Out of the book ”Signs – Letters – Alphabets” by Csaba Varga
I do not tell a story, I
do not put my words in a lyric form, but “exploiting” my
mathematical knowledge, I build my statements on axioms. That is, I
do what Euclid did: instead of haphazardly dropping statements,
comparing tiny details, or trying to spot general truths, I collect
extremely simple and indisputable statements that I can use to make
my points clear in this research. Therefore, those who find the use
of axioms unpleasant for some reason can only blame the powers above.
I would like to say a couple of words to the reader who is not
involved in science professionally: Any statement can be an axiom –
anything that is obvious and corresponds with a phenomenon that we
experience in our everyday life so much so that it would be
ridiculous to prove it false. (Here are some of
Euclid’s axioms, for
Two points determine a line. / Three points that are not on the same
line determine a plane. / Two lines intersect in one point, etc.)
There is no limit regarding the number of axioms. We can pick as
many axioms as we need. (Euclid happened to make up 22 axioms.) Of
course, some restrictions exist.
We have to be aware of
two, really important conditions in putting together our axioms:
1. The collection of axioms must be free of contradiction. In
case one of our axioms contradicts the other, we should not think
twice: we must throw away one of them. (It does not matter which one,
the important thing is that no inconsistency remains in the end).
2. Not one axiom should be deductible from another. Since if
an axiom is a result of others or even one other axiom, then it is
not an axiom, a self-evident truth. However, there is no problem;
again, we should simply get rid of that statement. (Of course, this
does not mean that it cannot be a brilliant thesis or definition).
The world of axioms is this simple. If they fulfill the above
conditions, and if we have chosen the right ones, all we have to do
is rely upon them excluding everything else, and we will surely find
I found that the
following axioms could be used in the history of writing:
AXIOM I: Every set of
signs is an invention.
AXIOM II: It is not
possible to invent the same set of signs twice (You cannot step into
the same river twice).
AXIOM III: I will make
use of a basic and very simple mathematical thesis:
If a = b = c is true,
Then a = c is true as well.
AXIOM IV: It is not
possible to reconstruct the forgotten letters of an alphabet from an
incomplete set (In writing history there is no way back).
AXIOM V: If there is a
congruence of 50 percent or more between two groups of signs, we
have two sets of the same origin.
AXIOM VI: Everything
develops from the most basic state.
AXIOM VII: This is the “Martian-axiom.”
The unproductiveness of the scientific studies aiming at past events
does not prove anything (Generally, we cannot project contemporary
observation results onto the past).
I will not perform complicated operations with these axioms; I
mostly intend to use them as navigation lights when it becomes easy
to get lost in the dark.
It is in the nature of axioms that they do not need explanation. In
the next couple of pages I want to explain them anyway. The reason
why I am doing this lays in the peculiarity of the so-called
“European” way of thinking. When I say “European” I do not only take
the geographical sense of the word but use it as the attribute of
the Indo-European culture as well. An interesting characteristic of
the world-view of this culture is that it took only well sorted out
happenings of the past into it’s own “history”. This is why a great
part of our knowledge of the past is unilateral and therefore
Here are some simple
examples: Surely everyone noticed that the reports about the
discoveries of the 1500s are misleading. How is it possible to
“discover” America when great cultures have already dwelt there
before? How can we say, “the Mayas are discovered?” We can discover
a coalmine but not a contemporary human being – we could only get
acquainted with them.
One of the most
revealing examples of this completely egocentric view from the age
of “discoveries” is the following: We are taught that the Spanish
Álvaro de Meňdana discovered New Guinea. But what was he to find
there? He encountered Chinese merchants and Moslem missionaries
among the residents. In spite of this we call Meňdana the discoverer
of New Guinea, what is more, it is only since Meňdana that we regard
the island as a separate entity.
Thus, we can conclude
that the statement “America was discovered in 1492” does not mean
more than the fact that it was only in 1492 that its existence
became known to the Europeans.
The same can be said of
the sciences, mainly of mathematics, geometry, medical science, and
astronomy. The Pythagorean thesis, or Euclidian geometry, for
example, had been widely known thousands of years before Pythagoras
and Euclid were born; so the only thing we can assert is that the
Western European people learned of these ancient scientific results
through these famous scientists.
There is a puzzling
question that works well to support the above: Why is that we use
the Arabic numbers in Europe and why do the Arabs not use European
Our studies show that it
was Giordano Bruno who discovered for humankind that the Earth was
round and revolving. A modern cock-and-bull story is this.
The Mayan people, for example, had a separate god of the earth-axis:
Another example: more
than two thousand years ago a Greek man calculated the length of the
perimeter of the Earth (the Equator) using a smart and simple trick.
His estimates are quite close to the actual numbers. From the
positioning of ancient observatories we can claim one thing for sure:
the astronomers of the age took advantage of their knowledge about
the spherical form of the Earth.
Is it not confusing that
we call our belief-system religion and at the same time we call that
of other people superstition and so we despise them for their
Thus, slowly (in about
two thousand years) the great fog that came down on those eager to
find out about ancient winding paths of spiritual achievements,
which has become real hard to penetrate, and even the wisest can get
lost in it. Due to our upbringing it is difficult for us to accept
that the human spirit is one complete entity and there are no
honored stages in this entity – that in the spiritual world of
humankind everything is connected.
The above made me want
to dust off the simplest and clearest possible statements before
descending into the abyss of time.
Letters - Alphabets