Know thyself...

I am honored to say that Mirek Svítek (

 is now also among my co-authors. I hope, that I will not ruin his reputation.


Know thyself…

Man becomes better by knowing himself (A. P. Chekhov)

This text is an attempt to bring to a wider audience, people of different ages and backgrounds, a few simple facts and the ensuing less simple conclusions. The aim is to point out the possibility to look at the world in a different way than we are used to - as a result of tradition and education. The main theme of this text is the subject of openness of mind as a necessary condition to cope with the variability of today's world. This will not be possible if we are unable to recognise, preserve, develop and protect our identity, above all - and derive our demands on the form and organisation of our environment. It is good to keep the oldest council, added: Know thyself ...



The Process of Cognition

Maintaining the maximum possible level of openness of the mind is the key not only to cognition, but above all to the complex perception of our environment and also the perception of ourselves. We perceive the environment not only with our senses and reason, but we can also perceive it outside of the senses - that is to say ‘outside the traditional senses’. Of course, our perception of the environment evolves as our senses and intellectual abilities evolve. Over time it is influenced by what we are focusing on.

If we are talking about perception on one side then on the other hand we should mention the appearance of conditions that would bring such a complex perception. It should not only be knowledge through conscious information flows - their content and the knowledge we can benefit from, but also emotions, wisdom and humility, which already reflects not only unconscious communication but, above all, everything that exceeds us and what we can perceive only to a limited extent. These are the inner and outer worlds[1] of the ‘obvious area of what is obvious’, ‘the obvious area of what is hidden’, ‘the hidden area of what is obvious’, and ‘the hidden area of what is hidden’. It's a beautiful pass freely through these worlds, but it requires not only an open mind, but also a lot of learning and training. But it is one of the very few ways for a comprehensive holistic experience from the garden of knowledge. It is not to no avail that one of the old schools of thought speaks of the art of Pardes, which is nothing more than a ‘paradise’ garden of its kind.

Naturally, everything is a part of its inherent environment and nothing can be larger than its own environment. In other words nothing can be placed outside its environment. The idea of Ortega y Gasset: ‘I am me and my environment’ applies.”[2] Already ancient Greek philosophers before Socrates came up with the idea of nature's cognisance, and the legendary ‘Gnothi seauton’ (Know Thyself) stood above the mythical oracle in Delphi.

When we combine these thoughts, it seems to us that knowing thyself is knowing ourselves and our own environment. So knowing ‘something’ or ‘someone’ probably means knowing what ‘something’ or ‘someone’ transcends. With this in mind, there is a first indication that it will be difficult to tell where the subject of interest begins and ends. So if we talk about the cognisance or understanding of nature, then we automatically talk about the self-knowledge and self-understanding of us ourselves.

It is an unfortunate lingering legacy of Enlightenment rationalism and dualism that everything that is given to us beyond the mind and the senses must be questioned a priori. However, this leads to the exact opposite that reason and senses are being questioned - all the more so the paradigm of emotionally spiritual knowledge occupying our public space. The inadequacy of the decision to leave the body to reason and senses while the soul to faith and the Church is more than evident at a distance of several centuries. But maybe it was the only way back then, and it is useless to cry over spilt milk now. At the same time, it is evident that the human brain has a relatively large capacity for emotionally spiritual perception, which was not developed just because people succumbed to the opium of religion.

‘Transcendent’: that is which transcends us, is a natural part of every human person and depends only on the person. We should understand that immanent and transcendental experiences complement one another. Practice to date has shown how harmful it is as ‘a priori’ exclusion of any method, approach or even individuals and human groups from participating in the process of learning and perceiving our environment. Disputes that arise from excretion take too much energy, precluding what we can bring about through truly creative work.


Emotional Perception

In describing the process of cognition we must focus our attention within the human soul - where emotions are hidden. Professor Koukolík, a leading Czech neuroscientist, emphasises that man is not a rational creature that has emotions but an emotional being who sometimes thinks[3]. Emotions are interpreted as bodily events that prepare the body to move. Thanks to these events the human species has survived many dangers. We owe them to our evolutionary development (ED) although, at present, their presence may limit us in growth. Emotions are often behind the fear we are experiencing - and the notion of the worst that awaits us. It is a certainty for evolutionary development because it is always safer to count on a worse variant that does not happen. In this context, a statement by Mark Twain can be mentioned: “Most of the things I was afraid of never happened.”

Self-knowledge takes place both in the macro-world of rational thinking, which is widely discussed in philosophical literature - and also in the micro-world of inner emotional states, whose analysis is not so frequent, because they are mostly subjective and unrepeatable feelings. The introspection[4] of inner knowledge is related to the inner fulfilment of man, i.e. the fulfilment of the desire to be fulfilled, the attainment of the love that the soul desires. These states are associated with terms such as intuition, instinct, inspiration, gratitude and humility.

The method of inner knowledge is an excursion into the depths of your own soul and its persistent observation, especially in conflict or otherwise escalated situations. Previously, these states were artificially evoked, for example by a ceremony of initiation associated with separation or fasting. Nowadays it is more about enduring failure and finding new ways to not be discouraged and not to lose your goal. Already Jára Cimrman[5] has left us with great wisdom: ‘Whoever has no goal will not know that he has lost his way.’ An appropriate response to success is a major challenge. Paradoxically, coping with success is often more complex and problematic than enduring failure.

Overcoming obstacles and adversity leads to the strengthening of the soul and its spiritual preparation to be resilient enough to deal with new problems. Leaders should have life experience of overcoming problems - dealing with themselves to reduce the likelihood of their failure.

Introspection of one's own emotions is not only associated with overcoming the pitfalls of life but also with cultural-aesthetic perception. With beautiful music we recall positive thoughts that evoke a unique atmosphere. High-quality art can resonate on deeper levels of the human soul and allow the author to convey his emotions through it. Only the combination of rational thinking with emotional perception leads to a qualitatively different level of knowledge. It is like walking through a blooming garden which we can perceive with all the senses, seen through rational and emotional stimuli.

For complete understanding we lack spiritual experience - which is superior to rational reasoning and emotional perception, and which complements the fulfilment of the meaning of human existence. The spiritual dimension of life reminds us of the limitations of human knowledge and the finality of our existence. Often the spiritual level is associated with the words wisdom or love. Love must be perceived in a broader sense - not only love for neighbours, but also love for art, beauty, science, music and profession. If things are done with love, life becomes endless and the world has a hope of a better tomorrow - or as Michal Horáček states in the lyrics of one of his songs: “After all, our first photo was taken by Jan Hus. And he said - only love here is worth trying. And without it, all science is hellish droppings. Just in Love Truth slumbers!”[6]


What didn't happen

Our environment is an arrangement of imbalances, potentials and possibilities. Since nothing can be greater than our environment, the caused imbalances are a natural source of changes that we are able to perceive better than a quiescent state. Environmental changes generate particular events. Quantum physics describes environmental properties as the phase space[7] of interconnected events. The entanglement[8] of quantum states leads to space-time synergies between particular events, which can be considered as a form of ordering.

For the sake of simplicity, let us mention that disorderliness is life-giving because if we organise it in our environment, which is the essence of life, we can obtain from the energy difference between disorderliness and order the energy source for life, our own reproduction and resilience. It is clear that living organisms communicate with their environment to benefit from it. If their activities offer the possibility and opportunity to organise the environment for other organisms too, we can speak of ethical dealing and behaviour[9].

We are internally dressed by evolution to closely observe our environment and evaluate the changes and events taking place in it. Preferably we evaluate those events that carry risks and dangers. If someone wants to dominate us a proven method is stealthy dissemination of risk information that can be called frightening. Unfortunately, we cannot defend ourselves from negative information because they are evolutionarily preferred as useful and leading to survival.

In general, we deal emotionally and rationally with changes and events, i.e. what happened. Very little, rather not at all, we are dealing with what has not happened, something that can be called ‘non-events’ with a little exaggeration. Thus, unrealised possibilities and opportunities.

Monitoring of unrealized possibilities and opportunities in our environment is exploring its majority part. It reminds a bit of dark matter and energy. What has not happened is a necessary complement to what has happened, and it is important to realize that it is sometimes more important than what has happened. Finding a method of creating a complement map, of what has happened and what has not happened is a big task in finding a new, more comprehensive view of our environment.


Search for the Truth

What we now call the truth is often the result of some social agreement or even consensus. In other words, the truth is usually what society, the spirit of the times, and the genius loci allow us to say. We cannot influence this form of truth without participating for ourselves in the debate with our own opinion. This view is naturally characterized by both its content and method, through which we bring it into the public space and, last but not least, in the way we guarantee this opinion. Our own opinion, being too far from what we call the “mainstream” today, can cost us our own existence in all conceivable forms. But that doesn't mean we should be silent. Master Jan Hus, with his death at the Constance pyre, gave us the message that "what it is worth living for is what we are willing to die for ..." [10]

It is good to know that it is far more important to seek the truth than “to own” it. It is only by the nature of the language that we can "have" only "our", or better "our own" truth. In fact, we can never own the truth as such, precisely because it is variable, multidimensional, and it only shows us one or more of its faces. The truth is obviously the complement of immanent and transcendental, and it is an eternal challenge to seek for open minded.

Having an opinion is an important prerequisite for us to be able to live our own life, in our own name and on our own behalf. We can, of course, live by a pattern, to live someone else's life, we can be supported or even sustained by someone. We can also just live and, to a greater or lesser extent, parasitize on someone's name, or even on someone's account. Having your own opinion and living your own life means being able to really know yourself. One without the other is impossible. The goal of life must be to open the mind and not just fill it. The open mind is a gift of nature to take care of, it is a diamond that we have to turn into a cut diamond.


The scientific Approach

The Enlightenment dualism enabled the rapid development of "scientific technology” due to several successive industrial revolutions. It caused a "great fortune," and this embraced outside the handful of the richest, especially the army of the poorest. The average income on the planet has increased ten times in two centuries and human life has significantly prolonged. The great fortune brought a degree of education and human and civil liberties unprecedented until then.

Contrary to his humanistic ideals, man gradually began to form an artificial machine complement. The man has abandoned the vision of a holistic view of oneself and using the perverted reduction method, he created, especially in the social sciences, a number of non-life mounts, such as “Homo Economicus”.

Confucius says that the most beautiful is the path of education, the hardest is the path of own experience and the easiest is the path of imitation. Unfortunately, just the simple imitation and memorization of unchanging truths, ad absurdum reduced and simplified images of our environment and the nonsensical tautologies that today's education is full of, has a tragic impact on the open minds of pupils. It is better not to think and repeat for a good grade that a temperature of zero degrees Kelvin is an absolute value, because try to explain the concept of limits of a quantity in particular units and in a certain environment is too difficult. Yet without this knowledge, the model of our environment, which has been presented to us by natural sciences with their sophisticated mathematical apparatus for many years, cannot be understood at all.

At this point we come to an interesting thesis that Giambattista Vico[11] came up with, saying that we are unable to fully understand what we have not created. The twentieth century has brought a number of scientific theories that fully support this idea. Let us recall only the theory of deterministic chaos, quantum theory or incompleteness theorems. These theories have disproved and literally disrupted the pride of nineteenth-century science, when it seemed that it was science that could reveal all the secrets of nature and bring its understanding even to the common people. This automatically made science and scientists objects of uncritical, even religious worship.

It has even been said that it should be scientists who should be leaders in society. It is quite sad how this Enlightenment pride of reason persists to this day. This is due to the fact that some elementary lessons from the beginnings of the Enlightenment science are easily understood by most of the population. Also, the absolutization of the improvement of the social status of the individual with scientific and technological development we have gotten under our skin more than is healthy. All too often, science nowadays assumes the role of the Church, and progress with constant growth the role of its idol.

However, Vica's thesis draws attention to something else. It is the process of creation as a condition and a tool of knowledge and understanding. After all, if I create something myself or participate in the creation of something, can I approach the knowledge and understanding of the eternal process of creation or, scientifically speaking, the process of evolution. It is important to realize this and be consciously the creator or at least co-creator of a variety of artifacts, ideophacts, or infofacts.

The idea that the world is conveyed to us as “information” also contains the message that, in order to be given to us, we must be able to describe it using available data. Such a world would, however, resemble a fragmented kaleidoscope constantly changing its form, content or dynamics. In order to create a model at all, we need to extract the necessary knowledge. These ideas raise the question of the relationship between our knowledge and real reality, or otherwise, if we identify the acquired knowledges as a reality, what is the relationship between that reality and the 'metareality' from which they arise. As a partial problem, it arises the question of the difference between the information form of the actual event and the information available on the part of the observer[12]. It can be seen that the observer can obtain information with delay or distortion, which significantly disrupts his knowledge of the surrounding reality. Quantum models can partially correct these disproportions using phase parameters.

There is a significant hypothesis that if we had a good description of the “received” information and a good description of the structure of information circuits[13]  with all the feedback, we could quite successfully reconstruct the real events. At the end of this thought chain should be an attempt to acquire knowledge of reality itself. This process is very complicated, but fortunately we have the opportunity to use simulation experiments in virtual space, which can represent for us a picture of the world of information at our current level of knowledge. It is about capturing “metareality” made up of data, information and knowledges. There is neither real time nor real space, neither subject nor object. Maybe it's the "Matrix" that The Wachowskis[14] had never dreamed of twenty years ago.


Perceptive observer

The difference between our perception and the scientific examination of objective reality is that the scientific conclusions are a bit nondescript, uncoloured and silent. Science does not reach our sensory perceptions, and no theory can describe colour, taste, smell, melody or any other feeling. Two and a half thousand years ago, Democritus of Abdera wrote in one of his few preserved fragments that the intellect starts out, saying: "By convention there is sweetness, by convention bitterness, by convention colour, in reality only atoms and the void. "The senses respond, saying: "Foolish intellect! Do you seek to overthrow us, while it is from us that you take your evidence?!? Your victory is your defeat!"

Democritus is not the only one who contributed to the image of this antinomy. Arthur Eddington[15] came up with the idea that in the physical world we are watching a shadow performance of everyday life. The shadow of my elbow rests on a shadow table, much like shadow ink is soaken into shadow paper… The sincere realization that physics as a science has to do with the world of shadows is one of its most important recent achievements. Eddington's statement is less than a hundred years old, but it means that by the end of the nineteenth century, scientists began to realize that they were not exploring the world itself, but its image, called "objective reality" or "real world hypothesis."

It is precisely the fact that science examines only the model of reality that led Professor Zdeněk Neubauer to state[16] that science is not about the world, just like a map is not a landscape. Similarly, we have the idea of Carl Jung[17] that it is our consciousness without which the existence of the object would not be possible. Jung literally speaks of the fact that consciousness is the "conditio sine qua non" of the world as an object, and that all science is a function of our consciousness.

As a result, it seems impossible to simply speak of a world that exists twice, once as a reality and the second as a perceived reality. Obviously, the world is given to us only once - one world and one consciousness. The mind and the world then create not only unity, but within it they are reflexive of each other, that is, the product of themselves, they arise from themselves. The fact that the world is given to us only once as “information”, which is “the only reality”, seems natural if we dare to accept such an idea. For several hundred years we have lived and explored the world in a somewhat schizophrenic paradigm of dualism. We had no doubt that there was only one material world, represented by an objective reality from which we could deny and leave.

The connection between the observer and the object of observation is now stronger than ever anticipated, and everything points to the marvellous unity. Elementary truth is that when I drive a car, my driving also affects me. he less obvious fact is that when I only communicate with the system, we form an interacting couple. Even when I just watch it. As far as the quantum level is concerned, this consideration is a fixed part of not only the school curriculum, but is also the topic of many discussions, where the main character becomes the well-known Schrödinger's cat.

There is a view that “our” macro-world is a world composed of miniature, quantum, in some ways illusory worlds. We create our world by how we think, what we focus on and how we behave and act. The own worlds of the various observers interact with each other and create a "common field" that then represents the complex "information" through which our world is conveyed to us. Maybe things happen around us just because they are part of a large number of identically perceived worlds and events in them.

Although such reasoning may seem crazy, they are not inherently any crazier than when we accept the fact that we see the world objectively, because somehow "goes without saying" we can stand ourselves out of it. Likewise, it is crazy to think that the world will be observed and interpreted by others, and we will only follow their findings and try to repeat their behaviour. In doing so, we make ourselves unimportant and put ourselves at the disposal of those who "know" for us.

We have one more question, closely related to breaking the barriers between object and subject, consciousness and matter and that it is "time". Time we all have fixed a line leading from the past into the future, which is a symbol of events flowing from causes to consequences. The ancient Greeks distinguished between "Chronos" as passing time and "Kairos" to determine the right moment to accomplish divine purpose. Saint Augustine[18] said that when he thinks of "time" he knows, but when he has to say it, he cannot. There is a view that time is here only to prevent everything from happening at once. It is only the structure of the mind, as in the case of space, that we can classify the perceived environment according to where, when and how. If, however, there was only the here and now, then just "it" was the centre of the universe, and that would be expanded into the future but also the past.

According to cosmologists' opinion, the universe is so vast today that we cannot rule out spaces where the legendary "arrow of time" will point elsewhere. Boltzmann's reflections and equations[19] never rule out this, but in the second half of the twentieth century it was argued that the universe was not large enough for such fundamental diversity. Since then, the Big Bang theory has emerged, as well as the theory of the multiverse and many other theories. Today, the cosmos seems large and varied, not only for areas with different flux and direction, but the existence of our doubles in the far cosmos cannot be ruled out.

An apt artistic expression of our perception of the universe is the cosmic head of the serpent Uroborus devouring its quantum tail. In all this, we must not forget his body, which represents in a thin section around some vertebra a world that we "somehow" simply know and call it our "objective reality".


Description of objective Reality

For years, the outstanding Swiss sculptor Alberto Giacometti has devoted himself to the relationship of what we are offered to see and what we really see. Giacometti saw this relationship as a significant difference. Sometimes he spoke of the "abyss" and set an impossible goal to eliminate this difference by his art work and "bridge the abyss".

He came to the knowledge he formulated in his book[20], mentioning that it is impossible to complete something, because as we get closer to what we see, we reveal something more. If he had painted a model for thousands of years, he would not have achieved that final goal, but perhaps one could speak of a kind of approach to the desired result. Hard to say whether it was a success or failure, because in his view of the world is one measure of the other. Giacometti describes in the artist's language the relationship of subject and object, artist and model as mutually interacting complexity.

When one strives to capture as much as possible of what one sees, whether doing science or art, the approach is the same. Whatever field a scientist specializes in, the more he knows, the more does he remain to know, and he must never hope to gain complete knowledge. Indeed, complete knowledge would be the death.

Objective reality can be compared to a crystal with countless facets. According to its structure and location, each of his subjective views sees certain parts of the facets, and our interpretations of the world are merely a testimony of what we have seen. Of course, all facets seen by a group of people at a certain time must be very close to each other, with only slight differences. Seen from a distance, they form a single bright matter, while countless others merge into the gloom and darkness of space. Qualia[21], as a result of the work and interpretation of each of us, are an exact reflection of this difference in perspective. Similar interpretations can lead to the creation of common symbols that can express ways of communicating in a particular human community or even in society as a whole.

The experience of discovering a new interface, or even a new space, the slightest particle of new space that we noticed in the penumbra as lightly obscured by light, can satisfy and inspire us. Each of us solves a riddle from time to time, and all our answers or Qualia together form human knowledge. This knowledge is a subtle yet very penetrating illumination in the dense, heavy unknown that surrounds us, that touches us, that permeates and fulfills us. The obsession to continually ask questions is innate to us, just as to the plant is innate each of their thousands of movements, that it does to live. Because of our nature, we are interested in specific things (and not others) because we cannot think otherwise. Just as we do not choose the length of our legs or our diseases, we do not choose the way we think or express ourselves.

Non-linear dynamic systems may, under certain circumstances, manifest a phenomenon sensitive to initial conditions called "deterministic chaos", whose behaviour appears to be random, even if the system does not contain any stochastic elements. This principle recalls the ability of our understanding of the outside world. Considering our knowledge at a certain level of resolution, the result may be, for example, Newtonian physics that leads to theories that macroscopic phenomena can be well modelled and predicted. As we move to a more precise level, for example, we move into the field of quantum physics, a whole new reality and new laws will emerge, allowing us to describe a completely different behaviour of the world at this discriminatory level. It is reasonable to assume that with further refinement of observational methods our knowledge will reach a deeper level[22] where, as in the case of a simple fractal, a new reality will emerge with new laws. New traits such as the superstability of complex systems may arise at the transition between the resolution levels, which has already been observed, for example, in the heart system, where each movement of the heart is different, and none is repeated.

The resulting idea, both from Giacometti's artistic reflections and the observation of complex chaotic systems, is that our knowledge of objective reality will never lead to a final state in which we can say that we already know everything and nothing new awaits us. There is always the possibility of choosing a higher level of resolution, where a whole new and unfamiliar world opens with new principles and laws.


The Role of Consciousness

If we keep an open mind, we must realize that this what we have created our own image of the world from, is exclusively the product of our senses and consciousness. It cannot be proven that this image has a different origin. At the same time, our consciousness is In this painting, like its creator, a strange foreigner.

To make matters worse, it seems that we are unable in any way to determine where this creator resides in our bodies. The dualism of matter and spirit has never answered the question of where these components interact. Baruch Spinoza says that "neither the body can bring the mind to thinking, nor the mind can bring the body to movement ...". Even contemporary physiology does not know much more. It speaks of an inexplicable "how" in terms of the effect of consciousness on matter. The current achievements of bionics studying the interface between the nervous system and electronic devices do not change this either.

The mutual unity of body and mind is offered as a solution to this problem. This is related to the possible statement that the boundary between the object and the subject never existed, and it is only an aid for us to be able to say anything about our environment, to look for coherence in it and to describe it with natural laws.

Gregory Bateson devoted a whole book[23] to the unity of consciousness and nature, in which he controversies with Cartesian dualism of spirit and matter, mind and nature. Bateson was also a major cybernetic and contributed his thoughts to “cybernetics of cybernetics” called “second order cybernetics[24]”. The point is that if we abandon purely technical practice, then that 'Kybernetes', the helmsman who keeps the system in a certain set or desired mode - homeostasis, cannot be omitted from the system. The question “who drives the driver…?!?” cannot be ignored, similarly eternal remains the question from Iuvenalis's Satyrs[25], "who keeps watch over the guard ...?!?". Moreover, it is clear that any "good" Kybernetes must be of a kind an information model of the system it affects.

The inclusion of a 'Kybernete' in the system makes it possible to more accurately model some social processes such as the behaviour of the mass media. By their very nature, the media are destined to be the subject of cybernetics of the second order, because they are not only communicators and mediators, but also regulators, manipulators and, last but not least, creators of information. Not to mention how they like to fit themselves in the role of guardians and guards of anything. The media are police officers, judges, criminals and often executioners at the same time, and they do not need anything that they could not create themselves, regardless of any events in the environment.



The Reflection at the End

The openness of the mind and its ability to perceive the widest possible spectrum of impulses and changes that take place in our environment are given to us to some extent, and it can be stated that throughout our lives we are individually and socially limited on this ability. It reminds a little of the adage that man comes into a world full of beautiful pure faith, followed by the devil who organizes it. At the same time, it is necessary to realize that any given, gift of nature or talent can be not only muted and limited, but also maintained and developed. It is therefore important to be aware of this and help to develop open minds and fantasies where possible, to have a dispute with demagogy, preaching and obscurantism.

Maintaining the ability to think independently, to create one's own opinion and to look at our environment is especially important because it is related to the fact that we become increasingly part of a kind of thought-aggregates. It doesn't matter what we are and what we think, it depends on what gang, party or corporation we come from. If the influence of different opinions of individual is gradually lost, it will mean dehumanizing society. At present, some democratic constitutions even speak of 'free competition of political parties', while citizens and their views are somewhat neglected. Corporatism is in every respect described as harmful, illiberal and undemocratic, but social practice is exactly the opposite. The tendency to herd mentality is stronger than ever and is a function of the lack of diverse views of the world. This ultimately leads to the weakening of society, its insufficient reproduction and gradual degeneration.

To put it simply, we should use our open mind to explore antinomy, contrast, perhaps a paradox that scientific knowledge is based on sensory perception, but no scientific view of natural processes contains sensory qualities and therefore cannot explain them. The natural fact that “we see only pictures, or rather shadows, and we try to infer and imply” to parody the great giant of Czech science, Jára Cimrman, will come to light. Cimrman, however, forgot to note that it is through observation that we create the images at the same time.

These considerations bring us into the darkness of Plato's cave and to the play of shadows on the fire-lit wall, as well as to his world of ideas or forms, which nowadays represents quite well mathematics. These considerations are well beyond the usual line and require deeper study, but we are still based on the simple notion that stepping out of oneself and its environment is not possible. This is true even if our existence ends at the fingertips and hair, just as if it ended at the end of the universe at the fingertips and hair of “Avatar”.

This text presents some ideas and their sources, which form only a small anthology of the issue. It is very important for our view of the world that there are plenty of varied views that come from a variety of paradigms. If we do not think independently and boldly, if we suppress our imagination and open mind in the name of one truth, if we do not live our lives to the fullest, then, like the The Nothing in the “Never Ending Story[26]”, we will lose not only our world, one component that may be important to him. We are losing our lives and ourselves…

Know yourself and you know the world ... Maybe it's both the same thing ... Data (sensory stimuli), Information (rational reasoning), Knowledge (emotional perception), Wisdom (spiritual experience)…



Self-knowledge is the first step to remedy




Miroslav S v í t e k, Ladislav Ž á k, 2019

[1] Rabi Bonder Nilton,: Jidiše kop, Euromedia Group,  Praha, 2008

[2] Ač A., Cílek V.: Věk nerovnováhy, Academia Praha, 2019

[3] Koukolík F: Já: o mozku, vědomí a sebeuvědomování, 2. přepracované vydání, Karolinum, Praha, 2013.

[4] Neubauer Z.: O čem je věda, Malvern, Praha, 2009



[7] Feyman R.P., Leighton R.B., Sands M.: The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Addison Wesley Longman, 1966

[8] Vedral V:. Introduction to Quantum Information Science, Oxford University Press, 2006

[9] Lindauer R., Žák L.: Quantum of Ethics,, 2019

[10] Bašta J., Prokletí rabštejnské skály, Prakul Production, Praha, 2015

[11] Ač A., Cílek V.,: Věk nerovnováhy, Academia Praha, 2019

[12] Svítek M.: Physics-Information Analogies, Neural Network World 2018, no.6, pp. 535-550

[13] Moos P., Malinovský Vít: Informační systémy a technologie, monografie ČVUT, 2006


[15] Schrödinger E.: Co je život, Duch a hmota, K mému životu, VUTIUM Quantum, 2018

[16] Neubauer Z.: O čem je věda, Malvern, Praha, 2009

[17] Schrödinger E.: Co je život, Duch a hmota, K mému životu, VUTIUM Quantum, 2018

[18] Neubauer Z., Fiala J.: Střetnutí paradigmat a řád živé skutečnosti, Malvern Praha, 2011

[19] Rees M.: Pouhých šest čísel, Academia Praha, 2004

[20] Giacometti A.: Moje skutečnost, Arbor vitae, De arte, Praha,1998 

[21] Polák M.: Goodmanova kvália a Russellova smyslová data, filosofický časopis, 2012

[22] Svítek M: Víc než součet částí, Academia 2013

[23] Bateson G: Mysl a příroda, nezbytná jednota, Malvern, Praha 2006

[24] Mařík V., Štěpánková O., Lažanský J, a kol.: Umělá inteligence, díl 1 - 6, Academia

[25] Stiglitz J.: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, lecture, Paris, 1999