We can describe things with short voca­bulary and overall

Since the ancient years, some humans have attempted to talk about the totality of things and about things that are distant in space or time, after they had observed a lot of resemblances and common elements by their limited expe­rience. I be­lieved also in the same capability, without having observed it well and without having learned about Aristotle's thoughts in the start of my own attempt. The ascertainment of cer­tain resemblances, the theoretical possibili­ty for correlations from a phenomenon in order to explain another, the capability to think with the broadness of some notions for many things together and in figures of speech, gave optimism and courage.

In the beginning of my philosophical effort I could make a lot of thoughts and I sought logical (reliable) answers about the substance of all things, us­ing certain general notions. The first general notions which I perceived as keys (essential) for the philosophical investigation, were the notions of the cause, result and relation. Very quickly then, I perceived the long prospect that the abstract notions of " part " and the " totality " gave to my philosophi­cal investigation. I demanded, that everything has the trait to be a part and not the total. Then, I combined the notion of the word " part " with other traits and other similar words by this consistent observation, such as the re­striction, the limits, the obligatory relation of a part with the other parts, the obligatory action of a part and simultane­ously the reaction, because it is connected permanently with other parts, the in­herent change in the existence of a part and the impossibility for a part to be complete, immutable, without change. By the permanent relation (action-reaction) between the parts, I in­ferred the notion of " interaction " as a better-aimed word in order to imply the permanent relation that the parts have with each oth­er, in order to be parts, etc.

I had many expectations and somehow I had a feeling, that the so­lution of cosmological problems was hidden in the permanent relation of the no­tion " the totality " with the notion of " the part " and their coexistence. I did not overtake (avoid) the theoretical observations in the abstract notions as a game with words. I perceived that the obligatory rela­tions, which I ob­served amongst certain notions (which were traits of all things), reflect­ed some relations and attributes of all things. I perceived it with the same logic, as the numbers and their proportions can be applied in mathemat­ics and reflect relations of things. If I had a theoretical conclusion, such as that the abstract concept " complete totality " should be considered to be a stabi­lized and always the same so as to result some other obligatory relations, which I had deduced for the " parts ", then this would was a conclusion about the Uni­verse too, since we consider it as the total of all things and with all ways of interac­tions…

Paradoxically, while I was thinking easily about the total of the things and was attributing certain common traits to them and was observing some obligatory relations (in the notions), I observed with the same easiness theo­retically that the things are more complicated than we observe in our daily experience. The ease with which I was talking about all the things returned as a difficulty, when I was talking about a particular thing! I was impressed when others had distinguished the things clearly in their thinking (explicit segregation) and also when someone had used words like "independence", and if they had defined with clarity which the cause and the effect were. An example: All things in the thought were parts of a total and nothing of them were not an in­dependent or initial cause. Thus, a query arises theoretically: How can we determine what a cause is and what a result is between the things, since we cannot find the initial cause and never a final result... This is, because, theoretically, each thing, which be­comes a cause, is not the cause to itself and this thing has also a cause and has been realized with oth­er causes. If the cause has a cause, then it is not the unique cause. If the re­sult becomes cause, then it is not the unique result. How do we distinguish, therefore, the initial cause and the final result, since a beginning and end do not ex­ist in the thought? How do we define something as cause, since it has been creat­ed with other causes and is connected with other things that influ­ence it? When we look at things and try to explain their behavior, then we try to find substances, in particular some discernible things and obvious ac­tions. When we think about things too much without observing them and try to explain their behavior, then we seek explanations with invisible forces, with movements and laws ... The individual things are never enough.