Axioms are very useful in history of writing - Proto-Nostratic Language

Axioms are very useful in the history of writing

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.

Some comments:
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 instance: 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 several truths.


I found that the following axioms could be used in the history of writing:

AXIOM IEvery set of signs is an invention.
AXIOM IIIt is not possible to invent the same set of signs twice (You cannot step into the same river twice).
AXIOM IIII 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 IVIt is not possible to reconstruct the forgotten letters of an alphabet from an incomplete set (In writing history there is no way back).
AXIOM VIf there is a congruence of 50 percent or more between two groups of signs, we have two sets of the same origin.
AXIOM VIEverything develops from the most basic state.
AXIOM VIIThis 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 confusing.

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 numbers?

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: Itzamna.

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 superstitiousness?

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.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *