The outcome of this research is, that at the beginning
of all processing a WHATFOR is a must.
We humans want to act.
We want to be active so that we
will realise our objective, our WHATFOR.
Therefore we have to create knowledge
for without knowledge we cannot act.
All is processing.
All is changing always, is becoming.
It is essential to know the processing structure of nature,
in which we are active. We want to control
the becoming according to our objectives, our WHATFORs.
The becoming consists of processing threads
which influence each other mutually.
Each thread consists of processing levels, which are
hierarchically nested and functionally interconnected.
The functional structure of the lowest underlying processing
level we have not yet been able to track down.
The actually topmost level of our evolution, we did not
even start to intensively doing research on, let alone
to think about which chances of evolution we could
The principle of hierarchically nested and functionally
interconnected levels of processing is also known by informatics.
It is the "natural" structure of their systems.
But if informatics has realised, that this is
nature's "principle general" of all becoming is to be doubted.
For, up till now not any science seems to have realised the
fact of the hierarchically nested and functionally interconnected
processing levels of the becoming.
Psychology knows that man always needs a WHATFOR for his
being active and that - if there is none - he has to devise one.
Psychology attributes this observation to evolution. But
evolution is nothing else than this general principle of becoming,
this functional structure in action
Crucial is that knowledge.creating can only create knowledge,
if there is a WHATFOR, a functional objective.
Man has always looked for "the Absolute", for "the Source",
as he is forced by nature to state a WHATFOR.
What has led to different "behaviours" in research
as well as we treat each other in ordinary live.
Research has created "techniques" how to react, when knowledge
is missing and the gap is not to be shown (so clearly). Which
has been raised here in treatises some few times.
If something is said to be true and this has became consent with
the members of a community, this "true belief" is nearly
indelible and will not be subject to validation - for members
of this community, which can be mankind with exceptions.
This applies to researchers, too. Standard example:
"TIME" is regarded to be an entity of nature. And this is
claimed to be a "true belief" and is defended tooth and nail.
We are able to measure the duration of a process by
comparing it to a clock as a means of reference.
But the majority of researchers think, they have
to "define" TIME to be able to fathom her essence.
Philosophy of science is logic-oriented. But the knowledge we
need to be able to act successfully must be functional,
objective oriented: Knowledge about reality.
Philosophy and philosophy of science did not realise that
knowledge has to be usable. They prefer to debate on it.
If knowledge is not usable, it cannot be validated.
As we can validate knowledge only by applying it.
It is the WHATFOR that enables us to establish the criteria
by which we can validate knowledge.
If knowledge does not have a function
, does not have some
sense, which means that it is good for nothing, we have agreed
not to call it 'knowledge'. The English call it 'non-sense'.
• The general principle of nature - A pitfall of knowledge.creating
Why we have to create knowledge about our knowledge.creating?
As we want to know how knowledge has to be, so that we are
able to realise the objectives, we decided to achieve.
As we are going to manipulate the becoming and to initiate
and/or control processes function-oriented, me have to discover
the structure of the becoming:
The "basic" or "real" objective, the functional objective,
will be achieved by a process
which we initiate, create or choose and
which we are able to control in its execution.
This functional structure
at the interface of processes
so that we are able to control the processing.
It's these process interfaces that provide
that functionality and that flexibility
which are the conditions for the emergence
of more complex process structures.
Nature's processing structure is functional and thereby enables
existence, evolution, freedom of choice and creativity.
'processing structure of the becoming' and
'functional principle of the becoming'
are coextensive because
function and structure form a whole.
The functional structure of the becoming is also
the functional structure of knowledge.creating,
which means of all researching, learning and decision taking.
A short story of "How TIME came into being"