same that originated life: Randomness, Nature, an external agent... It does not affect our idea. (But it has been a permanent problem to not see it).

And even if the living beings did not know it, nor know it explicitly, it seems that there is a final cause, "Natural", which is the conservation of life. Life that is what living beings have and try to conserve and transmit. In the case of the sexed through biological speciation as a basic strategy. And in many vertebrates, and especially in mammals, with socialization as the main method to try to survive: individually and as groups and species.

After these prolegomena, I will reread the pages of The Cellar... that I have written down to see and comment on what might affect my basic idea:

1.- In the Introduction, P. 17 and 18 quotes Kant and his reference on Hume's legitimation of causality and says: "One thing is the need of the relationship between agent and patient signified by the notion of cause. Another very different, that we have to know it with need" (Professor Arana's italics). 

In our case, we do not know the agent or his relationship with patients. But it seems that this knowledge is not necessary for the cause to exist and operate.  

2.- On page 20 says that Hume: "has eroded the foundations of trust in the causal relationship" By replacing it with Custom or Habit in repetitive acts.

It is a very important observation. Possibly one of the reasons for not seeing the basic idea has been to consider living and reproducing as something obvious, as a use Habit and Habit proper to living beings. Aggravated because it was thought, and still thinks, that reproducing is something that "brings cause" (efficient and final) in the same individuals agents and patients. And we do not see that reproduction carries with it the mandate that the reproduced do the same, with which the final cause is not the reproduction of the individual but of the species.  

By not seeing these different ends Michel Ruse, philosopher on duty of the "sociobiologist" EG Wilson, admits that they are responsible of Moore's naturalistic fallacy. (Survive p. 204).

Also confused is David P. Barash, one of the American wise men I sent Survival and Altruism, when in a recent email he tells me that the goal is not to survive but to reproduce. Keeps thinking of "reduced" individuals to isolated beings, removing them, or not considering, what they have of components of a species. Which, for these purposes, many philosophers have done and do.  Everyone?

3.- On page 56, He says: Beings immersed in time have a history that provides the ideal framework to ask why they have become in one way and not another. To ask and to answer if the answer is seen.

It is the case of living beings and their behavior, common and perennial, trying to transmit life throughout its known history and its intuited prehistory. It is the historical causation, which according to Ernst Mayr is the usual method to justify biological hypotheses. (see in the section Biologists  the article on This is Biology of Mayr)

4.- And on page 58 Adds: Newton does not hesitate to formulate universal propositions based on empirical induction.

Professor Arana does not mention what propositions he refers to, but it is clear that it is enough to release some stones from the hand so that, in view of his uniform behavior, we can deduce that all the stones will fall to the ground if you release them from the raised hand.

In the case of the species it seems enough to see the behavior of a group of penguins , or several herds of wolves, or hundreds of salmon rising to spawn for the river, to deduce that these behaviors (reproduce so that their progeny lives and reproduces in turn) are common and typical of the entire species. And of all the species that we know, empirically and inductively, that do the same.

5.- On page 73 says that the Aristotelian theory admits both an intrinsic form causality (material, formal) as another extrinsic (efficient, final). I think that all chapter 3 is dedicated to dealing with the different types of causes and their "rise and fall" throughout the history of thought. 

In my natural language, and according to my short understandings, I have used Aristotelian causes. And I think that the four fit in my ideas, although it seems clear to me that living beings have, in their intimate essence, that is, in an intrinsic form, the mandate or cause of their vital behavior. Mandate that contains the imperative to try the transmission and survival of its genetic program, that is, its vital information, since matter and individual energy are extinguished with them. Although we do not know in a "scientific" way who or what was the efficient  cause that introduced the vital imperative, as an intrinsic cause, in the programming of the first living being so that it was transmitted it in turn to its descendants.

Refering to the final cause, it seems clear that the common behavior of all living beings of trying to reproduce iteratively supposes the existence of a final, immediate cause, which is the survival of the updated vital information of the species. That is to say that the immediate final cause is the survival of the species through the survival of some of its individuals. Without prejudice to the objective being a partial end caused, or attracted, for another final cause of a next level that is the conservation of life. And without prejudice to the fact that there may also be other levels of "superior", natural or transcendent ends. DRAE: Natural: According to the quality or property of things. Transcendent: That is beyond the limits of any possible knowledge.

6.- On page 91 He says: We must always try to be clear, but it is not good to pretend more precision than we can afford.  I greatly appreciate this observation.

I think that the desire for excessive rigor in some of my objectors makes difficult for them to "see" and understand my elementary ideas. And they are focused into defining words whose use and meaning are defined by the RAE and are clear within the context in which they are used. I have asked some "experts": What does it mean "to try"? What does it mean "to survive"? What is a "species"?  That's why I also appreciate Popper's quote on page 92 where he says: In science we must ensure that the affirmations we formulate never depend on the meaning of our terms.

Brief glossary: DRAE. Species: Set of people or things similar to each other for having one or several common characteristics. To try: Make the effort and steps necessary to achieve something or achieve a certain goal or purpose, without having the absolute certainty of achieving it. Supervivir: Survive: Stay in time. Endure.

7.- Pages 103 et seq. they deal with the natural law. And from what I thought I understood my basic idea, it might be better as part of the natural law: as a law of the survival of the species. Something like: All species of living beings have the vital imperative to try their survival. And referred to individuals: All living things they have in their genetic programming the imperative to try the survival of their species.  Because of this law, printed and implied in all men, we have come this far. Although it is not explicit. See the articles on objections: "Species and Man" and "Three doubts" With quotes in this matter from Natalia López-Moratalla and Francisco Rodríguez Valls.

And I can not resist recalling here the four years of work (2004 to 2008) of the International Theological Commission to produce: In Search of a Universal Ethics: A new way to see the natural law. Important document that "did not have the expected repercussions" It seems that natural law is not well accepted. Possibly because a law supposes a legislator. It is one of the biases that make it difficult to talk and work with each other. There are also prejudices, on the other side, with the concept of species referred to Man. 

8.- On page 121 picks up a quote from H. Bondi, who referring to Einstein says: "I was convinced that beauty was a guiding principle in the search for important results in theoretical physics."

In my opinion, everything that serves to conserve, transmit and improve life is ethically good and for that reason it is, or seems to us, beautiful. The results in theoretical physics if they are good are beautiful. And its own search, as an altruistic act, is also beautiful. I do not have here the Tractatus. But in one of his points D. Luis W. says something like: "ethics and aesthetics are the same thing" Doña Amelia Valcárcel has dedicated her book Ethics against aesthetics to this phrase. Although I read it thoroughly I'm not sure that Doña Amelia agrees with Wittgenstein. I do.

And getting things to my favor, if we observe the living beings and their varied behaviors what ever is beautiful is usually what is good for the survival of their species: the tail of the peacock, the love of the lioness to their puppies, the hard and sad philosophical office that said Ortega... And therefore these beings and their aesthetically beautiful acts are, at the same time, ethically good for fulfilling the Universal Ethical Principle. Principle deduced from the law of survival and implicit in the genetic programming of all living beings producing beautiful acts. (And also producers of some ugly acts, generally little or not at all ethical).

9.- I have annotated pages 178 and 187. They deal with the simple and the complex and are especially interesting. Some of my friends are enthusiastic about complexity as an upward direction of everything. Once again I have to confess my amateurism but, from that perspective, they do not convince me. Nor is the idea that all complexity is progress. Neither is it clear what progress is. Some bacteria are just as simple as millions of years ago. They have not "progressed" and yet they have been alive much longer than the millions of more complex species that have become extinct.

I leave these general questions. I have stopped here to think if my basic idea is something poor and simple, something complex or something rich and simple. Or it is nothing. But on the basis that it is something, I think it can be something simple and rich. Simple because its statement is obvious and elementary: Man has as his vital goal his own survival. And rich because it involves reviewing many doctrines and scientific and philosophical theories. And all the laws and customs of all men. To try to adapt them, as appropriate, to the ethical principle derived from the basic idea. Task for the next hundred years. If there are men to do it.

10.- On page 205 under heading 99 "Ontological presuppositions of the appearance of order", he says: In my opinion, there is no explanatory key to solve the problem in the natural framework that is where it should be resolved. Although I do not deny convictions regarding the supernatural, I am with Leibniz when he says that God never performs miracles to satisfy the needs of nature, but those of grace.

I restated this paragraph not because I can contribute something to explain the appearance of order, but because of the appeal to the natural framework that resolves the needs of nature. Somewhere else Professor Arana also recalls the second commandment.

And I have noticed that because if my ideas are true, take God's work away. They remove from God, and their representatives of all religions on Earth, the work of revealing, interpreting and preaching an ethic that can be deduced from the basic idea, which is a natural idea. Idea that is God's creation if God exists. But that, once discovered, it would not be necessary for Him to reveal it, nor for its representatives to be the only ones that spread it to all men, believers or not.

From the basic idea and its naturalUniversal Ethical Principle, all men, believers or not, can know explicitly what is vitally good. And they can and should be good and love each other. Even if they do not know, or do not love, a possible Legislator who has said what is good and bad. Each man already knows explicitly what he already intuited and normally practiced: what is good / better what is good for the neighbor, for all the neighbors and for their offspring and their environment. Which is similar to what commandments tell to believers. And now with the basic idea can and should be said by all: religious and atheists. And what they say is obligatory for believers and non-believers. Because it is a mandate that we all carry inside. And now it's explicit. And they are not just the representatives of a kind or vengeful God who tells us to be good and love our neighbors and take care of our environment. Everyone, believers and non-believers, must and can be good and love thy neighbor. And be happy with it. And I suppose God will continue to pour out his graces wherever he wants. And he will continue to leave his creatures to deal with the things of nature.

I have brought to Marbella, to review, two books by Monsignor Ladaria. And on page 55 of "The Man in creation"I read: The temporal reality is governed, according to this by its own laws and within the scope of these men feel and are really agents of their history.

And on page 78 of the 9th reprint of his"Introduction to theological anthropology" From 1992, says: From human experience you can and should do valid affirmations about man, even if they do not reach the depth of God's plan. I copied this quote on page 238 of Survive. Ideas for a Universal purpose, adding my part: It is clear the "permission" and the obligation that exists in man to think as a subject of knowable natural law . And the convenience of standing in the right place.

I copied the above because this sentence by Monsignor Ladaria was the one that encouraged me to write the second book and to continue with this strange work of trying to contrast and spread my ideas. Ideas that, at some point, seemed unorthodox or at least not opportune. Among other things by removing direct work to God and a certain role to their representatives. Then I have clearly seen that, with my ideas, believers and their pastors have an advantage over agnostics and atheists. And if they are true, the sooner you see them, assume, practice and preach, the better. And if they are not, I would like someone -believer, agnostic or atheist- to tell me. To stop working on it and stop bothering friends, acquaintances and strangers.

11.- On page 248 he asks about a possible specificity of living beings. For what it's worth and applying the "By their fruits you shall know them", A possible difference could be the purpose of their behavior and their behavior itself. For me: Living living beings those who, behaving altruistically, try to make their genetic information survive. Altruism, I think, excludes viruses and other aspirants.

The above is an occurrence but I think it does not look bad. To be contrasted with mechanical automatons, robots, silicon compounds, organic-mineral hybrids, etc. etc.

12.- On pages 250/1 There is a phrase that has caught my attention. It says, and very well said: The evolution and life, in short, are not the wonder of intelligent programming, but the monument to opportunism, a gigantic accumulation of botched things to get out of the way.

I think he is right and that is the same thing that happens in a company, in politics, in philosophy... I remember that Pedro Toledo, our CEO then, said that: long-term goals are achieved by doing short term things. Things that, later on, seemed improvable, but that had allowed to reach the good place from where we were judging them. And I think I remember that Ortega said;to the things, the things! It is about doing the task of each moment. The best you know and can. Or also: petit a petit l'oiseau fait are nid.

I stopped here because when I talk about my ideas and their possible application, the few listeners who listen to me say: Well…! Even if they are true ...until the world knows them, assumes them, starts them up and have results can take tens of years… It is so. But these ideas, seen in a thousand years, if there is someone to see them then, can be one of the sloppy (Prof. Arana dixit) that may have helped to get out of the difficult step we are trying to go through.

13.- On page 256 speaks of vitalism and a possible fourth interaction, different from those currently admitted (gravitational, strong nuclear and electroweak). It's a very interesting question and it reminded me of Kant, who in a 1784 essay entitled: "Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View" looks for the Hidden intention of Nature. Referred to human things but applicable to other natural phenomena. And he has said before in his convoluted prose: There is no other way out for the philosopher, since he can not suppose the existence of any rational purpose proper to men and in all the game, trying to discover in this contradictory course of human things some intention of Nature.

And even if it's not scientific, I can not resist putting an old idea here:

Kant speaks of hidden intention not of interaction or force. But I think I was thinking the same thing. His "intention" is not only a purpose but an attempt, an effort towards an end, a force, a cause. Like Bergson with his vital elan. Or the vivifying Spirit of the believers in Him. Or the vital imperative of my basic idea but united to love as a means.  Or the "simple" love of San Agustin. Food for thought.

I guess Professor Arana knew the: "There is no other way out for the philosopher... "by Kant. And whether he knew it or not, his work trying to discover the contradictory course of human, and not human things, is as they now say . spectacular!! Thanks for that. And…  Und so weiter. Let it continue like this. And let it be for many years. What else.

14.- I can not go through page 257 because it gets on what I believe has been decisive for the wise assistants of the 1972 symposium at the Bellagio, to not see my basic idea. Professor Arana cites Dobzhansky who defended a "reasonable" reductionism versus an "unreasonable" reductionism that tries to reduce Biology to Chemistry and that must work with molecular biology, cornering the biology of organisms. But it does not occur to them to think, nor to speak, of a Biology of species. They were arguing to them from the smallest.

Dobzhansky died in 1975 (in the arms of Ayala according to his biographer). And in 1977 they edited "Evolution"(A posthumous book for TD) along with Stebbins and Valentine. I have the 4th reprint (558 pages) in Spanish, from 2009, from Omega Editions 1993. It is the most expensive new book I have bought: 87 euros. Dobzhansky wrote chapters 4, 5, 6 and 14. And the price paid was worth it for these four chapters. I have commented extensively on Supervivir (pp. 157-166). Also Ayala (167 to 183) but not because of what he wrote in Evolution but for his other later books. (Note: The full text of Supervivir is in the section Books of my Web).

Returning to Dobzhansky, in that posthumous book deals with species, man and altruism. He does it very well. But it falls short. I think it's the person closest to the basic idea. I quote only a few sentences from Evolution, of the many that I collected in Supervivir:

-living beings seem inventions designed for the purpose of their survival and reproduction.

-The human race, like other species of sexual reproduction, is a Mendelian population. And later: a Mendelian population constitutes a supraindividual evolutionary system. [...]the man species is a supraindividual evolutionary system.

And he talks about the altruism and the ethics of the species.  But he remains in the very important idea of confirming the species as an evolutionary and even ethical subject. But he does not go further although he was the one who encouraged me to continue with my idea.

 Ayala, a biologist of organisms and a classical moralist, did not see the species as a subject. Nor did he have a clear position on the foundation of ethics, both in his "biological" discussions with E. O. Wilson and in his many subsequent publications.

From what I have later seen, the concept of species is not liked either by philosophers or biologists. And ethologists, sociologists and anthropologists see species as "sites" where individuals are, not as subjects. At most they work with groups, groups or populations. Without realizing that the species are also groups, collectives or populations with common laws, customs and common customs based on their morphology and their common genetic information. I think they are debtors of an excessive scientism that makes them "see" and "work" only with what they can completely measure and contrast. And they are not able, or do not dare, to see or infer hypotheses from an "unattainable" group, based on one or several of their groups.

And yet we say that the police have arrested a murderer when the arrest has been made by a patrol of two policemen. Or that Madrid have scored a goal when one of their players scores... Idea extended in some articles in Development.

14.- On page 263 speaks of interdisciplinary dialogue. Another one of the serious obstacles that I have encountered when I try to explain my ideas. Everyone goes to their point and only sees what they have seen before. And since he knows a lot of that he stops at it. And normally he sees something that he does not like about what I say. And it stops there. And he does not move from there. And we can exhaust all the time and space available by working on the part that he knows.   The rest is silence, which I believe said Hamlet or someone from his circle.

The interdisciplinary dialogue, difficult among experts of different knowledge, is almost impossible in my case that I am not an expert in any of the knowledge that affects my ideas. That is why I applaud Professor Arana's phrase, when, among many other successful ones, he says: "As I have argued elsewhere (Arana 2004), we must strive on the front of linguistic disarmament and learn to rescue any respectable thesis that may hide the stuttering expressions of the uninitiated ". Thank you. Get on with it!

15.- On page 267, Speaking of determinism and probability says, referring to I suppose scientists, philosophers... that: "we all look for causes, laws and hidden variables, not definitively hidden, of course, but provisionally, that is, right up to the moment when a lucky spirit manages to reveal them."

What if the lucky spirit that believes he has found them and has managed to unveil them is someone who has not looked for them and who is not even a professional seeker?

I suppose it is a rare case and therefore it is not considered that such a thing could happen. As if a molecular biologist tells me about the system he has discovered to study the long-term credit risk of developing countries. That could be a good method, but just as a first glimpse I would not pay any attention to him. Or if he's a friend, I'll listen to him on what looks like what I already know.

The reading of Professor Arana's book at this point has lowered my morale. But my advantage or disadvantage is being an old and practicing Zaragozean. And I can not and I do not want to give up my stubborn stubbornness. So I will continue trying to contrast and spread my ideas until my body endures, or someone convinces me that they are not true.

16.- Of the pages 290 and following, which deal with the many facets of the final cause, which is my preferred cause, I have underlined and annotated almost everything. But I have already written 4,842 words that occupy 10 pages with size 12 letters. And I still do not know why I'm writing this note. But for whatever it is, it is already long. I will try to summarize.  

I start by summarizing Aristotle according to the quote on page 291: "Everything that exists by nature exists for an end". And Professor Arana says earlier that this final cause is so trivial that it is suggested that it is nothing but a synonym for the idea of Universal good.

In the next three pages, Professor Arana breaks down the final cause and analyzes its elements. For my part I believe that the final cause, or the end, or the vital good that living beings seek, can be a case of unconscious, static and dynamic finality. Everything at once. I do not have the necessary finesse to distinguish. And possibly we are facing a case of duplicity or triplicity of purposes. That they are not superfluous or sterile but that they reinforce causality. To be thought by who knows more than me.

The following pages are very interesting and deal, among other things, with teleology and theology. I think Professor Arana is a believer. And in my case, on the advice of Pope Benedict XVI and my history, I am a practicing Catholic, although I do not have the certainty of God. I say it because for this thinking about the things of the world, and as Professor Arana recalls on page 297: "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain".

With all this I believe that one can and must think, scientifically and naturally, the same as a believer or agnostic or atheist. If God exists he created the creation and will maintain it as he sees fit. But it is up to us to make men without turning to Him to cover our natural needs. Agnostics and atheists have an advantage in this case because they already count on themselves alone. In any case, in this natural level and without resorting to the express and immediate presence of God, we should be able to understand us between each other.

In my case, both the Basic Idea, the Broad Altruism and the Universal Ethical Principle are natural and theologically neutral. They are deduced from the natural behavior of living beings. And the law of survival is a natural law that follows from this natural behavior. It is clear that the existence of an external creator and legislator agent would complete the hypotheses but it is not necessary to have such a close agent. It can exist or not. But if it exists, it will be wherever it is. And we must have our natural part, and with our natural circumstances, to see and manage these possible natural truths.

17.- On page 309 begins chapter 12 the last one, that deals with Modernity and final cause. On this page there is a note in pencil that says: "I start reading here on 15.9.17 at 12.50" I have seen now, by underlining, that I read then up to page 314. And on page 310 I have highlighted the following:

 "Any mundane being that is not everything that can become a hosts inside a spring in permanent tension towards the potentialities that are in him. A modern such as Spinoza could see in the effort of persevering in existence the main or even the only dynamic articulation of beings.

I think the idea that being is better than not being was already said before Spinoza. At least I, who have seen little, have seen it in Saint Thomas, (Summa q.94.2) and then in Teilhard (Science and Christ, p. 62 Taurus 1968). And I think I remember that D. Rafael Alvira pointed it out to me one of the first times I told him about my ideas.

But the important thing now is what I think Professor Arana says expanding these ideas. To whose ember I enclose, in parentheses, my sardine.

 Any mundane entity (living beings including man) that is not everything that can be hosts inside itself (in its genetic program or similar) a spring (the vital imperative) in permanent tension towards potentialities that are in it.  

Putting it all together: Man holds within himself, in his genetic programming or wherever, a spring - force or vital imperative - in permanent tension ... to persevere in existence (as a man).  This is the basic idea.

I believe that Professor Arana has arrived at the above with his many knowledge. For my part, I can confirm his ideas with what I have seen about what the mundane entities that we have within our reach do. Possibly that seeing would be more scientific if ethologists and other specialists do it. From here I would ask the specialists in this seeing to check if the basic idea is true. If they do not know it already. And that they tell the result. Thanks in advance. To be commented.

 18.- The epilogue is on pages 371 to 380. And from what I have understood of him is pure concentrated wisdom. I only copy the phrases that caught the most my attention, seen through the glasses of my ideas:

P.374.- "...laws are ultimately creations of the human mind (although they are not, of course, without foundation in re), whereas the real things were already long before the man began to discover laws... ".

I remember again what that sergeant said to his recruits explaining the law of gravity. He said: Things fall to the ground by Mr. Newton's law of gravity. And if there was no law of gravity they would fall under their own weight. Thus, all living beings have tried and tried to make their species survive, before men had discovered the law that orders it.

 On p. 379: "..the only absolute reference is what we designate with the open concept of truth. One of the few things known for sure about it is that it is always a little closer to reality than to the concept. "

And finally: In practice what I have done is to declare synonyms "cause" and "principle of determination". Now, this last concept is extraordinarily broad, but it is quite well defined: it is all that for which any real entity exists better than does not exist and is in a certain way better than another. "

Marbella, 17.7.2018. The 17.53. Reviewed on 10.8.18

After writing almost all the above I have known that there is a monographic issue of the magazine "Nature and freedom"Dedicated to comment The basements ... I have read what he has written in it, at the beginning and at the end, Professor Arana. It does not seem to affect this note. Nor that this note affects what he says.  Voucher. At 12.27 on 19.7.2018.