35. Chaos

Paul Mongré's mathematical thinking has now led him to such extravagances of the concept. The mathematician separates time and space from the other content of the world in his thoughts and then deals with them as abstract entities. He can speak of the passage of time that exists alongside the sequence: father - son - grandson. But in reality, this passage of time does not exist as such at all. It is not separate from the content of the sequence: father - son - grandson. The son is only possible as a consequence of the father and the grandson only as a consequence of the son. They give themselves the time sequence. And the latter has no meaning at all without them, is an empty abstraction. Another observer of the world may, for my sake, see the grandson first, then the son, then the father. This does not change the fact that the order which he does not give to the three members, but which they give to themselves, remains the same. Paul Mongré first separates his many conceivable worlds from our real one through abstraction. They are conceivable. But that does nothing. They are only conceivable as abstractions from the real one. They are nothing without it. No matter how boldly we speculate, we cannot leave our world. We remain within it. We cannot be dealing with a majority of worlds, but only with the one, with our cosmos. And because this is the case, this cosmos is also necessary, it has its lawfulness in itself through itself. It is not a single case out of an immeasurable number; it is the unity, the direction and cause, which also has the reason for its existence in itself. Paul Mongré's conclusion can also be illustrated by the following comparison. A ruler governs his people according to certain laws, which have grown out of the feelings, habits and so on of the people. They only endure because of the latter. Now someone comes along and says: Let us detach the ruler from the laws. These can now also be others. We can think of countless possibilities; how he governs his people is just one case of countless possible ones. Here everyone immediately sees the inadmissibility of the conclusion. We can indeed think of infinite possibilities for the ruler, but such thinking takes place in a complete void. How this ruler rules is only possible in one way due to the peculiarity of the people. Paul Mongré's entire conclusion is inadmissible. It must not be drawn at all.