Publisher's Synopsis
With the scientific understanding of the sun being the Cartesian point of origin, the point (0,0,0) as opposed to the individual being the Cartesian point of origin, the individual was literally put into motion. By moving the concept of the center from being a man, to the center being the sun, Copernicus in essence created the perception of humanity having lost its sense of being the center. Such a perceptual development introduced two concepts into our understanding of the universe. First: we now perceived the universe to have a center, scientifically speaking. Second: Philosophically speaking, we now perceived the universe to be the whole within which 'a' center could be 'found'. Before Copernicus' revelations, we had philosophically perceived 'the center' to be that of 'knowing'. Pre-Copernicus, we perceived the human id not only 'representing' the center of reality but also 'being' the center of reality. With Copernicus' observations, humanity lost its concept of being the center and as such, philosophy/reason found itself being moved from the forefront to being place behind science/observation, and eventually being removed from second place in line to being placed third in line. This second transition of moving from second place to third place occurred with the cultural elevation of God/religion via Christianity, Islam, etc to second place. How does Copernicus' development of Centricism and non-Centricism differ from the Aristotelian development of Cartesian and non-Cartesian? The Aristotelian system of Cartesian and non-Cartesian emerged as a static physical system while the Copernican concepts of Centricism and non-Centricism moved the perceived Aristotelian 'static' system into a perceived 'dynamic' system of movement. With the acceptance of the Copernican system, everything became objects in motion and all motion took place around a center, thus Centricism. In fact, with the acceptance of Copernican system, everything became objects of motion centered around the Aristotelian point of origin. The Aristotelian system led to the Copernican system, which was to lead to the Kantian system. This historical evolution was to open up the concept of system to Kant's dynamic 'closed' Cartesian system. Kant's system would in turn open up the concept of 'systems' and allow for the development of Hegel's suggestion of 'the' system being a dynamic 'open' non-Cartesian system. The development of both Kant's and Hegel's systems in turn created the potential acceptance of a new metaphysical model which was to follow their innovations. The new system model which was to follow Kant's 'closed' dynamic Cartesian system and Hegel's 'open' dynamic non-Cartesian system was a model perceived as a 'dynamic open non-Cartesian system powered by a dynamic closed Cartesian systems' or better labeled as the individual 'acting within'/being a part of God or more generically speaking, symbiotic panentheism. However, we are moving too rapidly, therefore let's begin again:
