Experience Plan and Wellness Levels*
The evolution of knowledge is a gradual, inexorable process that, as the cadence of the pendulum rhythm, has always characterized the history of humanity.
During this process, processes, dynamics and flow are not linear and regular, but characterized by alternations and arrhythmias that, by intercalating, contribute to distinguishing, diversifying and enriching the whole phenomenon.
A journey, a long and difficult test towards the peaks of understanding, as well as “the history of those cases where we see man getting improved, hardened, renewed by a test or even a fall, which seemed Have to decrease or break it down forever. ” (Teilhard De Chardin P., 1957).
The same Science born timidly and under the suspicion of those who sailed in an ancient world of Rules and Knowledge had to struggle not only to affirm itself as a discipline.
But as all the things of knowledge, in fact, has also come for it a new Moment.
A moment that will transform, change and dimension the entire skeleton of the same to become a new point of synthesis and apparent stability.
A science that, at the beginning of the third millennium, has to deal with disciplines, logics of knowledge and phenomenologies with which it will necessarily have to count if it wants to expand the algorithms that lead to Knowledge.
So in order to investigate reality, we must pass on to the viewer, with a feeling and approach that we can represent with W. Shakespeare’s famous phrase in Storm’s work: “We are also made of the subject matter of dreams.” We have to start tackling the issue by putting in the scientific equation all that goes beyond and overcoming apparent rationality.
As in W. K. Heisenberg’s Non-Determination Principle, beyond the relationships between knowledge and measurement, it is understood that perhaps Science has moved to a plane of missing rationality of some variables or, if we prefer, some dimensions.
Indeed, it is more correct to say that the dimensionality of Reality has been badly interpreted, or, better, badly represented or even partially understood. Einstein said in this regard: “In the last century, and partly in the former, it was widespread that there was an unmistakable conflict between knowledge and faith. Among the advanced minds dominated the belief that faith should now increasingly be replaced by knowledge; Faith that was not based on knowledge was superstition, and as such it had to be countered. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to pave the way for reflection and knowledge, and the school, only served that purpose. It will happen rarely, if ever, to see the rationalistic view expressed in such a gross form … “. (Einstein A., 1941).
It is from here that we have to start to begin building the new structure of Knowledge, now tiredly arenated (and devoid of potential energy) on bases and algorithms of Reality Surveying that are no longer adequate and suitable.
It is really the concept of reality that needs to be completely revised.
According to one of the many definitions (see Wikipedia) with the term “reality” is meant “what actually exists, usually in contrast to what is illusory, imaginary or dictator. Sometimes it is also opposed to the dream. This concept poses different issues both in science and philosophy, by contacting the ontological question of being. ”
A concept of Reality to which the Latins opposed that of abstracta (quid quidcredatintellectus de rei veritate); In a nutshell: what the intellect believes about the truth of the thing.
Now, in the search for Truth, the same classifications of Reality and Abstraction have never had a rigid (could now have) classification, contributing to an arbitrary approach to scientific methodology. We just said the Scientific Epistemology.
But as in space time, or chronotopo (introduced by A. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity) combining our traditionally distinct classical notions of space and time into a single homogeneous entity, likewise the concepts of Tangible Reality and Astral Reality ( To find a definition of what we mean) must become a single homogeneous and synchronous entity (which is not equivalent to probe God or a superordinate entity). But it means to say, as Leibniz says, “In the matter God is continual, present and protagonist, because he could not take anything away from his infinite integrity.” (Leibniz G.W., 1714).
This alters completely the understanding and therefore the analysis of “Reality” by recapturing it to a phenomenal Continuum where everything is connected and correlated and where every monad (to use still a dear term to GW von Leibniz) is connected to the next in terms Thunderstorms that dimens. Continuum therefore moves in all dimensions and functions and the scientific approach of the individual (and its technical and concrete applications), alienated from the “Complexity of Reality”, leads (as it has) in any case and always to a partial view Of the same.
The limit of this approach is incredibly verifiable in all the areas of current historical experience and particularly visible and perceptible in ecological and sociological subjects where the ultimate application of a scientific model based on desuety epistemological algorithms, resulting from an incorrect understanding of Reality, Has led Humanity and the Planet into “Collision Route”.
The central point of this Cultural and Epistemological Revolution is, therefore, the discovery of a new concept of Reality as a manifestation of a Continuum where, as in quantum mechanics, the functions of Energy and Mass are not so unilaterally classifiable and identifiable.
In a few words we must begin to understand that the level of reality we perceive and on which we move is a part of a larger and more complex dimension. We will call this understanding of the level of reality: Plan of Experiences.
Perceivable Reality is, therefore, the part of a whole or together and this is structured according to well defined and stable Principles (a little like the concept of universal constants).
Being part of a whole contains another fundamental Truth: Everything that man experiences or realizes with non-synchronous rules and principles at All leads our Reality to decadence and impoverishment.
If it is true, it is evident that every manifestation, every entity, every particle that we can perceive in our Experience Plan is indissolubly linked in a horizontal, vertical and temporal sense, and for this reason, every tampering with this Structure has to interfere with ‘Overall system equilibrium.
“The environment is therefore the most complex manifestation of a Principle, starting from the memory of the particles, denotes a structure …” (Bissanti G., 2003).
Always taking the model of expansion of the understanding that led to quantum mechanics, likewise, an approach with a more complex Reality, superior to the level of our Experience Plan, must make us understand that the boundaries between imminency and transcendence are only Arbitrary classification of the limit of human understanding of the unity of Reality.
On the other hand, to say it like Antonino Zichichi, “Scientific discoveries are proof that we are not children of chaos, but of a rigorous logic. If there is a Logic there must be an Author “(Zichichi A., 1999).
Zichichi’s words also clearly reflect Albert Einstein’s reflections, which in turn wrote, “Do you find surprising that I think of the world’s comprehensibility as a miracle or an eternal mystery? A priori, all in all, you could expect a chaotic world completely unmanageable by thought. On the contrary, the type of order that, for example, was created by the theory of Newton’s gravitation is completely different: even if the axioms of theory are placed by man, the success of such an undertaking presupposes a high degree Of order in the objective world, which was by no means justified to foresee a priori. Here is the feeling of the “miraculous” that grows more and more with the development of our knowledge. And here is the weak point of the positivists and atheists of profession, who feel they are paying for the conscience of having successfully not only freed the world from God, but even having deprived them of miracles “(Einstein, 1956).
Apart from the individual positions on Science and Faith, which leave the reader’s freedom, this concept is equivalent to saying that our Experience Plan moves within a more complex, unitary, indivisible and non-fractional dimension, and with which Is inextricably linked.
To say it like Descartes “If we then imagine that God wanted to make some particles of matter not be divided into other minors, yet it can not be said to be indivisible. In fact, if he has made it so that he can not be divided by any creature, he will not be able to take away the power to divide it; Since it can no longer happen that diminishes its own power, as has been noted above. And therefore, speaking in absolute, that will remain divisible, because it is by its nature “(Descartes R., 1954).
The interesting work by Michael Talbot, published in 1991 in the USA, translated into Italian in 1997, entitled “Everything is One”, which, in spite of a holographic concept of reality, actually introduced this very interesting concept of indissoluble unity And redundant. In fact, as the author points out, “if the separation between the subatomic particles is only apparent, this means that, to a deeper level, all things are infinitely related.” (Talbot M., 1997).
Now, it remains to be understood what the “moral” of all this is and how such amplified comprehension can influence culture that slowly, like a sprout, will grow and grow in the third millennium.
To make this dimensional leap we must therefore begin to understand our Plan of Experiences starting with a different observation of the reality around us.
In this sense, the study of Ecology, in which a great Encyclical of Pope Francis, the “Laudato Yes”, which may perhaps be much deeper in a few years, is able to make this leap Dimensional between the Plan of Experiences and the continuity of a more complex Reality that to understand us will be called Absolute Reality.
It is precisely the “suffering” of the ecosystem, and of humanity to which it is indissolubly bound, to draw us such a clear and enlightening path to clear the field from every possible doubt and perplexity.
Such suffering arises precisely from the clash or, if we prefer, the interference between two logics: the human (with its limitation of the understanding of Reality) and the ecological one, united and inextricably linked to one, with consistent rules and principles. This concept has been repeated several times and then expounded in the Intervention of September 30, 1998, at the International Study Workshop at the University of Padua, where Serge Latouche explains “The Paradox of Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development as Oxymoron”. (Latouche S., 1998).
These principles tell us that the Experience Plan is always connected and synchronized to one and receives full energy as it moves and works with the same algorithms and rhythms. When the Plan of Experiences moves “far” or even in an opposite way to Absolute Reality then the Plan of Experiences suffers from this distance, this asynchrony, receiving less energy with consequent deterioration of the elements and the set of which it is composed.
We can therefore say that it is precisely the observation of the decadence of Nature (meaning with this term both the true Nature Nature and Nature in the broad sense) to have to revise the approach to the knowledge of it (Nature) to bring it back to Synchronous paths; Thus abandoning definitively, as S. Latouche calls it, the Economics of the Immaginary. (Latouche S., 2004).
Routes that enable us to get to a real healthy environment, where this environment can not be cut off by human and social structures (real synchronicity of nature), in order to avoid all the many tampering that are operated around the world. Issues that make us realize that human rights rights can not exist. (Alpa G., 1999).
In the unitary dimension nothing and nothing is causality or, worse, useless, and the reductive humanistic patterns, paths and structures of our civilization for more than a century and a half (say with the application of the concepts and vision of the Industrial Revolution) Man and Planet in collision course.
To represent such narrowness of views we can represent this limited human understanding with the example of the partiality of our view with respect to the whole spectrum of electromagnetic radiation.
Our view, if it is perfect, can only perceive a tiny fraction of electromagnetic radiation. Likewise, the exercise of knowledge can not be entrusted solely to tangible human experience.
This mistake was just and congenital in the Enlightenment that, based on all the projection of human experience on Goddess Reason, ended up behaving as our view of electromagnetic spectrum. We could therefore say, through an analogy, that our view is the Plan of Experiences and the whole Electromagnetic Spectrum, Absolute Reality.
It is understood that Science can no longer be limited by, and with arbitrary attributions, to a Plan of Experiences which among other things is fluctuating and relative from person to person and from situation to situation. Relativity after entering quantum mechanics and cosmology must now be a field of research by classical science.
This is not to say that Science must fall into the mistake of incorporating an undeterminable and parametrizable esoteric, but that it itself begins to complex the algorithms of what is reproducible and verifiable, and even more what is meant by reproducible and verifiable.
It is a complex, long, long-lasting, but necessarily compulsive course, otherwise Science may be a means of inquisition instead of searching for the simple truth that can be experienced in the Experience Plan.
As in Quantum Mechanics, the Plan of Experiences also bases its stability on a model of matter between energy and energy that tends to the lowest energy expense or, if we prefer, to the highest possible yield.
This expedient represents the condition of maximum connection and continuum between Absolute Reality and Plan of Experiences, without which Nature could not exist.
The “designed” approach to keep the Experience Plan as high as possible is to maximize the diversity of its components (biodiversity, eco diversity, cultural diversity, etc.) so that mutual interactions and mass and energy functions are They shared maximum, fractionated, milliseconds and then embedded in a model with maximum reversibility, allowing the System to have the highest thermodynamic performance achievable. An organization that is based on a “thermodynamic statistical model of the organizational structure of vegetation (OOV)” and the ecosystem. (Hua Yong Zhanga and JianguoWu, 2002).
A bit like in a Carnot Cycle where process reversibility, split between multiple machines and sources, achieves maximum performance.
This distribution is based on configurations of energy representations and of masses that assume “multiple forms and substances” (Aristotle).
In a nutshell, it is as if in the logic of Reality there was a clear goal: to keep the Experience Plan longer and work well. To do this, the Energy of this Plan, as said, would be distributed with the most complex and possible participatory democracy so that each single monad had a very precise role without which the whole Plan of Experiences would suffer a decrease.
The philosophical, epistemological and practical consequences and speculations are not at all minimal, but totally and essentially overwhelm Western culture based on practical, non-theoretical homologations, uniforms and reductions. Never forget the holocaust worked out in order to support the ideology of purebred, whatever the cultural and sociopolitical motivations were.
The fact that our world is structured with such a “philosophy” involves, as we have said, the application of cultural, social and energetic models completely different from the vision of the past. It is as if in today’s understanding (which is not yet accomplished or still perceived) of this new perspective, humanity did the same leap as physicists had to move from the paradigms of Newtonian mechanics to those of quantum mechanics And relativistic.
The whole scaffolding of theoretical speculations on the reality of our world (and its rules) will undergo in the next few years (and exponentially) a radical reversal, to understand how some of the principles we now take for granted are in fact overcome if not Mistaken also from the ethical and scientific point of view.
The society of the future, to understand what is already taking form and substance, will have to pass on to an energy synchronization model between the Experiment Plan and Absolute Reality without whose theoretical and practical application humanity risks (together with the Planet Hosts) to undertake a path of decline without return. A humanity that today is paying the shred of an increase in its entropies (as pointed out by J. Rifkin) due to a succession of cultural and political models that are no longer suited to the needs of a nascent global but ecologically synchronous society (Rifkin J., 2004).
Energy and wellness
Today we are faced with one of the biggest changes, or if we prefer, evolutions of history. An evolution of the understanding of the things and matter of which we are fundamentally very different, even in the ontological sense of the term.
The philosophical, scientific, and sociopolitical scaffolds will undergo a profound change, resulting in a drastic abandonment of social and economic models overwhelmed and overwhelmed.
The suffering of modern man and the system in which he moves is not linked to the deficiencies of the Experience Plan nor to the physiological incompatibility between Man and the Planet. Such suffering is born in the Synchronic Plan; A misguided plan and, moreover, greatly forced by party interests and deviated powers. A plan not covered by local and world politics and which will require, as Schneider has pointed out since 1979, “a world legal order on politics and with particular regard to their environmental impact.” (Schneider, J., 1979).
We can therefore redefine centuries of concepts about individual and social well-being and, above all, the same concept of well-being.
It will be the diversity and complexity of the System to make us understand that the concept of well-being tout court is a very different matter from the obstinately proposed by a cultural, scientific and social model to be reviewed.
In the book: Like the Titanic? Published by Aracne Editrice, through this title, I wanted to represent the collision course between the vision of a dominant, asynchronous culture, which is no longer conceivable and feasible compared to a world of rules where nothing is entrusted to the case and no monad or function is ancillary . (Bissanti G., 2015)
From Philosophy to Science, everything will be different; Every concrete application of our society, from agriculture to the finest computer technology, through the configurations and political representations, everything will undergo such a change and revolution that we can say that the society of the future will be substantially different from that in which we have been accustomed To move and to live.
We will be “obliged” to move on a world of syncrons that the closer to the ideal (Absolute Reality), the more it will allow the real achievement of a real human and ecological well-being. That is why the dialectics and the political configurations and representations will move on different planes, and that is why Science can receive that renewed impulse without which it risks falling into a contradiction which is by itself an oxymoron.
We could even argue that this further step would allow the two branches of knowledge (a little like he would like to define them as Einstein), namely Science and Religion, to grow the Tree of Knowledge well enough to allow one to take over or dominate ‘else. The tree is unique and without good circulation of the lymph in the two branches tends to tilt and break.
The ecological principle
At the beginning of the third millennium, it would seem almost unlikely that there had been so many difficulties and what caused such complications. It was just the ecological world, heavily harassed by practical social reductionism, to “push” humanity to a serious reconsideration of its philosophical and scientific habits and speculations.
So this thrust has also led the Ecologists to redesign a picture of the environment and ecology that today, even on the basis of the work of Marques J.C., Jørgensen S.E. Titled “Three select and ecological observations interpreted in terms of a thermodynamich ypothesis. It is possible to explain various biological and ecological empirical observations in terms of a complete thermodynamic hypothesis instead of interpreting results based on a series of non-universal generalizations that do not benefit the ultimate understanding of the ethical and scientific scenarios. (Marques J.C., Jørgensen S.E., 2002)
The environmental emergency has made us realize (overall) that the direction taken by “modernity” was not consistent with being able to perpetuate for a long time, and therefore a review of cultural models, even before practical, was to be dealt with in a shared way And planetary.
The real novelty of this phenomenon (which is neither a fashion nor a tendency) is that, for the first time since man’s appearance on earth, civilization is preparing for
Address issues (albeit with all the necessary and necessary diversities) in a unified way and to behave as a single “body”.
The planet is beginning to assume a new dimension and function by transferring its ecological and social identity. From the Reading of the “Alphabet of Ecology”. (Celli G., 2000) will be able to borrow new principles that will help to integrate the knowledge acquired here.
There will be more and more an Ecological Principle that will have to collimate and synchronize with an Anthropic Principle that, in the age that is emerging, will assume a fuller and more complete meaning.
The anthropic principle, which was stated by Brandon Carter in the physical and cosmological sphere, underlined that scientific observations were subject to the constraints due to our existence of observers; Well these new paradigms, which I have tried to enunciate, will also change this concept and this vision. Therefore no more scientific observations are subject to the constraints of our position as observers, but scientific assessments and experiences related to multidimensional relativity and in which man tends to assume a different position.
The ecological principle will never substitute for the centrality of the anthropic principle (though some movements and some exaggerations would make this think) but will give fullness to a sense of Life, and its dynamics, fuller and brighter.
An ecological principle reminiscent of the affirmation of Indian activist Vandana Shiva that in her work Terra Madre outlines a response to the exasperated globalization imposed by the West through a different conception of nature, as a sign of Indian traditions and Gandhi principles. (Vandana Shiva, 2002).
We might even say that the Ecological Principle was born and has been consolidating as a misguided application of human centrality has been established, detached or, at least, far from ecological rules.
For this reason, the environmental issue will have to be “integrated into economic reasoning by delineating a true ecological economy” (Dasgupta P., 2004)
As in a chemical equilibrium reaction, the two components must be balanced and only a renewed Science can allow this new path.
We can say that the reading of the principles of ecology and their practical translitteration will allow the civilization of the future to “reappear” with the planet, and this reading comes from the practical application of that three – axis coordinate system on which the ” ecology.
A system of energetic and mass functions that basically rests on three components:
These three qualities represent the three Cartesian axes (and thus the dimensional system) within which the ecological model moves.
- Diversity is precisely the concrete application of that Carnot Cycle (which we used as a sample model) fractionated between multiple machines and sources that allow maximum performance. The Ecosystem did not invent anything new that did not exist but simply adopted for the reasoning previously made the best energy model possible through the Hubbel Hubble’s outline of the Unbiased Neutral Biodiversity and Biogeography Theory (Hubbell SP , 2001) and subsequently incorporated by it and by other authors (Volkov I., JayanthR.Banavar, SP Hubbell, Maritan A., 2003).
- Proximity is the concretization of a system of sharing functions and roles (of masses and energies). Through it, relations of reciprocity and energy exchanges and information that enable ecosystems to behave as unique bodies are realized. Any tampering of proximity and sharing of functions will alter the functionality of the “single body”. Typical examples of this tampering are the highly specialized agricultural systems. In this condition, that is, in specialized crops, the proximity between plants of the same species does not allow the contribution of all the other “information” occurring in the presence of several species. In the specificity of salutogenesis, agricultural products obtained under cultivation specialization are lacking in all the information that would have been transferred from the “single body” to the human body, thereby interrupting a large energy-efficiency aliquot between the two bodies and therefore , Sharing within the Experience Plan. Human beings (agricultural, social, productive, etc.) at low proximity alter the continuum of the Experience Plan leading to more chaotic and degraded systems.
- Sobriety is, finally, the method by which sharing, exchanges and information take place. You can define the number of revolutions of this complex thermodynamic machine, which is the Ecosystem which, to use a symbolic comparison and borrowed from the internal combustion engines, pairs at a certain number of laps (which we will call Sobriety) beyond or beyond which it degrades more rapidly. With sobriety, the flow of all energies is maintained at an optimum regime in order to keep the flow of information as long as possible (just think of those contained only in the various DNAs of living things), still with the aim of a Maximum stability of the Experience Plan.
The history of humanity has never known nor stopped, nor interruption, and even the apparent moments of stasis or regression are in fact much more complex phases of a continuous evolution and cognition of Reality.
At the beginning of the third millennium, major social and environmental emergencies require a substantial revision of cognitive models, without which no historical path is useful to humanity. We could define these new models as a new potential energy that, as in the earlier eras and historical phases, will allow a new era of well-being and where the same concept of well-being will be revised and recaptured in a new light.
The scientific method will have to be revised and expanded in order to achieve a knowledge not related to the Plan of Experiences which, as seen, is fluctuating and personal and where the boundaries between objective and subjective may be artfully defined. A Science, and hence “A politics to measure man, but also to the extent of diversity that is the guarantee of the balance of life.” (Bissanti G., 1999).
A Science that, therefore, resumes the debate between the inductive method and the deductive method for a new impulse of the same and its approach to the attainment of knowledge.
A Science that will have to open to the analysis of multidimensional models where the reference coordinates will be multiple. We could represent the scenario with the remarkable changes that came to the discovery that the Earth was not flat but a sphere. Adding a new dimension changed the whole social and political dynamics of society.
The consequences will be considerable and the scientific and therefore socio-political model will be substantially different.
Just as the disciplines that will have to be included in inductive and deductive models need to diversify in order to nourish a knowledge that tends to infinity and thus allows a greater synchrony between the Plan of Experiences and Absolute Reality.
That synchrony that can no longer be pursued if we continue to insist on systems of society and civilization based on criteria far from the principles of diversity, proximity and sobriety.
Only a new path within these “ancient as mountains” rules (Gandhi MK, 2016) will allow humanity a new condition of well-being, starting with all the activities that are the basis of history and civilization, agriculture.
It will have to reconstruct a new peasant civilization that, starting from these principles, reconstructs a new pattern of synchronies that allows the transmission of energies
Of Nature unintentionally interrupted the day when we considered the rules of the same superfluous.
The principles of production and work to this correlate need to be reviewed in a unitary view of the process where diversity, proximity and sobriety are the bases and whereby the new energies created allow the man to live a new state of well-being.
Well-being at a higher level because it is fuller and richer than information that we no longer have to perceive and perceive as the continuum that nature has in store for Man.
* Publication from N ° 16 – 2017
Of Systemic Reflections
For a Care of Salutogenesis
Alpa G., 1999. The subjective right to a healthy environment: “New” right or technical expediency, in A.a.V.v. , Environment and Law.
Bissanti G., 1999. Rural development and political renaissance – New Ipsa, Palermo.
Bissanti G., 2003. From matter to Father – Mario Grispo Editore, Palermo.
Bissanti G., 2015. Like the Titanic? – Aracne Editrice, Rome.
Celli G., 2000. The Ecology Alphabet, Mondadori, Segrate (MI).
Dasgupta P., 2004. Human well-being and natural environment. Life and thought, Milan
Descartes R., 1954. Rules. The search for truth. Speech on method – Laterza, Bari.
Einstein A., 1941. Da Science, Philosophy and Religion, Symposium – Public Communication on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, New York.
Einstein A., 1965. From the thoughts of the difficult years, Universal Boringhieri, N. 4, Turin.
Gandhi M.K., 2016. Old as the Mountains, Pgreco Editore, Milan.
Hua Yong Zhanga and JianguoWu, 2002. A statistical thermodynamic model of the organizational order of vegetation, Ecological Modeling, Volume 153; 69-80 – Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
Hubbell S.P., 2001. The Unified Neutral Theory of Biodiversity and Biogeography, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Latouche S., 1998. The Paradox of Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development as Oxymoron – Université de Paris XI.
Latouche S., 2004. Decolonize the imagination. Creative thinking against the economy of the absurd, ed. EMI.
Leibniz G. W., 1714. Principles of nature and grace based on reason.
Encyclical Letter of the Pontiff Francesco, 2015. Laudato Yes – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City.
Marques J.C., Jørgensen S.E., 2002. Three selected ecological observations interpreted in terms of a thermodynamic hypothesis. Contribution to a general theoretical framework, Ecological Modeling, 158; 213-221 – Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
Rifkin J., 2004. Entropy – Baldini Castoldi Dalai Editore, Milan.
Schneider J., 1979. World Public Order of the Environment: Towards and International Environmental Law and Organization -University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Talbot M., 1997. Everything is One, Urra, Apogeo srl, Milan.
Teilhard de Chardin P., 1957. The Divine Environment, Queriniana, Brescia.
Vandana Shiva, 2002. Terra Madre, Utet, Turin.
Volkov I., Jayanth R.Banavar, S.P. Hubbell, Maritan A., 2003. Neutral theory and relative species abundance in ecology, Nature; 424 (6952): 1035-7, London.
Zichichi A., 1999. Because I believe in the One Who Made the World, The Sage, Milan.