Homepage

 18^th May 2006

 

 

The Philosophy of

 

THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  UNIVERSAL  PARALLELISM

 

 Siamak Zandpour

 

    Because I want to transmit the truth and reality as I have perceived it and the only means of transmitting it, is the tool of language i.e. words therefore I have dedicated a special chapter to this subject which is included here in this philosophy of  The Principle of Universal Parallelism under the title A brief analysis of human language .  Because of its paramount importance I suggest to start with this chapter whose results and conclusions become highly crucial in transmitting deeper philosophical and ideological thoughts by using human language.

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

True useful knowledge is that knowledge which answers and resolves the most important question of humanity,

namely “what am I, and why do I suffer?”

  

 

Summary

 

 

 

    The above principles are the foundation of The "Principle of Universal Parallelism" which is introduced for the first time in this site is based on a completely different philosophical foundation (i.e. the "parallel relationship" as opposed to the cause- effect relationship) having practical applicability for all branches of science. In addition to its practical scientific applicability which opens many new horizons in science and a better understanding of the universe, it has far-reaching implications on conventional philosophical and ideological outlooks having the potential power to neutralize ideological differences and confrontations. Its philosophical aspect will, from a new viewpoint, cover and clarify subjects like cosmology, foundation of mathematics, absolute determinism, dualism, monism and the most important question of namely "what am I, and why do I suffer".

    The Principle of Universal Parallelism as formulated and outlined in this site is the result of the merger of the oriental and occidental mentality which necessarily had to emerge sooner or later at some point in the evolution of science as the world grows into a global village. According this principle all the laws of nature, whether physical, chemical or otherwise are subject to the "parallel relationship". The philosophical foundation of the parallel relationship is independent of the cause- effect relationship but at the same time functions complimentary to it. It means that all the present workable equations of natural laws are already based on the parallel relationship. The parallel relationship can analyze natural phenomenon with greater flexibility and obtain results far ahead of the conventional cause- effect relationship and in this way guide research scientists in the proper direction in their effort to explain nature from the cause- effect relationship point of view.

 

**************************************************************************************

 

 

Introduction

 

Before addressing the philosophy of Universal Parallelism it is recommended and worthwhile to read this introduction and also have a brief overview of its scientific applications. For this purpose the first page of a scientific research paper concerning geo sciences (though it is applicable to all scientific disciplines) and which were recently accepted at international and national conferences on Geo Sciences outlining the application of THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL PARALLELISM in earthquake prediction (see reference 9 and 10)  is reproduced below.

 

 

 

In order to ensure a good understanding of this philosophy to most  readers we will emphasise the relevant points by explaining them  in different ways using different examples. This paper should be studied in the same order as presented.

 

 

The ideological aspect of the Principle of Universal Parallelism is quite different and much more sensitive and important than its practical scientific applications which we will understand after reading this paper. Its importance lies in the fact that the main dilemma of humanity is an ideological one. All human miseries are rooted in ideology and Weltanschauung. In the absence of a sound unified ideology social miseries and oppressions will continue. With all the different ideologies (which includes modern sciences, philosophies and religions) present nowadays, each considering itself superior to others, and the way humanity is progressing in terms of technology, science, commerce, living style etc. there will be no future because humanity will annihilate itself – which is not far away - if it does not change the way of its living and thinking. Although different ideologies including modern sciences, various religions with all their branches and sub branches, and different philosophies have many useful things to say, but they also say many things which are very unclear, incomprehensible and not logical. If these unclear points cannot be explained in a convincing manner than the whole ideology or religion concerned will become questionable, or to be more accurate, the interpretation of their propagandist will become questionable. All these different ideologies and their propagandists try to convert the masses to their ideology and enhance their followers. Although they do it with a good intention and believe that they do a good service to mankind and to themselves but that’s not enough. There must be unity, brotherhood, respect for each other and absence of oppression. “That what you like for yourself, like for others too”. This concise statement is, and should be, the central message of any religion.

 

          Due to the diversity of ideologies and the absence of a sound unified ideology acceptable to everyone, each ideological group believes that their ideology is the real true one and superior to other believes. Therefore this results in confrontations, wars (i.e. “holy wars”), and many inhuman activities which mankind has seen in the past ages and also in the present age, and which is still the main dilemma of humanity. If these ideological groups, each claiming to own the real true light and spirituality start confronting and kill each other, then it is natural that most people become “fed up” and take distance of anything concerning religions. Therefore an international effort like the idea of the “Dialogue among Civilizations” is a good plan. Of course it will be a good plan only if its aim and result is to create a sound unified ideology acceptable to everyone. Otherwise without this unified ideology, humanity will reach a dead end – which is not far off – and annihilate itself.

 

          It is the young generation whose future is at stake. The old generation, which holds the power and controls the world affairs has lived its life and for most of them it does not matter much what the future will be and are quite indifferent in this regard. It is only the young generation that can do something. They must start take action right now if they want to survive.

 

That this dead end is not far off in the future can be easily understood by having a brief general overview of human history, especially the known and recorded history. If we take a look at the developments of human history, starting for example from the Stone Age up to now, we will see a certain acceleration of developments in every aspect of human life like knowledge, art, science, inventions, living style, etc. If we would plot these developments onto the timescale, we would obtain a curve that correlates highly with the increase of world population which in our age we call it the “population explosion”. Fig. 1 shows the increase of world population for 2050 years starting from year 1 A.D. (beginning of the Christian calendar) up to the year 2000 along with projections up to 2050 (see reference 2).

 

Fig.1

 

            As we can see, in the first 1000 years the increase is almost insignificant. Then for the next 500 years (i.e. 1000 A.D. to 1500 A.D.) there is a slight upward movement. But the next 500 years (i.e. 1500 A.D. to 2000 A.D.) show significant developments. The speed of acceleration increases tremendously which correlates and is reflected in developments in all spheres of human life. 500 years ago coincides with the discovery of America, the invention of book printing by Gutenberg, Copernicus revolutionizing concept of the universe and our solar- system with the sun as the center and not the earth, etc. This acceleration gained in speed with the inventions of the steam machine, electricity, telephone, etc. Inventions played a major role in these developments. The steam machines and their industrial applications including locomotives, steamboats, etc.; the inventions of electricity, telephone, radio, automobiles, airplanes, television, dynamite, etc; scientific developments in mathematics, physics, chemistry, medicine; the splitting of the atom and its consequences; the invention of computer and internet; and so many other inventions and developments in all spheres of human life changed our world, living style and Weltanschauung. Anybody with some elementary knowledge of history, by comparing the world of 500 years ago with 200 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 20 years ago and today, must become aware of the incredible speed of acceleration which changed our world. The important point is to understand that it correlates exactly with the population explosion, and that this acceleration is steadily gaining in speed. This speed will soon reach a certain limit which I call  the “zero point” or “dead-end”. Since it correlates with the population explosion, we can take the increase of world population as a reference. This also holds true according the parallel relationship mentioned in the Principle of Universal Parallelism. The amount of world population has a certain limit which the planet earth with its present condition can carter for. This limit is defined by the living space and the supply of food and water. Right now there is shortage of food, water, energy, employment, etc.

 

            Humanity has reached a certain limit, and if it does not change the way of its living and thinking there will be no future for mankind. Of course according the scientific applicability of Universal Parallelism we can theoretically pinpoint the exact time of this limit, including all the developments leading to this limit or “zero point”. But it should be sufficient to know that all these developments will occur during the next 10 to 30 years at maximum if not sooner. In regard to the time of this limit it is interesting to point out that the ancient civilization of Maya (in south America) who were highly advanced in Astronomy and the preparation of calendars have mentioned the exact date of this limit which has been investigated by scientists and Anthropologists studying the steles and inscriptions at Mayan temple sites (see reference 7). According our Gregorian calendar that date will be the 21^st Dec. 2012, and it has been interpreted as the end of the world. But according to the indigenous Mayan tradition keepers and priests who are authorities on the interpretation of these remarkable, ancient, elegant and relevant Mayan calendars, this date does not mean the End of the world. They say it means that the world and humanity will be transformed from its present stage of ignorance, injustice and oppression into a higher level where it will live in peace, and which will be the most important turning point in human history ever. From 1987 up to 2012 the world will be in a period of transition where there will be colossal, global convergence of environmental destruction, social chaos, war, and ongoing earth changes. In any case, until 2012, humanity will pass through a lot of sufferings. The astronomical significance of 21^st Dec. 2012 is that for the 1^st time in 26000 years, the sun rises to conjunct the intersection of the Milky Way galaxy and the plane of the ecliptic.

 

The important point in the above account of the Mayan calendar is not the exact date of 21^st Dec. 2012. The important point is that this civilization mentioned a date (with an accuracy of few decades more or less) ages ago that correlates with our investigations. According the parallel relationship of Universal Parallelism there is nothing “super natural” about such predictions because there are theoretically feasible.

 

          Many spiritualists and different religions have similar ideas. For example the old scriptures of the Shiite sect (one of the major Islamic sects, see reference 8) give similar accounts with great details. They all believe in a turning point which has been called above as the "zero point", but they also believe that although humanity will experience a lot of sufferings, whether manmade like wars, or natural catastrophes like earthquakes, epidemics, etc., humanity will enter after that "zero point" into a new era which some call it the "golden 1000 years", and humanity will after that not be as before. But anyhow, before that "golden age" humanity has to go through a lot of sufferings and we should be prepared for it. By understanding the ideology of Universal Parallelism properly and deeply enough one will be unmoved by these sufferings.

 

In regard to this aforementioned limit it is also interesting to point out that according the Principle of Universal Parallelism we can infer to this limit by using another phenomena as a reference point. Here we can take for example the phenomena of "Voyager I" as a reference base. Voyager I is an artificial human made satellite, which for exploring our solar system, has been send into the space in 1975. This satellite will by the end of 2003 reach the outer boundaries our solar system i.e. the limit of the sun's influence in our solar system. Even right now this satellite has reached its limit already and cannot send any useful data back to earth. The important point is that with this satellite, humanity was able, for the first time in its history, to probe physically  into the space up to its final limit and obtain informative data. But now it has reached its final limit. Of course it will continue with its travel into space but it will be not useful and is like a dead object. Our nearest neighbor, the star Alpha Centauri is so far away (about 4.3 light years) that it is just a human dream to reach that neighbor. To make it more comprehensible, it would mean that on a small scale model, if we place the planet earth 1 meter away from the sun, then the above nearest neighbor star would be about 270 km away, that is 270000 times further away. Our solar system can be compared to an “isolated” particle or a pulsating cell in space. But for now, it is the final limit of human effort to probe physically so deep into the space. This limit coincides according the parallel relationship with the above-mentioned limit of humanity. The way humanity is progressing it will certainly annihilate itself. Our whole problem is an ideological one.

 

 In view of the global trends in population explosion, very high acceleration in change of ecosystem, AIDS, need for oil, water and food, the global economic structure with its banks and monetary systems which seem outwardly stable, but inwardly are hollow structures on shaky foundations which may crash any moment, and many other fundamental social and environmental problems, the present world situation is comparable to a family sitting in their home and engaging in petty disagreements and activities unaware of the fact that their ceiling has broken away already and will crush them in any moment. Only a new sound and unified ideology may prevent this not so far off Armageddon. The message and ideology of Universal Parallelism can help to provide this united ideology and create a new man.

 

***

 

 

The Philosophy of the

 

THE  PRINCIPLE  OF  UNIVERSAL  PARALLELISM

 

 

The final conclusion and aim of this ideology and the main message which should be conveyed will be mentioned right now at the beginning of this article. After it we will step by step give its logical explanation and try to understand it deeply.

 

Humans prefer happiness and pleasure, and dislike pain and sorrow. All their activities are aimed to obtain happiness and pleasure more than pain and sorrow. But now at this very outset let us make one point very clear. To experience happiness and pleasure more than its counterpart i.e. pain and sorrow is an impossible undertaking because nature, or better “the justice of nature”, makes us to experience both states in equal measure, whether you are a king or a beggar, whether you are in a “paradise” or in a “hell”. This justice is so perfect that it is not possible to experience on of the two states more than the other. Happiness and pleasure are experienced in order to balance out the exact proportion of pain and sorrow one has experienced. This is the law of nature (i.e. justice of nature) in order to establish the state of equilibrium. In other words, if you have for example experienced 30 percent of happiness (although there is no criteria of what constitute 30 percent of happiness, but nevertheless this example will bring the point home), then you are bound to experience 30 percent of its counterpart, namely sorrow and pain in order to establish the equilibrium. The following simple example will clarify this point more:

 

A man works several years in order to save money for buying an automobile, which he desires very much. The day he acquires his automobile and thus his desire gets fulfilled, he will feel a certain amount of satisfaction and happiness. Now, suppose the next day his automobile gets stolen and disappears. The result will be that he will feel frustration and sorrow exactly in the same proportion to the amount of satisfaction and happiness he experienced when his desire got fulfilled the day earlier.

 

In other words, the amount of attachment we give to a certain object will turn to sorrow in exactly the same proportion when we loose that object.

 

The beggar looks at the king and thinks that the king experiences more happiness then himself. And so also the king looks at the beggar and thinks that the beggar experiences more sorrow than him. This is simply an illusion rooted in ignorance and educational upbringing. Understanding the above mentioned facts will transform you to a new being and give you real inner peace.

 

This illusion of thinking that one can obtain pleasure and happiness more than its counterpart i.e. sorrow and pain is the actual cause of wars, oppression, murder, theft, etc., in short, any undesirable activity which you do not like to happen to you. This illusion is also the cause of so many senseless activities that mankind is engaged in and which will result in its annihilation if it does not change the way of its living and thinking. In this regard, the following parable of “A man digging the ground for water” is appropriate:

 

A man digs the ground with great effort and much sweat in the hope to reach water. But if he would know for certain at the very beginning that there is no water beneath the ground he is digging, then he certainly would not exert his power to dig the ground. Ignorance is the source of hope. If we are 100 percent sure of something, then “hope” has no meaning. Hope becomes meaningful only if we are not certain about something. In the above parable, the effort to dig the ground is similar to the effort of men to obtain the pleasures of life. To know with certainty that there is no water beneath the ground he digs refers to the understanding that pleasure and pain are experienced in equal measures. To abstain or loose the power for digging refers to abstain from senseless activities that are done in the hope to obtain pleasure more than pain. What is meant by senseless activities will become clear later on.

 

We will try to present the ideological aspect as simple and logical as possible. This ideology is a kind of “monism” as opposed to “dualism”. There is no proper term to express the real meaning of this ideology, and the term “monism” is maybe the closest in its meaning, and it would be more appropriate to call it "neo monism". From the perspective of this ideology the present meanings of monism and dualism, or rather our understanding of them, will automatically change and will be seen under a new light. Here we will discuss mainly matters which are known to us as “self-evident truths” and which have been taught to us since childhood and later in schools and universities. Since we have accepted these self-evident truths as commonsense and reality, we base all our reasoning and inferences on these so called self-evident truths without ever questioning their validity and investigate them more closely. Our central aim in this paper will be to prove logically that “positive” is equal to “negative”, and that their apparent duality is non-existent. By proving this seemingly contradictory statement we will obtain results which are of utmost importance and consequence.

 

In dealing with this subject we are in a situation quite similar to the situation when Copernicus tried to explain a simple logical fact, i.e. that the earth is not the flat unmoving center of the universe, but a planet circling the sun. His idea was very much in contradiction with the very deep-rooted believes of those people some 500 years ago. As we know, the reason for that misconception was just the relative viewpoint of the observer. I want to stress the fact that Copernicus used his imaginative faculty to transfer his viewpoint to another position in space from where he could explain the observational facts and data of his time and propound his theory. Deeper understanding of the phenomenal world has been achieved by using the imaginative faculty and simplicity in analytical reasoning. In our analysis, we will use the same.

 

We will start our discussion with a brief overview of our mathematical foundation, and this we shall do with very simple terms so that most people may understand it. Because mathematics holds a strong grip over our technology, science, education, thinking and reasoning it is therefore a proper starting point. In the following section we will discuss it in a very concise form. In the section after it we will explain it in more detail and easier language. With the conclusions then obtained we will discuss non mathematical subjects leading step by step to a final conclusion and message appearing at the end of this paper.

 

The foundation of modern science is based on mathematics which seems to be a solid foundation. But as we shall see later, this foundation is in fact a very weak and shaky foundation because it is based on a reality which is relative, and has nothing to do with the true reality of the existence. Our aim is to understand the true reality. Because the following simple redefinition of our mathematical foundation is of such a great consequence that it deserves a distinct name which I call it the “Equilibrium Theory or Relative Relativity”. This Equilibrium Theory will investigate our present mathematical foundation more closely and show the weakness and illusion of this seemingly all-powerful foundation, and later redefine it from the perspective of the Equilibrium Theory. After that, we will discuss certain matters which will help to obtain a deeper understanding of this new ideology. In fact the Equilibrium Theory is the logical and scientific foundation of this ideology. In the same way as the duality of positive and negative are the two most important factors in our present-day mathematical foundation, in the same way these two factors are the two most important factors in the above theory and ideology.

 

 

 

 

The Equilibrium Theory or Relative Relativity

 

 

Our mathematical foundation

(concise explanation)

 

As we can judge by the existence of protagonists and antagonists among mathematicians regarding the foundation of mathematics (i.e. those who claim that "mathematics is a meaningless game played with meaningless symbols" to those who claim the opposite view [see reference 1: Encyclopedia Britannica, Foundation of Mathematics]), mathematics has no clear foundation whatsoever.

 

Now the below interpretation will resolve the above external differences and show that "paradoxes" do not exist in "reality" and that their existence is just due to our limited relative physical perceptions of the environment. This interpretation will serve as our basis to build the principle of universal parallelism.

 

To interpret the foundation in a proper light we must analyze the subject from its deepest root and founding stone. The founding lies in the definition of the number "one" as opposed to its counterpart the "zero" or "nothing". On the duality of this binary value of 1 and 0 we build the whole structure of mathematics, which in fact is the same principle the mind uses to analyze the physical perceptions of the environment by just deciding between the duality of "Yes" and "No".

 

          Now if we take a closer look at the meaning of the number "one", we will be compelled to look at mathematics from a new point of view.

 

          Because of the apparent divisibility of matter this final single indivisible particle on which we could base the existence of the number 1, is nowhere in nature to find, and our conclusion to its existence is just due to our relative physical perception. It is simply a creation of our mind in order to explain and justify natural phenomenon, therefore we must consider the whole nature i.e. existence in its totality as the "one", which would mean we have to define it as "infinity" which therefore equals "zero", i.e. “one is equal infinity i.e. zero”. This statement that “infinity is equal to zero” is a logical necessity, and although it is a mathematical rule, it is the least understood one and having the greatest consequence. This will be explained in the next section in more detail. Now that infinity is equal to zero therefore "1" becomes equal to zero:

 

1 =  ∞ = 0

 

which means

    

1 = 0

 

 

          Understanding this fact lies in the understanding of the meaning of "infinity" (the most meaningful word in our dictionary) which the more we think and meditate on it, the more we become enlightened. The main controversy regarding the foundation of mathematics revolves around the concept and meaning of “infinity” This seemingly contradictory expression of 1=0 implies that "one" has the equal right to claim to be "zero". In other words, any expression becomes real only when accompanied by its negation. Therefore the negation of the above expression is equally true, i.e.  “One is not equal to zero”:

 

1 ≠ 0

 

          Now because this expression is equally true, therefore we can take the duality principle of "positive" and "negative", i.e. the binary "one" and "zero" as our founding stone to build the Principle of Universal Parallelism, but we should always be aware that its negation is equally true. This awareness will be the central focus of this ideology.

 

 

*********

 

A more detailed explanation of the above concise explanation.

 

 

The meaning of numbers

 

A very important point to understand  is  the  fact  that  in any kind of analysis, all the involved factors can be finally reduced to only two factors  which can be called the positive  factor  and  the negative factor. Because of this fact, the whole science of mathematics  can  be  applied  - as a computer does -  by  using  only  two  numbers  or  factors, namely the one and the zero (the binary number system ). These two numbers or factors are the positive and the negative factors. Because the foundation of the science of mathematics is founded on the definition of these very two factors, therefore we center our analysis on these two factors.

 

Now let us take a closer look at the number 1. What does this number 1 mean? NATURE HAS TO PROVIDE THE ANSWER, AND WE MUST LOOK FOR IT IN OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ! In our natural environment we can have, say 1 apple, or 1 house, or 1 atom, or 1 galaxy etc. That which we call “one” is actually a conglomeration of many single “ones”. And because it is a conglomeration of many single “ones”, it is divisible, and it is divisible infinitely. You can keep on going dividing this 1 forever. In other words, it means that you never reach the zero point or "nothing", the same way as you can never reach or express the biggest positive number or its negative counterpart.

 

 

contracting direction    - ∞    to ... , 3 , 2 , 1 ,  0  , 1 , 2 , 3 , ... to  ∞   +  expanding direction

 

 

 

An apple you can keep on dividing until you reach particles, which are called molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. The important point here is that you can keep on dividing theoretically forever, or do you really believe that you can reach theoretically the zero point or the smallest indivisible particle?  From this viewpoint, we do not have the smallest or the indivisible particle. These terms maybe useful in the experimental physics and for those who believe only in results  which  are  experimentally  measurable; but even these people will accept it as a physical truth that a  far off star which is blinking  to us has  a backside  as well  even  without  been  ever  there or measured it  physically. From  the  theoretical point of view, the  quest for obtaining the  “smallest”  particle  is  in  analogy  similar to the quest of reaching the horizon which recedes in the same amount as you approach it.

 

In view of the above reasoning process we would have to define the number “one” as the sum  of  infinite amount  of  particles  or single “ones”. Therefore the definition of the number 1 should be:

 

  

 

 

 

this implies that

 

(1 = 0) = ( ∞ = 0) = ( + = - )

 

and this in turn implies the following seemingly contradictory statement:

 

        (A > B) = (A < B) = (A = B)

 

i.e. (A is greater than B) and this is equal to (A is smaller than B) and this is equal to (A is equal to B).

 

 

 

According the above definition we see that zero is the same as the number 1 because the number 1 has been defined as infinite. Now that the number 1 has become equal to zero therefore “positive” becomes equal to “negative”. The above definition is the central idea of the Equilibrium Theory and will be explained later with a simpler language so as to be comprehensible to most readers.

 

Although  the  statement  that   “infinity is equal to zero”  is one of the mathematical rules, but  many  take  it  too  lightly  and cannot understand the real reasoning behind it. In fact this statement is highly important and can be comprehended with a relative simple analogy:

 

For example imagine that you are the only object in the whole universe and nothing else except you exists in this world. In  this  situation  you  could claim to be the biggest object or the smallest object and both statements  would  be equally true because there is nothing else besides you for comparison; or  you  could as well claim to be the most beautiful person or the most ugly person and  both  claims would be equally true too. In other words you can make any  claim  along  with its contrary claim and both claims would have  the  equal  right  to  be  true. With infinity it is the same. Since infinity requires everything in order to be infinity, therefore there can be nothing besides infinity. In this state, infinity can claim to be everything, or can equally claim to be nothing or zero, because besides infinity there exists nothing to which you could compare and measure.

 

Now if  the  above  definition  is  accepted we would obtain results which appear on the first sight very paradox and difficult  to  comprehend because or thinking process, not being properly trained, is not  used  to  it. For example it would mean that something (for example a 2 meter long ruler) which we consider two times bigger than  something else (for example a 1 meter long ruler), are both in reality equal since both have the equal right to claim to  be the bigger one.

 

 

Further explanations to help comprehending the above points:

 

 

We as the observer of nature are used mainly to observe our surroundings in terms of distances, like far objects or near objects or in other words the 3 dimensions of length, width and height. But actually this 3 dimensional space can be also contracting and expanding, which if taken into consideration, will convey a better idea of the reality of nature. In order to make this point clear, and also to understand better the aforementioned seemingly paradox concepts, let us consider the following example using our imaginative faculty, and make an imaginary journey of contraction.

 

We simply imagine that we make our body smaller and smaller and keep on making ourselves continuously smaller. We would then reach a point where we could for example go into the above ruler and stand on one of its atoms. This atom would become in comparison to our smallness as big as the earth, depending of course to the size of our contraction. And since we continue getting smaller and smaller, this atom will expand in the same proportion and could become as big as, say, a galaxy, and so forth since there is no limit in getting theoretically smaller... Here we see that a  “small”  object  like , say an atom, has  the capacity to hold  infinite number of galaxies, or in other words, that which we consider the “smallest” particle, has the capacity to hold unlimited space and time. It just depends on the size of the observer in terms of contraction and expansion.

 

Imagine  that  people  live on such a  “small” particle in our ruler, and they start  to  investigate  their  environment  in  the  same way as we do it nowadays  on  earth. Imagine the viewpoint of those little observers. Their astronomers  would  be  in  a    situation similar to our astronomers nowadays, always discovering  newer  and  bigger  objects  and  distances. Their nuclear physicists  would  be  confronted  with  a  situation  similar  to our nuclear physicists  on  earth, always  discovering  newer  and  smaller particles. The time-span which those little observers would perceive as, say,  100 billion years would be for us just an insignificant fraction of a second.

 

In the same way as we imagined the above journey of contraction, in the same way we could make an imaginary journey of expansion. We simply imagine expanding ourselves continuously getting bigger and bigger since there is no limit to doing so. There would be a point where we  would  reach  such  a  huge  size, that  in comparison, our present visible universe would  be  just  one  of  the  so-called  “small” particle of another super big object. The  relative  conception  of  time-span would be the same as above but inverted, i.e. a time-span  of  say 100 billion years in our time measurement would  be  for  those  super big  observers just an insignificant fraction of their seconds.

 

In view of the above example we could conclude that our view of the known universe is the inside view of a "super big" particle, which could be for example just another dust particle. The micro- cosmos is an image of the macro- cosmos. In the same way as we have in our macro- cosmos suns, galaxies, black holes, etc., so also in the micro- cosmos we must have suns, galaxies, black holes, solar systems, etc. Another conclusion which we can draw from the fact that the smallest indivisible particle does not exist in the universe is that Matter is infinitely compressionable and therefore our infinite universe has theoretically the capacity to be infinitely compressionable. In other words it has the capacity to be compression able up to a microscopic point. To comprehend this more clearly refer to Appendix 1.

 

Here we understand that contraction and expansion has no limit. Now that there is enough space to expand unlimitedly and enough space to contract unlimitedly, therefore it makes no sense to speak about “small” and “big” as self evident  truths, and  so  also  with all the other concepts which are derived from it like  “far”  versus  “near”, “fast” versus “slow” , “heavy”  versus “light”, “strong” versus “weak”, etc. There are all equal. In order to make the meaning of “equal” very clear consider the following three claims made by three different persons:

 

 1st person: The real size of the sun is  bigger than the real size of an apple  i.e. ( A > B).

 

2nd person: The real size of the sun is smaller than the real size of an apple  i.e. ( A < B) .

 

3rd person: The real size of the sun is   equal to the   real size of an apple  i.e. ( A = B) .

 

 

Now most people would think that according to “sound common sense”, the 1st person is telling the truth and therefore the right is with him. But in  reality  all  the three persons  are equally correct because all the three persons have the  “equal”  right  to  claim  to tell the truth. Such is the meaning and consequences of “positive is equal to negative”.

 

If we accept the conventional statement that 1+1=2, then we are obliged to accept the whole conventional mathematics. Because we have accepted the basic principle, then we are bound to accept all the other mathematical statements as a necessary conclusion. Of course it may be at first difficult to understand higher mathematics, but because we have accepted the basic principle, then step by step we will comprehend and accept complicated higher mathematical formulas. The same holds true with the Equilibrium Theory. If we accept that 1=0, then we will obtain results which at first are difficult to comprehend and appear paradoxical. But because we have accepted the basic principle of 1=0, then step by step we will understand clearly many concepts which at present appear as meaningless and contradictory. If we understand the 3 main principles of Universal Parallelism deeply enough and understand that the order and harmony of the existence is so perfect that there is no room for accidents, then many questions become easily understandable.

 

For example according the Equilibrium Theory, if a stone is thrown towards a glass window and the glass breaks into pieces, the cause of the broken glass has nothing to do with the impact of the stone on the glass. In respect to the time scale, this event had to happen in that year, month, day, hour, minute, second and fractions of seconds. That very stone, and not any other stone, with all its individual properties had to be thrown in that moment from a certain place and with a certain course, momentum and speed onto that very window, and not any other window, and only that glass and not any other glass had to break into certain pieces and into certain forms. Because in respect to the time- axis the stone was thrown first and the glass broke later, we think that the stone was the cause for the braking of the glass. But according the Equilibrium Theory which states that positive is equal to negative, the direction of time- flow is equal to the opposite direction of time- flow, and therefore we could as well say that the broken glass was the cause of the stone being thrown. In other words, cause and effect are exactly opposite. In order to bring our reasoning to its final conclusion, we must conclude that because positive is equal to negative, no cause or reason is actually involved, for the “existence of cause” is equal to its opposite statement i.e. “absence of cause”. Because our mind has accepted relative perceptions as absolute or self- evident truths, it cleverly tries to explain and justify the phenomenal world.

 

The existence of the number 1 is just a mental fiction and illusion which we have created for ourselves in order to explain or rather justify matters and to have a working platform so as to communicate with others. In this regard there is nothing wrong with it. But when we think that this is an absolute reality and do not understand its illusive nature than it becomes a problematic and serious issue of utmost importance and consequences. After reading this article we will understand this point better.

 

 

          In the Equilibrium Theory we tried to define the number "one" and also to prove that positive is equal to negative and do not have two opposing meanings. Because the subject was treated in a very compressed manner, we will try now to explain it more detailed and clearly so as to facilitate the comprehension of its philosophy and ideology which is the final purpose of this theory and this book in general.

 

************

 

A brief analysis of human language

 

(relevant to deeper understanding of  The Principle of Universal Parallelism)

 

It should be pointed out that many questions will automatically be  resolved by properly understanding the purpose of this chapter and the conclusions it tries to make us to understand.

          In order to understand this ideology more deeply we must have first a closer look at the human language, because language is the instrument and vehicle by which information is transferred. Also mental activities like thinking and reasoning are based on concepts which are expressed by means of language. Reasoning is basically a process in which one concept is compared against another concept and which are stored in our memory. All these concepts which exist in our mind i.e. memory can be expressed in words and are the base of both our language and reasoning. Therefore it is necessary that before we accept concepts which are conveyed to us by means of words, i.e. language, to examine and investigate this instrument more closely. We live in an age where language develops and expands with an ever increasing speed. New terms and concepts are added to our vocabulary, not only for different branches of science, but also for our ordinary daily life. But when language is used for conveying an ideology or philosophy then in this case it becomes a sensitive issue because here one tries to convey reality and truth by means of words. When certain groups of people think that their ideology and philosophy is superior and more truthful than that of others, than in such circumstances our individual and social problems will start. As mentioned before, ideology is the source of all our individual and social problems. The real cause for the conflict between religions like Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc., and the conflict between non religious ideologies are all finally based on ideology, and not on economy as many people claim because the discrimination between economical problems, and the process by which we interpret and perceive something to be as an economical problem, is a reasoning process based finally on our ideology and the way we see and interpret the world. Therefore unity of a sound ideology is the only answer and remedy to all our problems, whether individual or social. Because ideology is an educational process starting from our childhood, and language is the main instrument and medium for conveying concepts, therefore the aspect of language becomes highly crucial. Because this issue is so important, we should not blindly take language as granted, and think that it is a perfect and infallible  instrument of conveying concepts and ideas. Therefore before relying ourselves on this instrument, let us have a closer look at it.

 

          As explained earlier, the relevant factors in any kind of analysis can be finally divided into two groups, that is, the positive factor and the negative factor. To comprehend this fact is very necessary. Although I do not expect that everybody understands this fact properly, but it should be helpful to point out that today's exact sciences are based on these two factors. For example electronics deal with positive and negative currents, nuclear physics is based on positive and negative particles, mechanics is based on positive and negative forces, and so on. In short, today's technology is based on these two factors. Even in ancient times, as well as today, philosophies and ideologies are based on two principles i.e. the good and the bad forces. Therefore anybody engaged in research and analysis and wants to discover the mysteries and laws of nature, had better base his research on these two factors so as to obtain faster results. Now in view of the above facts I want to examine with you our human language in terms of positive and negative factors. This investigation we will conduct in a very simple and logical manner. Unlike the Equilibrium Theory which shows that positive and negative are equal, here in this investigation we will use these two factors according to their conventional meaning which means that we will consider these two factors as if they were two different and distinct factors.

 

          In the same way as the whole science of mathematics is based only on two factors i.e. positive and negative (1 and 0) and all the numbers originate from zero and one, in the same way our human language is based on positive and negative factor. These two factors consist of the two meanings which are expressed by the two words “yes” and “no”. In the same way as “zero” and “one” are the base and foundation of mathematics, in the same way “yes” and “no” are the base and foundation of our language. This “yes/no” express the opposite meanings of “positive/negative”. Therefore it is not surprising that a computer which is an artificial mind, performs all its activities with this “yes and no” only. The only thing a computer can do is to decide between “yes and no”, but with this two factors it can perform many activities: it can perform complicated calculations, it can create all the colors and tones, it can create pictures and animations, and it can even speak and translate one language into another language, and all these diverse activities it does only on the base of two basic activities, namely deciding between “yes and no”, that means between 1 and 0. Computers and mathematics which are creations of the human mind are good research subjects and references for understanding the way and manner our human mind works and thinks, because the way our human mind thinks is reflected in the structure of computers and mathematics.

 

          In linguistics and grammar a language is categorized into many different components like verbs, adjectives, nouns, etc., but in our simple investigation we do not have anything to do with them, for we are trying to find the main roots of a language. For this purpose we will categorize all the words and expressions into two main groups only, i.e. nouns and adjectives. Here, nouns are those words which give a name to real objects which can be perceived by the senses like “stone, tree, flower, sun, etc.”, or unreal objects like “dragon, angel, daemons, etc.”; or abstract names like “capacity, communism, philosophy, etc.” The second group which are the adjectives has not exactly the same definition which is used in grammar and linguistics; here adjectives are those words which convey the meaning of quality or quantity, and includes any word which gives a meaning to nouns. In fact, all words which do not belong to the group of nouns, should be considered as belonging to the group of adjectives. The aim of categorizing words in this simple manner will become more clear later on.

 

          Since our childhood we have learned many words, that is, we have been taught that a certain word has this and that meaning. With the passing of time, our vocabulary expanded, and the meanings which every word had for us developed too. The world around us is full of objects which we have given a name to. Now let us have a closer look at one of these names. For example, the “sun” is a name (i.e. noun) which has in our mind a certain meaning. Of what does this meaning consist? The meaning of the word “sun” consists of adjectives like: warm, bright, round, hot, etc. When we were still a newborn child, the object “sun” had no meaning to us, but with the passing of time, certain adjectives combined with each other and created a certain meaning in our mind which to this combination of adjectives we gave the name “sun”. Remember how you take resort to adjectives when you do not know the name of something and you try to explain it to another person. This combination of certain adjectives which we associate with the noun “sun” expands and develops with the passing of time because new adjectives are added to this combination. The meaning of the word “sun” is for a scientist who studies the sun very different then for an ordinary person or a child. Now that the name “sun” has got a meaning, this name can be again used as an adjective like “sun like”. In the mind of the above scientist, the meaning of the word “sun” is formed by many of these kinds of adjectives which have been derived from names (i.e. nouns) like “gas like” or “gaseous”, or “hydrogenous”, etc. Therefore adjectives are more fundamental than nouns because they are the roots of the noun or name. The important point is that these are the adjectives which give a meaning to a noun and therefore we must concentrate our investigation on the adjectives in order to find the main root of our language.

 

 

 

Adjectives and Fundamental Adjectives

  

          Adjectives are words which convey a quality or quantity like: big and small, heavy and light, fast and slow, red, blue, triangular, four, five, etc. Some  of the above mentioned adjectives are fundamental adjectives because they have a clear opposite or antonym like “big/ small”, “fast/ slow”, “heavy/ light”. These fundamental adjectives would not have any meaning without their opposite or antonym. For example “big” would have no meaning without “small”, or “fast” without “slow”, or “beautiful” without “ugly”, etc. Here we can see that the fundamental adjectives can be divided into a positive and negative group. Because we will later see that all adjectives are based on the fundamental adjectives, it would be better if we now try to find the root of these fundamental adjectives.

 

          The best way and most reliable guidance for finding the above mentioned root is to observe the growth and language development of a child. The younger a child is the more fundamental will be the adjectives used by the child. Therefore, the root of all the adjectives is contained in the two meanings expressed by the words “yes” and “no” because the newborn child, with his voice or cry, conveys to us if he agrees or if he disagrees. Of course the child himself is at that stage and age not conscious about the meanings of his behavior which is just a physical reaction, but the mother clearly understands the signals conveyed by the child. At that initial stage the child can express only his agreement which is equal to “yes” or his disagreement i.e.” no”. After this initial stage, by means of becoming conditioned through his parents, society and environment he acquires a language. This point might be interesting that at the time of birth, his first cry, although it has the function of activating his respiratory organs, appears to convey the signal or the meaning of disagreement.

 

          Later on, this “yes” and “no” develops into the fundamental adjectives like “be” and “be not”, “presence” and “absence”, or “desirable” and “undesirable”, etc. which are all derivatives of “yes/no”. In other words, all our information, or better all the stimulations which we perceive by the means of our five senses are experienced as either the presence or the absence of stimulation, and with the passing of time, these experiences create the fundamental adjectives like: “loud/ quiet”, “dark/ bright”, "pain/ pleasure”, “little/ much”, etc. Therefore the root of all the fundamental adjectives are the two meanings contained in the two words of “yes/ no”.

 

          Adjectives which do not have any clear opposite or antonym are no fundamental adjectives. Some of them are for example the names of numbers, shapes, colors, measurements, etc. like “five”, “circular”, “red”, “half”, etc. These non fundamental adjectives require the fundamental adjectives in order to have a meaning. To understand this fact it is necessary to know that between any opposites i.e. fundamental adjectives, that is positive and negative, are many stages or degrees whose average we call neutral and which represents the middle or medium. For example between “future/ past” which are two fundamental adjectives, there is also a “present” which represents the mid- point of these two extremes. In fact these two extremes which are representatives of positive and negative must necessarily have in between them many stages and degrees. For example, “full” and “empty” are two fundamental adjectives because one is the opposite or antonym of the other, and therefore they define two extremes which have many intermediate stages; a glass can be full or empty, or "three-quarter" full, "one-quarter" full, etc. which are all adjectives because they convey the meaning of a quantity, but “full/ empty” are fundamental adjectives. The above example shows how these ordinary adjectives require the existence of the fundamental adjectives in order to have a meaning.

 

          In the case of colors, only black and white are fundamental adjectives. Because of day and night, the color black is related to the absence of light (night), and the color white is related to the presence of light (day). Here the important point is only the existence of the opposite which conveys a meaning. The following example will clarify this point more: Imagine that you live in a world where everything has the color red. In this condition the color red has no meaning for us because there is no any other color to compare with. But if suddenly another color would appear in this red world, then immediately we would become aware of the red color and it would have a meaning because there exists something which is not like itself red, i.e. “non- red”, and this other color will attain the status of the opposite or antonym. If we look more carefully at this easily understandable example, we will see that the main point of this example is not the red color in itself, because we could have used any other color. The main point is found in the word “none” (i.e. “not”) because it is a fundamental adjective related to the meaning of “to be and to be not” or “presence and absence”, and without the opposite there would be no meaning. Or for example, "happiness" versus "sorrow" are fundamental adjectives because they have two clear opposite meanings. Now imagine that you would be in a state a continuous happiness. In that case happiness would have no meaning to you and you would be not aware of it because its opposite i.e. sorrow must be experienced in order for happiness to have a meaning. Or conversely, if you would be in a state of continuous sorrow, then in this case too, sorrow would have no meaning and you would be not aware of it because its opposite or antonym is needed.

 

          When we were still a child, the name "sun" had no meaning for us. The very first meaning about the sun which got recorded into our memory was that the sun is bright and has light. At that time the brightness of the sun was the only meaning which mattered. "Bright" or "light" have the opposite meaning of "dark". Maybe at that time we called the sun just "light". In fact we still had not learned the word "sun", and we maybe just produced some sounds which had the meaning of "bright". Later on we learned to call it the "sun", whose main meaning was the fundamental adjective "bright". With the passing of time, more adjectives become included and the meaning of the sun grew and developed in our mind. For example we knew that we cannot look straight into the sun because our eyes could not bear the pain. Then we knew that the sun is sometimes present and sometimes absent i.e. that it comes and goes. Also we knew that the sun is round, warm, etc. and in this way the meaning of the "sun" was in a state of continuous development and growth.

 

          Of course when we were a child, the meaning of the word "bright", in the case of the sun, had not the same meaning which it has for us today. Today we make a difference between "bright" and, for example, "burning", but in our childhood we made no difference between these two meanings. For us the sun was something which we could not stare at it because it had a burning sensation for our eyes. At that beginning stage of our life, we expressed all the properties of the sun with one single word. The important point here is the alternate presence and absence of that property because if that property (i.e. light) would be always present, then we would never become aware of its presence. It is only due to the absence of presence that that we become aware of its presence and its presence becomes meaningful. In our childhood the adjective "bright" had the position of a name (i.e. noun) and there was no any difference between adjective and noun. But with the passing of time and growing older, these two become separated and the name "sun" acquired one meaning, and the adjective "bright" acquired another meaning. For example, a lamp can be bright but is not a sun. Here the word "bright" can have a meaning independent of the word sun, but the meaning of the word "sun" cannot be easily separated from the meaning of the word "bright". Nevertheless, the sun is the cause for the existence of the word "bright" because the sun is the main source of light; and our mind, by means of the eyes and memory and the alternate presence and absence of the stimulus light, becomes aware of this stimulus. The experience of this stimulus is then expressed with the words "dark" and "bright". In fact, (using the computer as analogy) the name "sun" is a directory in our mind in which all the files containing information about the sun are recorded. By summarizing all the aforementioned explanations we can see that the root of a name (i.e. noun) is the adjectives, or in other words, the adjectives are the main factors for a name to acquire a meaning. Also we have seen that the adjectives have their root in the fundamental adjectives whose two main roots are the positive and negative factors contained in the two words "yes/ no".

 

 

Below is given a short list of some fundamental adjectives:

 

 

          In the above examples, it is not important for our present purpose which adjective belongs to the positive or the negative group. That what is of importance is the polarity i.e. the clear opposite meanings of each of these fundamental adjectives. If we contemplate a bit more on the meanings of these fundamental adjectives we will see that they are all related to the fundamental meaning (main root) of "be" and "be not", or "yes/ no". Fundamental adjectives determine and define two extremes. Now we can create countless expressions which are all based and related to these two extremes. For example, "heavy" and "light" are two fundamental adjectives which define two extremes, and between these two extremes we have for example the expression "equilibrium" (i.e. equal weight), or any kind of metric units for measurement like "gram", "kilogram", etc. or between "fast/ slow" there are many expressions and units of measurement. Or between "cold/ hot", or "long/ short" we have the expressions of centigrade, Fahrenheit, meter, kilometer, and so on which all cannot exist independently and require the fundamental adjectives in order to have meaning. Therefore the roots of all these kinds of expressions are the fundamental adjectives.

 

          In case of colors, one can consider black and white as fundamental adjectives because they have two clear opposite meanings and are related to the presence or the absence of light. Black and white define the two extremes on whose base, all the other colors acquire a meaning. In case of the numbers we have seen earlier that according to mathematical logics, only the number "1" and "0" which have the meaning of "be" and "be not", are fundamental adjectives, and all the other numbers are just derivatives.

 

          In respect to verbs (as mentioned before, in this simple analysis we use two groups of words only, i.e. the nouns and the adjectives. Any word belonging not to the group of nouns should be considered as belonging to the group of adjectives) like "to cut", "to swim", "to speak", etc. they are all no fundamental adjectives because they do not have a clear opposite or antonym. Of course we could create their opposite meaning by means of negation i.e. by using the word "not' and their synonyms, like "not to cut", "not to swim", "not to speak", etc., but in this case the main factor would be the word "not" i.e. "no" which is the main root of the fundamental adjectives. Of course there are some verbs which have a clear opposite or antonym like "to loose/ to find", "to build/ to destroy", etc. As we can see, our method of analyzing words and human language is based only on two factors i.e. the positive and negative factor. In this method we do not need the categorizations used in grammar and linguistics. To discuss whether a word is a conjunction, preposition, verb, adverb, etc. is for us of no importance because they are all rooted in the fundamental adjectives. Words which are used in questions like "why, where, who, when, etc." are all non fundamental because they appear very late in the vocabulary of a child.

 

 

 

General Conclusions

 

 

          This above brief analysis on the root of human language given above should be sufficient in order to understand that the root of our language are the adjectives, and the root of the adjectives are the fundamental adjectives, and the root of the fundamental adjectives are two meanings contained in the words of “yes” and “no”. In other words, the two opposite meanings of the words “yes/ no” are the main roots of our language like the whole structure of mathematics or the function of a computer which is based on the two numbers (binary) of “1” and “0” and which are synonymous to “yes/ no”, i.e. positive and negative. This is the real meaning of the term “dualism” which has since ancient times engaged the mind of philosophers dividing the existence into the positive and negative principle (i.e. good and bad), and on which our present day science, technology and way of thinking are based too. Opposite to dualism was always the term “monism” which believes in only one principle and not two. But from the viewpoint of Universal Parallelism we will see both from a new and  "higher"  perspective.

  

Now with this new viewpoint on the nature of our human language we will now return to the Weltanschauung and philosophy of the “Equilibrium Theory”. As we have seen earlier, according to the Equilibrium Theory these two opposing meanings of positive and negative do in reality not exist – because positive is equal to negative. These two opposing meanings exist in our mind only and are the result of our limited relative perception of our environment, the alternate presence and absence of stimulus, and the way we interpret these perceptions which is finally a matter of ideology. This is the central point of our problem, and the following discussions will clarify this more.

 

          For example, an observer who stands on the planet earth will see that the sun moves round the earth whereas in “reality” it is not the sun but the earth which moves round the sun. It is correct that the observer experiences this phenomenon in the opposite way, but it would not be correct if he presumes that his experience is the final truth and anybody who thinks otherwise must be wrong or insane. Today we got used to the idea that the above observer’s experience is a relative truth and not an absolute or self- evident truth, but in ancient times this was an absolute truth, so also with the meanings of “above” and “below”. The sky had the meaning of “above”, and the earth had the meaning of “below”, and these were absolute truths. But if we investigate these truths more closely we will see that that part of the sky which is now above our head will be 12 hours later – due to the 24 hour rotation of the earth around its axis – be below our feet (of course this applies only for an observer who stands near the equatorial region and not the polar region). It was difficult for the ancients to imagine that the earth is spherical and not flat because they thought that if the earth is spherical, than anything below the earth must fall down; for those people the meaning of “above or up” and “below or down” had an absolute true meaning. Today we know that these concepts are no more self- evident truths but relative.

 

          The above examples try to show that how with the passing of time, meanings and concepts of ideas change, and something which is true today, will become known as wrong or relative tomorrow. We should learn from the past. Today we think that our knowledge is much more advanced than compared to the ancients, and that for example, we have correct understanding on the meanings of “above” and “below”, and that we know that it is the earth which moves round the sun. But here too, we should be careful not to be like the ancients and think that our present knowledge and perceptions are final truths and that except progress of knowledge and understanding of reality any fundamental change will not occur. If for example, somebody would tell you today that it is the sun which in reality moves around the earth and not the other way round, then your reaction would be similar to the reactions of the ancients and you would not believe it because for you it is an absolute truth that it is the earth which moves round the sun. But according the “Equilibrium Theory”, all our present concepts will change again. Today there are so many concepts, ideas and believes which we consider as absolute or self- evident truths but which in reality, are simply relative, myths and fables of which we are not aware.

 

          According  the Equilibrium Theory we have seen that if an observer compares two rules of which one ruler is 1 meter long and the other one is 2 meters long, he will see that one ruler is two times longer than the other ruler, and this perception he will consider as an absolute truth or self- evident reality. It would be difficult for him to imagine that in reality both rulers are equally long. But according the above theory, his perception has nothing to do with reality because his perception is based on his imperfect senses as well as on his position as an observer in terms of contraction and expansion, i.e. on his smallness or bigness, that is, on his size. It is correct that he perceives the 2 meter long ruler as twice as long as the 1 meter ruler, but it will be not correct to consider this as an absolute reality because both objects have equal capacity and contain in themselves, infinite space and time. In other words, it means that both rulers contain infinite amount of places from where the observer can observe his surroundings, and this fact is only dependent on the size (i.e. smallness or bigness) of the observer. Of course one could almost argue that the observer on his infinite journey of contraction will always perceive these two rulers as one being twice as long as the other, and therefore “long” and “short” have absolute or self- evident meanings. But here we should remember that the words “short/ long” are fundamental adjectives, also it should be taken into consideration that the observer’s infinite journey   of contraction has no limit – if such a limit or end would  exist then such an argument would be valid. In view of the above facts, both rulers obtain equal status. Here only contraction and expansion are of importance. For example, if the observer expands himself to the size of the solar-system then he would see the planets circling the sun, and if he would contract himself to the size of one trillionth of an electron then he would observe some other kind of systems. But why should we consider certain numerical expressible sizes only?  Instead we could imagine contracting our self infinitely smaller than an atom and such an imagination would in no way be far from the truth. Only contraction and expansion matters, and if we contemplate a bit deeper on these two concepts – like our imaginary journey of contraction and expansion mentioned earlier – than we can easily understand that these two concepts have no real meaning, because there is no limit  therefore it is impossible to determine which direction is contraction and which one is expansion. It is at this point that that expansion becomes equal to its opposite or antonym and both become one and the same. Here the two opposing meanings of contraction and expansion disappear because they have neutralized each other, or you could as well say  positive has become equal to negative. 

                                  

          If an observer would stand on such an infinite small particle belonging, for example, to a grain of sand and would start investigating his environment, he would certainly think that his universe is very big, having uncountable galaxies, and maybe he would never realize the fact that his known universe is just a small particle of a grain of sand which is somewhere on a particle called “the planet earth “, maybe lying on the bed of a river, and this planet earth is circling around another particle “which we call our sun” which itself is circling  around the center of another particle (galaxy) which we call the “milky way” and which itself is moving (i.e. circling) in some direction (around a another central point), and so on. If we look at our night sky with all their beautiful stars, we certainly think how immense this universe is. But the stars which we see are just the particles of another super big particle (“who knows, maybe belonging just to a super big dust or light- particle?”); remember our imaginary journey of contraction! That what exist in the world of “macro”, repeats itself in the world of “micro”. In other words our present known universe which we consider as unimaginative big is itself just a particle of another super- big particle.

 

          In the previous sections we tried to show that the meanings and concepts which exist in our language are based on the two opposing factors of positive and negative. But now our endeavor is to show that these two opposing factors do in reality not exist and therefore our human language is an imperfect instrument for transmitting real truth. Because if we try to transmit the true reality by words it would appear to an ordinary mind as contradictory and paradox; for example if I would make the statement that the “sun” exists, it would be an acceptable statement for any ordinary person. Although this statement is “true” but it does not convey the true reality to the ordinary person and is deficient. In order to convey the true reality, the above statement must be, according to the “Equilibrium Theory”, accompanied by its negation or the opposite statement i.e. “the sun does not exist”. This apparently contradictory statement is similar to as having said nothing, i.e. silence, because they neutralized each other.

 

          Up to now we have examined several of these opposing concepts (i.e. fundamental adjectives) like “contraction/ expansion”, “big/ small”, “long/ short”, etc., and we have seen that these opposing concepts do not exit in reality; therefore we can conclude that this will hold true for all the other fundamental adjectives as well. We could start now examining each fundamental adjective separately and arrive logically at the conclusion that they are equal to their antonym and do not have a true absolute meaning. Such a separate discussion would be very time consuming and endless. But such a separate examination of all the fundamental adjectives is not needed because if the root of all the fundamental adjectives looses his opposing meanings (i.e. polarity) then all the other fundamental adjectives which are derivatives of this root (i.e. “yes/ no”) will by neutralizing each other loose their opposing meanings too, and thus become equal, or one.

That is why we were searching for the main root of our language.

    Now if I would attempt to transmit my real thoughts by words then I would have to negate simultaneously each and every statement  I make. Such a writing would certainly appear as something totally absurd, and the reader would think that  what is the use of reading it at all  because it does not transmit anything but nonsense which in its final analysis would be equal to silence. In fact the true message and reality is hidden in this apparently nonsense or silence.

To give an example, below I will negate the general meaning of each statement of the above paragraph which will look something like the below statements written in blue color :

 

Now if I would attempt to transmit my real thoughts by words 

         Now if I would  not  attempt to transmit my real  thoughts by words

then I would have to negate simultaneously 

         then I would not  have to  negate  simultaneously

each and every statement  I make.

         each and every statement  I do not  make.

Such a writing would certainly appear as something totally absurd,

        Such a writing would certainly not  appear as something totally absurd,

and the reader would think that  what is the use of reading it at all

        and the reader would  not   think that what is the use of reading it at all

 because it does not transmit anything,

       because it transmits everything ,

but nonsense which in its final analysis would be equal to silence.

          except nonsense which in its final analysis would be not equal to silence.

In fact the true message and reality is hidden in this nonsense or silence.

         In fact the true message and reality  is not hidden in this nonsense or silence .

 

    As you see, these writings appear absurd and without any meaning but that's how reality will appear in its final analysis when trying to transmit it by words. We just should be simply aware that the negation of any statement has the equal right to be true, however it may appear absurd to our present conditioned mentality. We should be always aware that any statement is only true when accompanied by its negation. In one way, this awareness of keeping intellectually the balance between the duality of positive and negative  is a highly dynamic thinking process which by reflecting and meditating more on it will become a natural part of our mental outlook and free our mind of all its conditioning. It is a kind of neutralization process  by which our present mental outlook that is based on dualism and is a kind of a deep dream and illusion in which we are absorbed, becomes eradicated and will result in the kind of neo- monism which we had naturally when we were still a new born child and  internally completely free of any wants and sufferings.

End of the section "A brief analysis of human language ".

 

***

Further reflections :

 

          It is not the world which is build on two opposing principles (i.e. positive/ negative), it is only our mind which interprets the phenomenal world as being build on two opposing principles. The reason of why our mind acts in this way is that our mind can perceive only two possible modes which consist of the presence or absence of stimulus. In other words, it means that our mind is either aware of the presence of stimulus which are perceived by our five senses, or our mind is aware of the absence of stimulus. Our mind’s awareness of these two possible modes results in the creation of the fundamental adjectives. This is also the reason of why all the relevant factors in any kind of analysis can be finally reduced and divided into two groups i.e. the positive and negative factors. This is also the reason why mathematics is based on only two main pillars (i.e. 1 and 0), and the same is reflected in the way a computer functions.

 

          The ability of our senses is highly limited, and all our information is relative, but we use these relative information as a true foundation for all our reasoning and inferences, and according to the conditions of our environment we acquire a certain philosophy and Weltanschauung. But the human mind which is the center of processing these information and perceptions has the ability to become aware of the relative nature of this information, and finally reach that Weltanschauung which he had when he was an infant (i.e. the kind of “monism” mentioned earlier). Of course an infant has no Weltanschauung yet because his mind and memory is clear and has not reached that stage of development needed to make use of his memory. Exactly due to this very reason the infant is in a natural way in a state which is the final aim we try to reach as an adult by means of our intellect. We as adults have lost that state due to wrong upbringing and education, and are deeply absorbed in a kind of daydream full of self-evident facts and truths trying to explain and justify the phenomenal world. But we can regain that state by means of pure logic and intellect; of course there are other means too in order to attain that aim. Few of them are for example the true central aim of religions which are in general lost nowadays behind the external or peripheral aspects of religious rituals; or by the means of yoga, meditation, etc.

 

Because we speak much about the five senses, few fundamental facts about these senses should be understood.

 

The senses of all living beings are with some variations adapted to the service of the most important organ, namely the genitals, whose function and mission is to procreate. In order to keep this most important organ active and to protect it, all the other organs and senses do their specific functions. To keep the genitals alive and working, the stomach has to provide the energy. In order to supply the input i.e. food for the stomach or the digestive organs, all the other organs and senses have their specific duties. The main function of all the other organs and the senses is to look out for the opposite sex, food and protect the body. The function of the legs and the hands is to approach the opposite sex and to collect foodstuff. Similarly the function of the senses, that is, the eyes, nose, ear, taste and touch is to sense out the opposite sex, find food and protect the genitals. In short, all the organs and senses are the inferior servants of the genitals. That is the reason why the issue of the opposite sex is the most important issue in any bodies live, the society, religions and so forth. One does not need to study psychology in order to understand this rather obvious fact. Anybody who does some self analysis and contemplates a bit more on this point, will easily understand this. It is not degenerating to consider human beings as “walking genitals”, it is a simple reality which, with some variations, holds true for all living beings. That humans consider themselves as superior to other living beings is a misconception which has its roots in the definition of the two concepts of “superior” and its counterpart “inferior”. In the following sections of this article this point will become more clear to the readers.

 

 

          For example if we see an object which is green colored and square shaped, then our “common sense” will interpret this fact as true and self- evident. We perceive this color as green because the nature and constitution of our human eye has this particular ability. There are many other living beings that may not see this object as green. So also the square form of this object; it is due to the particular ability of our human eye that we perceive this object as square shaped. Our human eye can perceive only a very insignificant amount of an object’s properties. For example there are many other kinds of properties, like the emissions of rays (of which certainly many are still unknown), which our eye cannot perceive.

 

          Our sense of touch is similarly limited. If we perceive by the sense of our touch an object as square shaped, it is due to the particular ability of this sense of touch which is very limited. In the same way as our eyes can perceive only a small part of the spectrum, in the same way our sense of touch can perceive only a very insignificant amount of an object’s property. All the properties of an object do not consist of what our senses perceive. There are many radiations for example which are imperceptible to our sense, but the human mind has the ability to compensate these limitations. For example, in modern physics there are many methods by which imperceptible radiations can be transformed in such a manner so as to be perceptible to our sense.

 

          In view of the fact that particles are infinitely divisible, one must assume that the particles which make up an object, must be present everywhere and have a direct relation to that object. It would mean that an object has extensions which due to our limited perceptions are imperceptible to our sense, but are perceivable by means of inference. In other words, it means that an object is not only infinite in the direction of contraction, but also in the direction of expansion. That part of an object which is perceptible to our senses is in fact a very insignificant part. To imagine that an object is infinite in the direction of contraction is not very difficult, but to imagine that an object has an extension which is infinite too is seemingly much more difficult because that part is imperceptible to our senses. To a certain extent it can be compared with the clouds because the particles which form a cloud exist everywhere in the earth’s atmosphere and could be considered as the cloud’s extensions, and the reason that we can see a cloud is only because at certain places these particles are more densely distributed. Actually in the universe there exists no empty space, and it is only due to our limited perception that we perceive some places as empty. Here we can see again how the opposite meanings of the fundamental adjectives “full/ empty” or “to be/ to be not” loose their opposing meanings because if  the whole space were to be full then the concepts of “full/ empty” would have no meaning because there would be no empty space which could be taken for comparison. We could as well claim that the whole space is empty which would be equally true. These are relative concepts which have a meaning only to our imperfect perceptions, but according to the “Equilibrium Theory or Relative Relativity”, both are one and the same, or in other words, positive is equal to negative.

 

          We all know that the form of an object is inconstant and always in a state of change. It is only the speed of change which differs for different objects. For example the mountains change their form very slowly, but the clouds change their forms very fast. Here we are talking about “speed” which, like “space”, is inseparable from “time”, because speed can be defined only in terms of time. But according the Equilibrium Theory we have seen that contraction and expansion – which are also inseparable from time – are equal i.e. one and the same. In other words, the smallest time unit is equal to the greatest time unit, and this will mean that a time span equal to infinity, is equal to zero. Therefore the concept of time will automatically acquire a different meaning and will result in ideas which are seemingly difficult to be comprehended. For example, in reality objects do not change their form, which means that nothing comes into existence and nothing looses its existence, nothing gets born and nothing becomes old and nothing dies. In other words, we are always existing “i.e. not existing” (because its negation has the equal right to be truth). An object has no beginning and no end. It is only to our imperfect and relative perception that we see an object as having a certain form and color, and consider one object to be different from other objects. If our information about an object were complete then we would know everything, and we would have full knowledge of about the past, present and future of the whole existence because that object is not different from the whole existence. In this case, since we would have knowledge of everything, our knowledge would be equal to zero, or equal to knowing nothing, and this would be equal to the consciousness of an infant. This is exactly the same message which is expressed by the statement “zero is equal to infinity”.

 

          A scientist who is doing research work and finally invents for example the telephone, does not mean that he is the cause for the invention of the telephone. The telephone had to appear at that point of history, and the scientist had to do all the activities needed for the invention of the telephone. In fact, the mental activities of this scientist had nothing to do with the invention of the telephone because every thought and every decision which occurred in the scientist’s mind had to occur at that particular moment of history. Because the activities of the mind are faster than the physical activities of the body, it appears as if the mind is making decisions which are executed by the body. All the thoughts and decisions which occur in the mind are due to the least resistance on the path of the currents of thoughts and not due to the “free will” of the scientist. It is comparable to the current of a river which follows a certain course determined by the least resistance on its path. The water flows in that direction which has the least resistance, and similarly, our thoughts flow in that direction which has the least resistance. In fact the scientist is just trying to justify with his knowledge the phenomenal world. According the Principle of Universal Parallelism our body thinks, makes decisions, feels, exerts will power, and acts according a predefined program which is computable and predictable. The scientist, like everybody else is just an observer who has mistakenly associated his real identity with the physical and mental activities of his body and thinks that he is the performer. The only thing our mind does is to justify the phenomenal world. Some are of the opinion that the mind does nothing else except creating fantasies and fictions. A small poem given by the great Iranian poet Omar Khayyam goes like this:

 

 

The Revelations of Devout and Learn'd

Who rose before us, and as Prophets burn'd,

Are all but Stories, which, awoke from Sleep,

They told their fellows, and to Sleep return'd.

 

   It is a pitiful situation that man is not aware of his real identity and because of relative truths which he considers as true reality, he lives in a world full of imaginary fears and problems. It would be much better if mankind become aware of their real  identity and understand that they are not a “performer” but simply an “observer”. According the Equilibrium Theory there is no difference between the performer and observer, or between "passive" and "active" because of the absence of duality both are in reality one and the same. But here I put special emphasis on the "observer" because most people consider themselves as "performer". For this reason the side of the observer is being taken in order to help understand that the opposite has equal right, and to facilitate the underlying philosophy and ideology of the Equilibrium Theory. This ideology and its logic does not allow our intellect to rely on only one side of this two extremes because it is always aware that both extremes (i.e. positive and negative) have equal right and are one and the same. It does not mean that the above ideology which is a kind of "neo- monism" is better than its opposite i.e. dualism. The ideology of the Equilibrium Theory or neo- monism is an ideology which a dynamic and sharp intellect will impose upon the individual. In the ideology of dualism which makes an absolute distinction between positive and negative, we know happiness because we have experienced pain, and vice versa. These two extremes are complementary to each other and the degree of happiness is always in the proportion as pain, and vice versa. In order to achieve an equilibrium or balance, these two extremes must be experienced which means that happiness has to be experienced in order to balance out the exact proportion of sorrow which has been experienced, and vice versa. Because the experience of these two extremes is only to create equilibrium, therefore it is impossible that one can experience one of these two extremes more than the other. In other words, however much we try to obtain happiness more than its counterpart pain, this will be a vain attempt because both extremes he must experience in the same proportion.

 

          Now somebody who is anchored in the ideology of the Equilibrium Theory or "neo- monism", will in regard to the experience of happiness and pain not differ from a person who is anchored in the ideology of dualism because in neo- monism he is in the center of his consciousness always in the state of equilibrium. Because the experience of happiness and pain is interpreted by the intellect and memory, therefore from the viewpoint of neo- monism both experiences have no real meaning and are one and the same (similar to the conscious state of an infant), it is only from the viewpoint of dualism that these two opposite extremes have a clear separate meaning. In neo- monism, happiness and pain have the same meaning which they have for an infant. Because for the infant, happiness and pain have no meaning therefore the infant is in the center of his consciousness not affected by them. In other words, happiness and pain are dependent on the body and mind, and because the infant has not associated himself with his body and mind yet, the core of his consciousness is in a state which is far away from the physical activities of the body as if the physical condition of his body has nothing to do with himself.

 

          The reason why I always refer to an infant is that the Weltanschauung of the infant is equal to zero, i.e. it has no Weltanschauung at all. And as we have seen earlier, zero is equal to infinity, and this means that the more our knowledge increases, the closer it will come to zero or nothing. If one were supposed to know each and every thing and be aware of the past, present and future of the whole existence, in short, to be omniscient, then this state would be exactly equal to  zero or to knowing nothing, because if we would know everything then there would be no unknowable which could be taken for comparison so that its opposite, i.e. knowledge, becomes meaningful.

 

          If we can comprehend the message of the Equilibrium Theory deeply, which means to become anchored in the ideology of neo- monism, then we will have a real freedom from want, and the best example of this condition is the infant’s state of consciousness. Although a child has the physical need for food, air, proper temperature, etc. but in the central core of his consciousness he is completely free and independent from these wants, and it will make no difference for him if his needs are satisfied or not. Here the central problem is the meaning of “I” and “me”, and the first thing an intelligent human being must do is to understand this “I”. That what most people consider as their “I”, is an identity which has been imposed upon him by his surroundings, parents, society, etc. this is an “I” and identity which is completely conditioned by the above factors. From times immemorial, there were always people or rather spiritualists who tried to convey this type of ideology which acquired the name of monism, but lost its real meaning. These people used their own language for conveying this message according to time, place, social and mental conditions of their time. For example, Jesus Christ referred on several occasions to the mental state of a child while preaching his message.

 

          According to the Bible (see reference 3), on one occasion people brought their children to Jesus in order to bless them. But his disciples did not allow the folk to bring their children to Jesus. When Jesus became aware his disciples behavior he told them “let the children come to me because the kingdom of God belongs to those who are like these children”. On another occasion (see reference 4) the disciples asked Jesus as who has the highest position in the kingdom of God? In order to answer their question, Jesus placed a child in their midst and told them “if you do not return, and do not become like these children, you will not enter the kingdom of God. Who can be so small like this child, he will be the greatest in the heaven”.

 

          The above parables have been quoted so as to be useful for Christians. Jesus tried to tell the same idea as given in this paper, but he said it in such a manner so as to be comprehensible by those people some 2000 years ago.

 

          A parable of Emam Ali (Muslim saint) gives the central idea of the ideology of Universal Parallelism in a very concise manner. Quote:

         

“The world is two days only. One day is in your favor, the other day is against you. At the day which is in your favor, do not get drunk (i.e. do not loose yourselves, your humanity, justice and humbleness), at the day which is against you,  be patient”.

         

The above quotation is in the light of Universal Parallelism highly meaningful if interpreted properly. The two days refer to the duality of the positive and the negative which are equal and which we obtain in exactly the same measure. If his intention were not to imply that plus is equal to negative, then there would be no need to divide the world into two opposing parts and say that "the world is two days only". In those days it was simply not possible to explain this subject with the language as used in this paper.

 

          The ideology of Universal Parallelism or "neo-monism" is a state of consciousness where you see everything with the same eye, that is, you do not see any difference. This state is similar to the state of deep sleep. The only difference is that you are conscious and your body and mind keep on doing their pre programmed activities like exerting will power, making decisions, remembering, feeling, eating, drinking, etc. it is almost that kind of state when you were an infant. Your body was alive, but you were in the center of your consciousness unmoved by your bodily activities. The infant is in a natural way in the state of "neo- monism" because his conscious memory was not active yet. But we as grownup persons have our memory in an active state. Our whole problem is this memory which records the experiences of pleasure and pain. The aim is to neutralize this memory, and the ideology of Universal Parallelism does exactly this neutralization. A real "intelligent" and healthy person who is full of live and energy will and must ask himself why he is suffering, and thus starts analyzing himself until he finally understands that his problem is just his mind and memory of which he must free himself. If one really understands this ideology, he automatically gets transformed to a new person.

 

          In view of the fact that there are many different ideologies whose follower consider their ideology to be "superior" to other ideologies, the present ideology of Universal Parallelism seems to be one of them which claims to be superior. But by understanding this ideology properly, we will see that this is not the case. The logic of this ideology does not allow to consider itself superior. It is the dimension of time which controls everything and which will decide at what period which ideology will be in force, and thus superior.

 

          Understanding this ideology will change your attitude to life and the way of living. It will create a new man which is the only way if humanity wants to survive. Because without this new man, and without changing the way of living as mentioned earlier, there is no way for humanity to survive. We talk about peace, but peace is not possible if we think that we can obtain happiness more than its antonym i.e. pain and sorrow.

 

          As we can on base of dualism divide the existence into the two fundamental groups of positive and negative  therefore  the polarity of night and day is parallel to the polarity of sleep and its antonym  (conscious state), and this is parallel to the polarity of monism and dualism.  When we are asleep we see everything with the “same eye” and are actually in “absolute knowledge”, and when we are not asleep we are in ignorance and see everything with “different eyes” (the polarity of knowledge and ignorance).  Sleep is parallel to death, and to be awake is parallel to live. In the state of sleep (or death), pleasure and pain are in absolute equilibrium or zero. When we are not asleep, pleasure and pain are fluctuating in order to balance out each other. The concepts of the polarity of “paradise” and “hell” which many consider as equal to eternal bliss and eternal suffering will have no difference in regard to the relative experiences of pleasure and pain because in both states we will obtain pleasure and pain in exactly the equal measure. That what I am trying to say is that it does not matter what kind of person you are, whether you religious or irreligious, a kind or an evil person, an oppressor or a “Mother Theresa”, in each case you will experience pleasure and pain in equal measure. I personally prefer the ideology of neo- monism because it imposes itself by means of my intellect upon me. But it does not mean that it is a better ideology. Attraction is the criteria of what is “true”. That what is more attractive has more right. Attraction is a function of time. Time controls everything. It is the time which determines which ideology prevails and is more attractive at certain period. Time is the supreme ruler.

 

          Here I shall quote a verse from the Bhagavad- gītā which is the holy book of the Hindus, as the Bible is the holy book for the Christians and the Koran is the holy book of the Muslims.

 

"What is night for all beings is the time of awakening for the self-controlled; and the time of awakening for all beings is night for the introspective sage."

Bhagavad- gītā (chapter 2, verse 69)

 

          The above verse conveys the same message as the Universal Parallelism. But we should be aware that books just convey statements which are made up of words, and as mentioned before any statement will convey true reality only when it is accompanied by its negation. But it is not necessary to negate each statement in order to convey truth by means of words. It is sufficient to be just aware of it. From the perspective of Universal Parallelism the negation is always implied, and it is this awareness of the negation (which has the equal right to be true) that is the heart and focus of the ideology of U.P. and which has to be understood logically. We have to unlearn everything in order to see the existence from its true perspective. Our present perspective is exactly 180 degrees opposed   to the true perspective, and most humans look at the existence from this perspective and base their reasoning and ideology on this perspective.

 

          It is important to understand that all the concepts and meanings which are transferred by means of language i.e. words, have no real meaning and are all relative. All these concepts and meanings exist only in our mind, and are subject to our upbringing. That we consider relative concepts as real or self- evident truths are in fact an educational matter. If we would have got proper upbringing from our very childhood, we would not now be living with an imaginary and conditioned identity and be drowned in “self- evident truths”. The older one gets, the deeper these self- evident truths will get rooted, and to uproot them will be more difficult.

 

          Because opposites do not exist, therefore according to the Equilibrium Theory whatever has been written in this paper and you have been reading, do not have any real meaning, because if I wanted to convey real truth by means of words, then I had to contradict i.e. negate immediately each statement, which means I had to present every statement along with its opposite. For example if I would say that the real size of the sun is bigger than an apple (i.e. S>A), then I had to mention its opposite as well, i.e. the real size of the sun is smaller than an apple (i.e. S<A), and these statements would be equal to saying nothing or silence (because they neutralize each other). For our present state of mind, truth will always sound paradox. The above message is the heart and focus of the Equilibrium Theory and its underlying ideology of neo- monism. With the above statement I am actually telling you that this paper and its content is all "nonsense". Here we can see that with this viewpoint it is not possible to claim that the ideology of universal parallelism is superior to other ideologies. Maybe it is the first time that an author (any author loves his work like his child and considers it as very important) dismisses his own work as “nonsense”. But this is a necessary conclusion from the perspective of the Equilibrium Theory. The statement “this book is nonsense” is equal to its opposite statement (its negation), i.e. “this book is not nonsense”, i.e. full of meaning, because both statements have the equal right to claim to be true. Explaining this subject in this manner, is the only way to convey reality by means of words. Although in this way all statements neutralize themselves and become contradictory and “meaningless”, but nevertheless they bring the point home.

 

A child who is still in his mother's womb, because his “knowledge” is zero therefore we can say that he knows everything, he is in the pure state of neo- monism. After birth, slowly with the passing of time, he starts to get drown in self- evident truths and to associate his identity with his body, and this of course through the help of his parents and the society. The child is in fact more independent and more free from want than we are, and it is just in out mind that we think the child needs food, care, love, etc. Even if  we “cut the child into pieces”, of course it will cry because it is a physical reaction, but in the core of his consciousness he will not suffer because it does not  know what pain and pleasure are. This is due to the fact that it has not associated himself with his body yet. It is for this reason that it would make for us no difference what happened to us in the early stages of our childhood, and it is for this reason that we cannot remember that early stage of life.  These are the grownups who think that the child suffers or that he is in need of something because we the grownups see only  the external body of the child and not the core of the child's consciousness, we compare the inner state of the child with ourselves and think that the child interprets stimulations as we do. The child does not interpret anything yet (this could be why Jesus said “don’t judge less you be judged”). These are the parents and the society with its schools and universities who teach the child certain kind of interpretations and knowledge    and self- evident truths and make the child like themselves. Because the child is in a state of perfect neo- monism, he does not know any "fear" or its antonym "courage", no “aim” and no “aimlessness”, no “good” and no “bad”, no “meaning”  and no “nonsense”. If man uses his intellect properly with all its capacity, he will automatically return to that state of neo- monism which he had when he was still an infant. This is only due to a low and medium intellect which has being  not properly trained that knows self- evident truths, and tries to justify and explain  with his knowledge   the worldly phenomena. And because of this he tries very hard to obtain happiness in a greater proportion then its counterpart which is an impossible undertaking, and this very senseless hope is a factor to oppress himself and others.

 

Among the 3 main principles of Universal Parallelism only the 1^st principle is related to neo- monism. Dualism starts with the 2^nd principle which is needed to explain natural phenomenon and to create all the apparent infinite varieties of nature. With the 3^rd principle we  can apply practically the 2^nd principle and explain  the “mysteries” of the existence using the superior reasoning process of the parallel relationship  as opposed to the “cause- effect relationship”  which is a rather awkward reasoning process but nevertheless workable.

 

          The ideology of the Universal Parallelism tries to make us understand the illusion of dualism, and return to the state of   neo- monism i.e. the 1^st Principle. The 1^st principle defines the “complete reality” which means infinity. Infinity we can not divide into 2 elementary subunits of positive and negative  as we have done with the 2^nd principle because infinity is not divisible. Something which has no beginning or end, how can you divide it? There can be only one infinity because there will be no room left for something else. Infinity requires everything in order to be infinity. The meaning of infinity is the most enlightening and the most natural meaning, but we take it too lightly. Since our childhood whatever object we saw in our environment had a beginning and an end. There was and is nothing which is permanent. Therefore, because our mind is not used to it, it is difficult to imagine that something can be without a beginning or end. The meaning of infinity or eternal is difficult to comprehend and can be understood only by means of inference. To understand the meaning of infinity more deeply will result in acquiring a new perspective of viewing the existence, and many questions will become automatically answered.

 

          A good and simple method which I recommend for obtaining a deeper comprehension of the meaning of infinity (the most meaningful word in our dictionary, which the more we think and meditate on it  the more we become enlightened), which will keep growing like a powerful tree, is by just spending 10-15 minutes every day doing the aforementioned imaginary journey of contraction and expansion. To obtain the best results, it should be performed with the highest concentration possible as if you do meditation or prayer. By constant repetition it will build in your brain a cell structure which due to constant repetition will grow into more complex structure serving as a basis to understand intellectually the important points of this new ideology and to neutralize your knowledge which is a prerequisite for understanding the ideology of Universal Parallelism, and to experience and live it.

 

          At the end I want to point out that between dualism and "neo- monism" is a very subtle difference. The world today is governed by modern science and has everybody in its grip. Among all the sciences, the science of mathematics takes the highest place and rules over everything. The forceful power of mathematics starts when we accept that 1+1=2. If this is accepted, then all the terms and rules of mathematics become compulsory and impose themselves upon our logic, and this forms the foundation of dualism, i.e. the opposite of neo- monism. But if we accept the definition of the Equilibrium Theory that 1+1=1 which is equal to zero and infinity (1+1=1=0=∞), then we will have to accept everything said in this paper and which may appear at first strange and contradictory. We have to look at this matter in this way that mathematics is based on an incomplete definition, and on a complete definition which is explained in the Equilibrium Theory. The incomplete definition is that definition which is nowadays everywhere in use. In the incomplete definition there is no place for the complete definition, whereas in the complete definition there is a place for incomplete too because according the complete definition, the  incomplete definition has the equal right to be true. In other words, in the incomplete definition 1+1=2 and has no any other meaning, whereas in the complete definition, one plus one is two too, but at the same time 1+1=1=0=∞ and there is no any contradiction involved. It is a mistake not to give attention to the complete definition only because it appears contradictory. The real message is in this seemingly contradictory statement, and the whole purpose of this paper is to make this message understandable. Reality cannot be expressed by words, and any attempt to do so will result in contradictory and paradox statements which is almost equal to saying nothing at all, i.e. silence because any true statement must be accompanied by its negation, therefore it will neutralize itself and become equivalent to silence.

 

          If we accept the complete definition as mentioned above, it is possible that the results which are derived from it, due to our upbringing and the ways we are used to, appear strange simply because we are not used to it. But with some contemplation, they can be understood easily and can become part of our general and ordinary knowledge and reasoning process. Today in our schools and universities we all learn the incomplete definition of mathematical principles – the controversies about the foundation of mathematics is still unresolved – and this will result that we will not recognize the inherent relative nature of the so- called self- evident truths, and because mathematics influence all other sciences and everything is proved in mathematical terms, all these together will result that we get deeper absorbed and rooted in "self- evident truths". Instead of learning real knowledge in those educational institutes (real knowledge is that knowledge which gives answer to the most important question humanity can have, namely, "what am I, and why do I suffer") we learn exactly the opposite. Exactly here lies the reason for our today's dangerous and unfavorable world situation which is moving towards a self destruction. An improvement of this situation can only start by reeducating ourselves and others. That what is most urgently needed in our today's world, and for each human being as well, is unity in a sound ideology. The underlying ideology of the Equilibrium Theory can be a unifying factor and can help to unite all the different ideologies which are in a hot or cold war with each other, and help the world to come to its senses and change its present collision course which is not very far from the threshold of destruction and help to create an environment in which men and all other creatures can live in peace.

 

 

 

 

*********************************************************************************************

 

 

Appendix 1

 

Matter is infinitely compressionable

 

 

Siamak Zandpour

 

 

The below given simple model may help you to understand that our infinite universe has theoretically the capacity to be infinitely compression able. In other words it has the capacity to be compression able up to a microscopic point.

 

How is this possible?

 

This is possible because the smallest indivisible particle does not exist in the universe. There are always smaller particles. If this answer does not make an immediate sense to you here we give further explanations.

 

          All the particles i.e. matter making up our universe are themselves infinitely divisible. A final indivisible or smallest particle is non existent in our universe. Each particle is in itself a conglomeration of smaller particles which themselves are again conglomerations of even smaller particles.

 

          The below given figure displays an expanded view of an imaginary particle consisting of four sub particles A1, B1, C1 and D1. By viewing these 4 sub particles from far away they will appear to our eyes as a single point or particle. Here we divided the sample particle into four sub particles just as an example in order to facilitate its understanding. We could have used any other division. One of these 4 sub particles i.e. B1 is depicted in an expanded view to show that each of these 4 sub particles is in itself a conglomeration of smaller particles who again are themselves conglomerations of even smaller particles and so on till infinity. In this model this feature is illustrated up to four levels although theoretically it has infinite levels.

 

          Now with the above explanation in mind lets consider the subject of infinite compression ability of matter. Using our model we will try to see how far we can compress these 4 sub particles A1, B1, C1 and D1 present on this 20 square cm space. By compressing these four 5 square cm sub particles they will fit into the 10 square cm space shown with A2, B2, C2 and D2. This we call the first level compression. By considering that each of these four sub particles are themselves compression able – in the same manner as shown in the first level compression – therefore by repeating the above compression they will fit into the 5 square cm space A3, B3, C3 and D3. This we call the second level compression. We repeat the above compression again which will make them fit into the 2.5 square cm space A4, B4, C4 and D4. We call it the 3^rd level compression. In this manner, this compression can be repeated again and again up to infinite levels. This is due to the fact that the final smallest indivisible particle is non existent. Because there exists always a smaller particle therefore there will be never a situation where particles can touch each other and therefore making further compression impossible. This contraction continuous into infinity. The same holds true for the expansion. In other words, there is no BEGINNING and no END.

 

 

 

Sample Particle

 

 

 

 

******************

 

           

 

Reference:

 

1        - Encyclopedia Britannica, Foundation of Mathematics.

2    - United Nations 1998 Revision of the World Population Estimates and Projections.

3    - The Bible: The blessing of the children. Matthäus, Chapter 19, verses 13 to 15.

4    - The Bible: Matthäus, chapter 18, verses 1 to 5.

5    - Bhagavad-gita,   http://www.bhagavadgitaasitis.com/2/69/en

6    - The Rubayyat of Omar Khayyam,   http://www.acole.com/novels/timuras/khayyam.html

7    - The World will Not End, by Carlos Barrios.

8    - Gheibat Namoni (غيبت نعماني) – Persian translation of the Arabic original.

      9    - GSA 18TH AUSTRALIAN GEOLOGICAL CONVENTION &  ASEG 18TH INTERNATIONAL GEOPHYSICAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION  (2006).

10  - The 21^st National Symposium on Geo Sciences (Tehran/ Iran 2003).