Ronald Chavers Foundation

The ‘triadic’ relations between Immanuel Kant, Leonardo da Vinci and myself Ronald Chavers. 

“ This is Kant quotations in relationship to the above statement, where I mentioned Kant’s triadic hint to a triadic alternative to transcendental philosophy and metaphysics” 

“To follow the same road in dealing with the moral qualities of our nature is suggested by that example which offers hope for a similar good result. We have at hand many examples of reason judging morally. To analyse these judgments (and break them down) into their elementary concepts, to employ, in repeated experiments with ordinary common sense, a method similar to that of chemistry, (as mathematics is not available for the purpose of separating the empirical from the rational which may be found in such judgments), should make known purely and with certainty both the empirical and the rational and ought to show what each can accomplish by itself. If true, such a procedure ought to be able to forestall the errors of a coarse, unskilled judging, as weil as pretensions of genius which is even more necessary. For imaginary treasures are promised on these pretensions without any methodical inquiry or knowledge of nature, while real treasures are squandered, as happens with the adept of the stone of wisdom, if by such wisdom is understood not merely what one ought to do, but what ought to serve as a guide for teachers, in order to find well and clearly the paths to wisdom on which every man ought to tread, and to preserve others from dead alleys. This is true knowledge, of which philosophy must remain the guardian at all times. In its sophisticated analysis the general public cannot share, but they do share in the doctrines  which clearly convince them after such an analysis. ,,

“lf we compare this [reasoning} with the analytical part of the critique of pure speculative reason, we shall discover a curious contrast. Not fundamental principles, but pure, sensible intuition or visualization (Anschauung) was the first datum that made a priori knowledge possible, though only of objects of the senses. Synthetic principles cannot be derived from mere concepts without visualizing something. They can only occur with reference to such visualizing and therefore with reference to objects of possible experience. For it is when intellectual concepts are united with this act of looking-at-something (Anschauung) that the kind of knowledge we call experience is made possible. ,,

Kant’s fundamental triadic question in relationship to nature, rationality, understanding, learning, culture, history, morality, freedom, science, logical rationality, objectivity, scientific knowledge, the arts in general was: what can I (or we) Know (?), connected triadically with what I or we can Develop or Do actively (?) in order to be successful in Life, Work, Creativity or Whatever and Thirdly; How can I or we give Active Form to my or our Aging Process, our Moral Freedoms, our Social, Cultural and Creative Aspirations? 

Indirectly with this triad of questions Kant tries to give positive answers to the dualisms between learning-rationalities, introspection or intuition-observation and our various realities in our cultural, social, physical, mental, economic, political, legal and spiritual worlds. And all this in relationship to our personal Self-Awareness, Self-Consciousness, all our Potentials and Abilities in our genetic and cultural character. In this sense our abilities and what we do with them is the same as what we call self, personality or character. What we do with these potentials is quite identical with what and who we are. 

I mention this to make clear, why I always return, like William James, Ernst Cassierer, Wittgenstein, Max Weber and many others, to Immanuel Kant and his critique of pure reason, transcendental philosophy, metaphysics, formal logics and all the illusions of the idealistic, empiristic, rationalistic and other methods of abstract nature, plus his immanent reflections on a positive solution to the problems of freedom, creative-intuitive-introspective, the rational- original-understanding and historically-transformational forming-analytical differentiating, synthetically-unifying and dialectically developing of the individual, social, pictoral-visualizing and understanding of all the things that have and are moving us and others in this our worlds that we live, die and transform in. This is the world of our empirical, emotional, psychological, anthropological, genetic-biological, chemical, physical, social, cultural, political, economic, moral, aesthetic, sensual, intuitive-introspective, characteristic etc.”

Pages 11 and 12 in the manuscript

“ Kant’s most fundamental triadic model is the triad between the ‘manifold’ (analytic (positive) differentiation, where all the individual elements or parts of any given system of any given object are represented. They are called therefore ‘diversity’, ‘variety’ which represents the differences in quality and quantity of the different parts and last the ‘unity’, synthesis of all the parts and this represents also the dynamics, changing, moving, developing, interactions, communications and connections of the whole in its dialectic, transformatics processes. (Here in the last concept, unity is both the synthetic and dialectic process all together, but as I will systematically later demonstrate they are definitely different aspects of the same triadic process). They belong together in one complete process, I call the ‘triadization’ process: analysis, synthesis, dialectics. 

Also in this connection the process of understanding, is also a triadic process characterized in his triad: sensibility-intuition, rational understanding and the ‘principle of reason’, which expresses for Kant the historical-cultural-scientific-mythical aspects of our communal knowledge throughout history. 

What interests me here at this point in connection with Kant’s interpretation and my interpretation of the ‘triadization process’ is that the whole reflection of the problem, so complicated and complex as it may appear, is a very extremely complicated understandable and humanly possible (process), which includes all mans experiences, intuitions, sensual- feelings, dreams, images, historical cultural and genetically biological historical knowledge, plus the whole reality of the natural world etc. And this process as such remains for every single individual, group, culture, a factual dynamics possibility, within the possibilities of every ones reach, which is different from person to person and from culture to culture. 

Pages 13 and 14 in the manuscript

This coming quotation out of the same book, I am giving it mainly to give a picture of my development in relationship to my theory of philosophy, mythodology, method etc. 

“ Following Bacon, Leonardo da Vinci, Descartes, Vico and Herder, Kant, Hegel, James, Peirce, Dewey, Cassirer, Lévi-Strauss and many others, I have tried to develop methods and reform them (new turn towards) to a point where science, philosophy, mathematics, semiotics, methodics and logics can support society, the past and the future of mankind and natural reality in its struggle for existence, respect and preservation. 

In order to do this I feel that mathematical reality and logical reality are one of the important factors in a large range of Activities (the sciences seen as an empirical, rational human enterprise as Toulmin calls them) to which also Philosophy, Religion, Mythology, Art, Drama belong and also things like Cultural Reality and the every day activities of people throughout the world and throughout history. 

One of the first things following Hegel but reforming his idealism, metaphysics and his false conceptions of method etc., is to see these various activities of the various actual cultural people and the many individuals within the various cultures, as a manifestation of history and history itself as a part of the human, cultural, biological-genetic, physical, psychological, rational, social and spiritual manifestation, which includes also nature, the animals, plants, chemicals and all the other actual worlds, also man’ s mythologies, dreams, visions, patterns and wars of dealing with these realities.4 

Because of this, as also Cassirer, following Kant, demonstrated, the history of Culture, 

Science, Method, Mathematics and Logical Reality does not begin with the Greeks as has been supposed, but extends to all cultures and their developing-histories, each in its own way and worth. What I try to demonstrate is that there are Rational and Empirical Patterns in the ways the various peoples have dealt with the various things they encounter in their environment. 

These patterns are not chaotic, primitive or irrational, but formal principles are devoid contextual meaning and rational-empirical purpose and are misconceptions. And as such are contradictory and incapable of understanding and solving the real factural problems of the sciences, health, nature, society, culture, learning, management, economics etc. 

“Myth travels the same road: wherever it finds an organically articulated whole which it strives to understand by its methods of thought, it tends to see this whole in the image and organization of the human body. The objective world becomes intelligible to the mythical consciousness and divides info determinate spheres of existence only when it is thus analogically “copied” in terms of this copying which is actually thought to contain the answer to the mythical questions of origins and which hence dominates al! mythical cosmography and cosmology. Because the world is formed from the parts of a human or superhuman being, it retains the character of a mythical organic unity, however much it may seem to disperse info particulars. ,. 5

For these and many other reasons I started a Research-Program; under the guidance of a Private Teacher, Dr. Bazil A. Wheeler of East Orange, New Jersey, in 1958, in East Orange, New Jersey and in New York City, which continued with my studies beginning in 1960 to 1972, in Philosophy of Science, General Philosophy (mainly of Immanuel Kant and Hegel), Mathematical Philosophy, Logics, History, Biology, Sociology, Psychology and Psychotherapy at the Free University in West Berlin and at various Institutes for Psycho-therapy in Berlin. 

I finished my studies in Philosophy with a doctorate thesis over ‘Dialectics as a Concept of Science’ in 1972. In this thesis I was already busy with the systematisation of the problem of analysis, synthesis and dialectics. This new method I called the Transformational Method. After developing this new method I continued my research to confirm and to justify this method by applying it to the various sciences, including mathematics and logical rationality. The method is an attempt to a reform all the sciences, including our conceptions, experiences, feelings, our patterns and our reasoning about nature, culture, and our personal and historical reality in general. I see cultural reality as the origin and foundation of all the developments, I call Development History. The Method of Development History is a method of Reconstruction, Construction and Transformation of what has happened in history and is laying the foundation of future reality in our human, but also in our cultural, symbolic, and in our natural reality. 

My reason for writing this book, was to give a continuing follow up for my book ‘The Egyptian method and the History of Western Philosophy’. In this former book I was confronted with several problems, that needed further reflection, that at the time of writing were not complete. In the mean time I have advanced many of these, making the subject of Triadic Methodology more plausible and interesting for scientific philosophy, for logical rationality, which I think, is a viable alternative to formal logics and for philosophy of mathematical Constructionism, which I think is also an alternative to mathematical proof systems and mathematical-truth or so-called reality (in the Plato sense). 

Right from the beginning of my confrontation with Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and at least 4 years before the beginning of my academic studies, 1 have been busy with plans to try to reform analytic philosophy and methodology, and this in relationship to the problems of developing a systematic synthetical and a systematic rational-empirical-introspective developmental ( dialectic) methodology on the background of the various sciences, plus life, culture and the various other realities of the real world. 

And for this Immanuel Kant was always for me a connecting point between archaic-Egyptian philosophy and methodology and Western philosophy and science on the other hand. 

For many years, until now to be exact, I always saw this gap as an ‘artificial barrier’ hindering us to solve the various problems of dualism, metaphysics, history, thinking creativity, introspection and understanding the problems of the real worlds, psychology, anthropology etc. 

Scientific philosophy, since the development of critical philosophy, was understood by Kant, as something rational and empirical, in relationship to how we conceptually learn how to understand all these things mentioned above. The ultimate goal, as we will later demonstrate with John Dewey and others, being how we as free thinking human beings undertake this goal to review, research, observe encounter and experience these things in our different worlds. 

And how we advance these various things of our interest to introspect rational and empirical knowledge as such, bringing our individual and collective knowledge a step further in the historical context of things. 

I think this was also the goal of the ancient and the Egyptian philosophers as I have projected them in this and also in former research projects. For Kant, and as I have interpreted them, also for Egyptian philosophers, it was the logical and linguistic forms and concept formations of understanding, both intellectually and empirically, that were important for understanding all things of importance. 

Both the archaist and the Egyptians, plus that of Kant, opposed the Aristotelian abstract formal logical syllogisms, that try to a priori determine truth. Also the ideal methaphysical forms of Plato, bypassed empirical reality and rational human thinking, cultural, genetic, physiological, biological and other forms of natural reality and human reason. In this way much of western philosophy bypassed both rational, empirical and I add also introspective psychology and anthropology. 6

And only on these foundations can we develop a scientific rational-empirical and introspective psychology and anthropology. 

Pages 32,33 and 34 of the manuscript.

“The philosophy of symbolic forms is Kantian in spirit only insofar as it, too, declares it to be the task of philosophy to formulate the most universal functions of organization and synthesizing for all types of human experience. Neither Kant nor Cassirer depart from the evidences of “introspection or the sense-data basis; both start with experience as publicly accessible, be it the factuality of science or that of myth, religion, art and the perceptual world of commonsense. So far their agreement. ,, 7

Strawson, says in ‘The Bounds of Sense, that Kant’ s exposure of the illusions of rational psychology is both brilliant and profound. It is philosophical criticism of the highest order.8 


“ How I have tried to understand Kant’s contributions, in relationship to Leonardo da Vinci, Bacon, James, Dewey, Wittgenstein, Cassierer, Putman and others, was that he was busy, like the archaics, and Egyptians in relationship to triadic methodology, to conceive of mathematics as an activity and not as a formal axiomatic abstract pure science. As such it was for him a rational architectonic enabling mathematicians to construct systems to aid us in attaining possible knowledge and understanding of the objective world of real things. And this meant abandoning the speculative illusions of metaphysical methods and using mathematics as a method of forming (dialectic process of differentiating and integrating) figures, signs, geometric and other mathematical forms for the simple purpose of representation of all kinds of purposes, such as the forming of social , intellectual, cosmological, physical, chemical, rational, psychological, aesthetic, cultural, legal, political, economic, medical, moral etc., etc.. Kant’s critique of dualistic metaphysical methods of logics, mathematics, the sciences and philosophy itself, as I have been researching them the last same 40 years or so, which was also the very methodology and epistomological foundation of my doctor thesis in philosophy, at the Free University of West Berlin in 1972, Dialectics as a concept of science. I tried basically to discover Kant as the author of a new revival in triadic methodology, that survived to this very day in the philosophies of Hegel, Peirce, James, Dewey, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Ernst Cassirer, Levi-Strauss, Derrida, Habermas, etc….

Like the archetectonics of Leonardo, Alberti, those of the Egyptians and others, Kant understood his method as “the art of constructing systems” as a scientific foundation of all our rational knowledge of all the things that we experience, observe, intuit, conceive, and imagine in this world. 

“The idea requires for its realization a ‘schema’, that is an essential variety, and an order of its parts, which are determined a priori, according to the principles inherent in its aim. A schema, which is not designed according to an idea, that is, according to the principle aim of reason, but empirically only, in accordance with accidental aims (the number of which cannot be determined beforehand) gives technical unity,. but the schema which originates from an idea only (where reason dictates the aims a priori and does not wait for them in experience) supplies architectonical unity. Now what we call a science, the schema of which must have its outline (monogramma) and the division of the whole into parts devised according to the idea, that is, a priori, and keep it perfectly distinct from everything else according to principles, cannot produced technically according to the similar of its various parts or the accidental use of knowledge in concreto for this or that external purpose, but architectonically only, as based on the affinity of its parts and their dependence on one supreme and internal aim through which alone the whole becomes possible. ,,9 

“All knowledge of reason is again either based on concepts or on the construction of concepts,. the former being called philosophical, the latter mathematical. ,, 10

Also for Leonardo, as for Kant and the Egyptians, architectural constructions of various (perspectivistic) systems, is grounded in ‘pyramidal’ forms, figures, patterns and schemas and as such expresses itself as “rational demonstration”, which is a mathematics of expressing anything and everything possible. Also like the pragmatism of James and Dewey, it is a mathematical constructionism of all practical endeavours. And for this reason like we saw with Kant “practice must always be built on sound (rational) theory.,11

  1. Immanuel Kant, op. id. (Critique of Pure Reason), p. 263f
  2. I. Kant,, (Critique of Pure Reason), p.234f.
  3. The dialectic aspect of Kant’s method, concerns the historical aspect of the developmental processes of what he calls reason, and this is the third aspect of the triad between analysis, synthesis and dialectics. And reason is the common aspect that connects him with the archaics and the Egyptians and all those other developments world wide, also in European, Asian etc. histories. In this connection Onora O’Neil says “Reason dictates neither thought nor action; its discipline is construed as process, not as the once and for all discovery of secure foundations.” And in this connection “Kant holds that reason progresses and has a history.” And is as such a “Doctrin of Method”: which includes also the ‘Discipline of Reason’, the ‘Canons of Reason’ and the, Architectonics of Reason’ plus what was just said the ‘History of Reason’. Onora O’Neil, Vindicating Reason, in: The Cambridge Companion to Kant, edited by Paul Guyer, Cambridge, 1992, p.303 and p.292.
  4. See Immanuel Kant, The Conflict of the Faculties, Licoln and London, 1992, p.159ff. 
  5. Ernst Cassirer, The Philosophy of Symbolic Fonns, Vol. 2 Mythical Thought, New Haven, London, 1955, p.90.
  6. See Michelle Grier, Kant’s Doctrin of Transcendental Illusion, Cambridge, 2001. See also Ernst Cassirer, The Logic of the Cuitural Sciences, New Haven/London, 2000, p.14. See also Leonard Nelson, Progress and Regress in Philosophy, Vol. I, Oxford, 1970, p.160f.
  7. Carl H. Hamburg, Symbol and Reality, The Hague, 1956, p.143. 66 See P.F. Strawson, The Bounds of Sense, London, 1978, p.162.
  8. See P.F. Strawson, The Bounds of Sense, London, 1978, p.162.
  9. Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Max Muler, New York, 1996, p.532.
  10. Leonardo on Paintingg, edited by Martin Kemp, New Haven/London, 1989, p.52
  11. Quotation taken from pp. 139ff of the manuscript.