12 July, 2017

What is Form?

Sacred geometry?

Form: We think we know what it is!

And, we certainly know how to use it.

We have reached a remarkable sophistication in how we develop it.

Indeed, these positions have even led to it being generally promoted to delivering the essential Primary Causes in all of all of concrete Reality - and even, indeed, to the establishment of the Idealist philosophical standpoint, and the escalation of form's nature-and-laws, in Mathematics, to the position of Queen-of-the-Sciences, from its real position as its pragmatically useful Handmaiden.

But, it delivers, quite clearly, a wrong, or perhaps more accurately, a mistaken, path, overlaid-upon-and-hiding the more essential Route-to-Truth, and achieved by man's remarkable intelligence-and-ingenuity in purposely adjusting real situations to conform artificially, though never perfectly, to the consequent ideas and techniques of such a stance.

Early Man's intelligence coupled with his first intellectual tenet of "If it works, it is right!" - termed Pragmatism, had already equipped him to spread across the whole accessible World, as a successful hunter/gatherer. And, it has also underpinned all subsequent intellectual development, as it still does, to this day.

Initially, developments were slow in coming, as Man's only source of tools was sharp-edged, brittle-but-hard Flint, and his succession of discovered "cultures" were almost entirely to do with how he knapped pieces of Flint to produce variety and effectiveness in those tools, and, it took around 90% of Man's entire existence as a separate species (over 170,000 years) to arrive at the Neolithic Revolution. which began to change everything, culminating around 7,000 years ago with the first Human Civilisations.

By some 2,500 years ago, in Ancient Greece, the first entirely new addition to man's intellectual toolkit was, in fact, the recognition and study of Form.

It took the study of shapes into a wholly new level with what we now term Euclidian Geometry, and this in turn led to a whole series of other disciplines suggested by the success of that initial development of Mathematics.

It was in this following explosion of intellectual pursuits that Form, as dealt with in Mathematics, became essential. Indeed Formal Logic even includes that basis in its title.

But, in spite of its efficacy when coupled with a now well-developed Pragmatism and consequent effective technical achievements, it had a major flaw! It literally never worked perfectly in Reality-as-is!

All situations in Reality were clearly the results of many often-contending causes, and it took the union of Pragmatism-with-Form to begin to bring aspects of the real World into Man's better control. Situations were purposely simplified by removing as many contending-and-confusing factors as possible, and, thereafter, maintaining that control while the now clearly-revealed Form was extracted and studied.

Reality was firmly "pinned down" all the better to study it! BUT, was that studied-aspect exactly the same, when so artificially-isolated, as it was when embedded with others in Reality-as-is? The consensus decision was that it was indeed the same. So, implicitly, a crucial Enabling Principle had been inadvertently assumed.

It is, in fact, the Principle of Plurality: and it states that all factors, acting together, are independent of one another - they are indeed totally independent of all containing contexts. But, that is , most certainly, not true!

And, that fact is proved by successful use: for the extracted Form can ONLY be used successfully, if the very conditions of extraction are adequately replicated in use. And, Man, being a consummate pragmatist, could always achieve that requirement, and hence effectively use what had been revealed.

In spite of Plurality being incorrect, its inadequacies could be overcome by pragmatically optimised conditions. Technology was saved, but Science was sorely-damaged!

This was because extracted Forms were raised to the status of eternal Natural Laws, and that was quite-definitely untrue. And, consequently in Explanatory Theory such supposedly "eternal laws" were brought together in dealing with complex situations as totally FIXED components, and that was incorrect.

The edifice of "scientific explanations" was based upon an unsound premise and would, therefore, inevitably lead to both contradictions and impasse situations.

The philosopher Hegel had been right!

Though he was talking about thought, it definitely applied in Science Theory too, and his revelation of Dichotomous Pairs of totally contradictory concepts, revealed by unbridgeable impasses in Formal Reasoning, was true not only about Formal Logic, but also about all pluralistic Scientific Theory too.

A whole panoply of intellectual disciplines arose with exactly the same flaw, but only in the West. In India and ultimately in the East generally, the Buddha at about the same time as the ancient Greeks had implicitly assumed Plurality, had assumed Holism instead. The Principle of Holism took the opposite assumption - that "Everything affects everything else!" And, without any doubt, there is a greater content of Truth in this alternative.

Complex situations were seen as composed of multiple, always-varying factors, and though temporary dominances were indeed possible, and could last for significant periods of time, there always was an underlying dynamic which would, at some point, lead to dramatic changes, and crucially Developmental Changes too.

It was indeed, if an appropriate, investigative methodology could be developed, the ONLY basis for scientific Theory. The ultimate model of the pluralist view was Laplace's Clockwork Universe.

While, that of the developed holist view was closer to an Evolving Universe!

So, can we say what exactly the "Worship-of-Form" actually leads to, and why it has triumphed for so long?

As it turns out, we must answer the second question first. Form is true only when a single factor is acting in a simplified situation! It reveals a pristine-relation caused by a single physical cause. So, it is a legitimate extraction in such a situation.

BUT, even there, it is never primary, it is the result of the quite different and definitely primary Cause. And, this shows the Universality-of-Form: for the very same form can emerge in very differently-caused situations - and those actual causes do NOT have to be connected, just the resultant form is one of those which regularly occur all over the place! And hough, they can be used for description-and-prediction, they can never be used as the Sufficient Causes.

Now, why is this the case?

All versions of situations involving a particular cause are clearly related: but they are inevitably changed by other causal-factors acting-simultaneously. They therefore posess a family likeness: every one will be similar to the pristine-single-cause version - that is why they are all assumed to be the SAME! The pristine version is the Ideal Version of an adaptable Form.

As such it is fixed, but never happens as such in Reality. Indeed, the whole of Mathematics restricts itself solely to these Ideal Versions! And, all theorems, manipulations, and the rest are only true of those. We call that World Ideality: it is NOT Reality!

So, the process of finding-and-fitting measured data to a Mathematical Form is not only a simplification - due to the absolutely-necessary Farming-of-Context, but is also an idealisation of the actually-performing, modified-cause in the real situation. And, this puts major limitations upon systems of using these "fixed Laws" in production. Each law is limited to its own ideal context, so all productions necessarily involve sequences of ideal contexts, for each and every "law" used: it can be made to work, but only via this "factory-like system"! And, crucially, if those context-conditions are allowed to change, even marginally, or even if the process in a given context goes on for too long, it can cease to be appropriate, due to tiny and consequently uncontrolled factors, and the involved "Law" ceases to deliver, so the process inevitably fails.

Have you worked in a factory, if so you'll know exactly what I mean!

Now, in 1927 at the Solvay Conference, Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg unveiled their Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, in which, to solve the problems of numerous impasses and anomalies in Sub Atomic Theory, ordained that Physical Explanations had not only failed in this area, but were also objectively impossible to take any further at the Sub Atomic Level, and proffered, instead, a wholly-mathematical-approach that could be made to successfully predict outcomes. 

Their main opponent was Albert Einstein, but though he argued for physical Explanations as paramount, he was also committed to mathematics as evidenced by his General Theory of Relativity, and the Copenhagenists won the day.

But, in the light of what I have revealed within this essay, it must be clear that this retreat was doomed from its outset. No wonder they had to invent Wave/Particle Duality, superposition and the illegitimate use of probabilities upon "simultaneous states of the dualist object", not to mention Quantum Entanglement and the Collapse of the wave function due to measurement.

With their gravely flawed philosophical stance, absolutely NO solution is possible. And, those errors are not just confined to Copenhagenists, but also to their Classical opponents too, and even those around de Broglie and Bohm's positions. The various amalgams of Idealism, Materialism and Pragmatism have to go, and the cornerstone of Plurality dumped for a Holist alternative.

Now that is, admittedly, a very Big Ask, but it has already commenced with the work of this theorist, Jim Schofield, to apply Hegel's solution to flawed premises in order to successfully solve every-single-one of the anomalies in the whole set of Double Slit Experiments. And, he did it by re-instituting the key omitted premise - the presence of a currently undetectable Universal Substrate throughout the Universe.

Remarkably, this assumption not only tackled those experiments, but also made possible the trascending of many other unexplained aareas such as quantised orbits within atoms and Electromagnetic propagation, as well as the subtending od concrete fields in what is usually assumed to be totally Empty space, and even Pair Productions and Pair Annihilations.

The "holistic" experimenter, Yves Couder, has even achieved quantised orbits in media at the macro level, and proved the role of such substrates as both general Sinks and Sources to provide energy in active situations, when its origin by the usual stances deliver nothing at all.

And, previous work by the holists Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species, and Stanley Miller in his Experiment to produce amino acids from an emulation of the Earth's Primeval Atmospheric processes, are both under review. First to extend Darwin's Natural Selection backwards into Non-living chemical reactions. And, secondly, with Miller's experiment to re-design it in order to monitor its internal developments as they occur.

Finally, a major and significant holist-dialectical critique of the whole History and development of philosophic Stances of Science is nearing completion.

The era of the dominance of Pure Form is finally coming to an end!


Directed Meta-Level Gravity 

The construction of a directed gravitational field within the Universal Substrate

Clearly, if we drop the frankly-magical varying-active- and-directed gravitational “field-happening-in-totally-nothing” - somehow subtended across vast volumes of completely Empty Space, we not only have to consider the presence of a Universal Substrate as its necessary means of a propagation, but also such a field’s own self- erection within such a Substrate, and delivered solely by the Substrate’s own special Units, as responding-and- active parts of that only possible intermediary.

And, it is also clear that such a field is merely only initiated, rather than caused, by the presence and properties of both-of-the-Masses involved. For they are certainly not intrinsically altered in any way by the fields they apparently subtend!

So that, instead, we must have a self-built Substrate-Field, actively constructed by the implicit properties of that Substrate, but located outwards from each initiating Mass, by each-and-every Substrate Unit that is involved in both moving-to the initiator, and equipping- itself both with an appropriate(?) energy deposit, plus a crucial directional-indicator pointing back directly towards that initiator.

How else could that field cause movements of the right size and direction to any affected bodies?

We can only assume that particular gravity-field-versions of the Universal Substrate set of Units, or Gravitons, were, in the prior absence of any massive initiator, both just randomly-moving-about (like a gas), and, because of this, also cancelling-out any of their resident properties, so as to be totally-undetectable.

NOTE: the parallel problem of Electromagnetic Fields has also been solved in a very similar way, by involving two exact mirror image units in equal quantities, the Magnetons, which also required detectable properties in order to actively function as they certainly must, but also needed to be undetectable when inactive. Clearly, a similar solution will be necessary for Gravitons also.

But then, with the arrival of a massive object, into such a Substrate, it would seemingly effectively “capture” those previously randomly-moving Units into a series of static concentric shells surrounding that material object, with all their directional features pointing exclusively towards (and directly-away from it, in a dipole manner), and filled with enough energy (dredged from elsewhere in the substrate) to be available, in an inverse-square- law manner, to deliver a gravitational impulse, when encountering a another material intruder coming into its aegis.

NOTE: the directional element within each Unit must be “dipolar” in a different way to the similar directional elements in electromagnetic Substrate Units (the magnetons). For, it does not have dissimilar opposite directions - such as the magneton’s North & South, but here presenting the same effect in both directions.

The reason for this is that the aligning of gravitational substrate units around the initiator, will on the one hand to balance the gravitational mass of the initiator, but also to transmit that same effect outwards via the dipoles of the units of the field.

Clearly, such “gravitational field Units” of the Substrate could, at this stage, only be influenced by the size of the initiating Mass, as no other interacting Mass is yet on the scene, as currently that aspect of any possible future interaction is yet to be addressed.

Clearly, nothing will then happen, until another material entity’s own gravitational field, building-out-from-it, as initiator, encounters the prior gravitational field of the first-considered Mass.

Clearly, when the two material objects are still very far apart, a reasonable “simplification” might be to consider the fields as wholly independent of one another - established around each, but not yet acting upon anything else.

But, the situation, which must be addressed, is when that is no longer the case, and two such bodies, both depending upon their own individual total Masses, will apparently begin to mutually affect each other.

The major question must be, “Will both initiators then produce joint field units, combining effects from both Masses, or will the fields continue to exist, separate-but- interleaved with one another?”

Once again, the reasonable initial simplification must be to assume the latter, because of the implications of the former, for the then clearly much more complicated Gravitational field Substrate Units will be too much to deal with just yet!

Now, with these assumptions, each Mass is affected by the other in proportion to that other Mass’s size, and, via the involved, connecting line of field units, is forcibly- directed towards that other - all the time suffering changing effects as the distances between decline. It is concerning the amount of this movement, where each body’s own mass also becomes involved.

NOTICE, how the Equations, derived for these processes, hide the actual contributions-and-dynamics, as well as their reasons, in a purely quantitative, simplified and idealised pure mathematical form!

In contrast, what is being attempted here is primarily a Physical Understanding and Explanation!

Also, it is important that because of any prior in-process movements of the two bodies, they may well only be merely re-directed by this gravitational interaction, and will, having passed one another, carry on upon new paths, taking their separate fields with them!

Apart from possible collisions and even merging, the only other possibility, will undoubtedly be the capture of one body by the other, resulting in an orbit of the lesser around the greater, and, a complex interaction of the two fields in some stable situation.

These fields may well, in fact, actually merge, but be then transformed into a two-ways-facing joint-field-unit, transmitting attractive influences back to both masses and causing them to move towards one another.

But, is much-too-soon to address such complexities: we will stay with our simplification as long as it suffices in delivering increased understanding of what is going on. The two “interleaved” fields will change in contained energy to always reflect their varying, current distances apart. Only when these changes are instituted will any consequent field actions occur.

Then, both the masses involved will use the gathered-in energy in its adjacent field units to be pulled towards the other! The changes in both fields will, themselves be modified by the changing positions of the initiating Masses, so propagations of field energies will be changing due to two simultaneous effects:-

1. the using up of field energy to move the affected Masses

2. the moving-in of energy from elsewhere in the Substrate to replenish depleted Units back to the appropriate, currently-required levels

NOTE: In the actual, here-unaddressed situation of merged fields, there would also be a third constant adjustment to even the un-used field energies, to reflect the changing distances away of the initiating Masses.

Of course, such descriptions do not say either “how” or “why” these things happen, for instead of simple “cause-and-result” situation, we have, instead, each seen as both cause-and-result of each other, while the whole thing is actually entirely due to an affected-and-effecting Substrate, actually delivering everything involved.

We can, and indeed do, simplify, by usually taking a relative-to-one-mass standpoint (as most of our experiences are of vastly-differently-sized entities), but the real situation is usually more complicated than that.

The problem, as it was with Electromagnetic Fields, also within the same Universal substrate, is surely Movement. For, it was the Movement of charged, orbiting particles that activated Magnetic Dipole Effects, and, in so doing, also delivered the necessary capabilities of built-in Direction.

So, it looks highly likely that such Movements could also be responsible for similar effects in Gravity: indeed something like a dipole-direction-effect, related to ordinary Gravity - in the same way that Magnetism is related to moving electrical charge effects.

Just as magnetons, when moving, also deliver a Magnetic effect, and when in orbits define an orbital plane with a directed magnetic effect perpendicular to that plane, so, it is here postulated that when gravitons move they too deliver a Meta-Gravity Effect, when in orbits, also defining an orbital plane, with the directed Meta-Gravity Effect perpendicular to that, in the same way!

This paper can be found in our new Special Issue (51)

Holist Cosmology

10 July, 2017

The Electric Universe & The New Dialectical Physics

Having returned to re-assessing The Electric Universe stance, as a consequence of encouraging developments in my own Dialectical Physics, I found both interesting resonances, but also very clear bifurcations, clearly due to the very different origins of the two stances.

Yet, both approaches seem to arrive at very similar positions, in many important areas (though for very different reasons), particularly concerning attitudes to the major retreat that is The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, as well as both Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and The Big Bang Theory in Cosmology.

But, both of these different origins have their merits! And, because mine was initially based upon the crucial need for Materialist Explanation, and then later, upon a developed philosophical critique of the universally-established “western” approach to both Mathematics and Thinking via Formal Logic - that equally involve a surprising amalgam of Pragmatism, Idealism and Materialism, I feel that I can also understand the alternative approach of the supporters of The Electrical Universe, as they seem primarily to be Electrical Engineers and Experimental or Observational scientists, rather than either being Mathematicians, or mathematical physicists, as is now the norm in Sub Atomic Physics. So, the reader will understand, that the resonant strands I have discovered in both views, as well as how they were impelled from both sensible and sufficient grounds, are seen as worthwhile criticisms of the current consensus Copenhagen position.

I have also been a long-time student of Human Prehistory, and surprised by the preponderance, as well as the clear successes of Pragmatism over the vast majority of Mankind’s existence upon Planet Earth. For, long before Civilisation began to be firmly established, this physically weak descendant of the apes, Homo sapiens, had not only conquered Fire, and the making of flint tools, but, geographically, had also spread- out across almost the whole Earth, and even, thereafter, carried-through the remarkable Neolithic Revolution, to significantly change from being mere hunter/gatherers to actual competent farmers, with new skills in Animal Husbandry, Weaving, Pottery-Making and, most crucial of all, growing crops in a settled place, and having an increasingly rich and communal lifestyle. And though, all this was achieved with Intelligence, for sure, it, literally, only involved Pragmatism as its sole intellectual methodology.

So, most certainly, I then had to discover just how Mankind has also inserted both Idealism (as in Pure Mathematics) and Formal Logic, into its Thinking, and integrated all of these with a strongly Materialist stance too. For these are not exactly conducive to one another, yet have persisted, in that remarkable contradictory amalgam even to the present day. The remarkable survival of this amalgam was surely down to a still-strongly-adhered-to Pragmatism - “If it works, it is right!”, which could always be used to paper-over the unavoidable, inherent contradictions, by references to pragmatic successes in concrete Reality.

But, such a contradictory set of simultaneously-held positions was sure to lead to major problems, perhaps most certainly of all in Science. Pragmatic justifications and Applied Mathematical methods may be sufficient in finding productive solutions, but they turn Explanatory Science into a patchwork of cases with more papered-over links than revealing Understanding.

In Theoretical Physics, and increasingly at the Sub Atomic Level, it was becoming an absolutely insupportable mess. So, while the Technologists were forging ahead with ever-more effective applications, particularly in electrical and electronic areas, the theorists were more-and-more delving, ever-deeper, into Elementary Particles, using ever more powerful and expensive kit. Yet, the theories of those physicists were falling apart: they couldn’t string them together into coherent, consistent and comprehensive explanations. Theorists tended to rely more and more upon mathematical forms alone, which they had managed to usefully-fit to phenomena, but increasingly without any underlying physical explanations.

The ultimate resulting situations were becoming inevitable! While the technologists stuck ever closer, via their Pragmatism, to concrete Reality, the theorists began to speculate, from their useable equations, into wholly new idealist entities - governed by rules rather than physically explicable relations.

It should have been no surprise that a major and contrasting alternative, based upon highly competent, materialist-yet-pragmatist technologists, would arise, and, thereby, attempt to do the theorists job for themselves. That seems to be the contribution of The Electric Universe group! They are still wedded to Materialism, but by solely-pragmatic ties.

Now, another group, led by first de Broglie and then Bohm, still sticking fast to the old, classical amalgam of philosophic stances, did attempt to counter the Copenhagen tendency. But, they were bound to fail! For, the main plank of their position was exactly-the-same as that of the Copenhagenists! Both groups subscribed implicitly to the Principle of Plurality.

Now, this premise is very old indeed. It arose, because Mankind’s awareness of Reality was unavoidably limited to a belief in the un-changeability of Reality: most things seemed entirely fixed to them. So, they assumed that Reality was determined by fixed (indeed actually eternal) laws, which were always totally independent-of-context! Now, this certainly isn’t true, and it seriously disabled those critics, just as much as it had their now dominant opponents.

So, a third group was possible, but it did not exist, as yet, within the "Scientific Community”. It did exist, however, in the Philosophic Community, and had been re-invigorated by the German Idealist philosopher Friedrich Hegel, some 200 years before. For he, in his study-area of “Thinking about Thought”, had realised the inadequacies of Formal Logic by being incapable of dealing with Qualitative Changes of any kind whatsoever. So, he built upon Zeno of Elea’s Paradoxes of around 2,300 years earlier, by generalising such contradictions into what he termed Dichotomous Pairs, and put these down to the validity of qualitative changes actually occurring.

Indeed, a much more accurate tenet of Reality was considered to be the Principle of Holism - “Everything affects everything else!”. So, he decided that a thorough-going critique of Formal Logic, based upon the holist position, was absolutely necessary, which for the very first time would accommodate qualitative change, and hence ultimately deliver a Science of Logic. His approach was to seek out Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts, as occurred when un-traversable impasses unavoidably cropped up in Formal Logic. He discovered many of them, and decided that they were due to erroneous, flawed or even missing prior premises, as the cause. So that, if corrected, the impasse would be replaced by a eminently transcend-able bifurcation or fork-in-the-reasoning-path. But, in addition, the actual causes of directly opposite pairs required explaining: and this he did not succeed in delivering. But, he did describe a methodology of addressing the opposites to get at the ”changeable truths” of Reality, which he termed Dialectics.

Now, certain of his followers. especially those well versed in History, such as Karl Marx, immediately recognised that Hegel’s discoveries extended validly a great deal further than just Human Thought: they also applied to developments in human history, and the sequence of economic bases for a succession of societal forms. Indeed, he and his colleagues transferred Hegel’s Dialectics wholesale to concrete Reality itself - to a Materialist Stance, which he termed Dialectical Materialism. Clearly, the prospect of applying these gains to Science was the most exciting revolutionary prospect! But, sadly, it never happened.

Marx was first preoccupied with his primary specialism, History, but also soon realised that he had to tackle Economics to take even that to any necessary conclusions. So, he spent many decades upon Capitalist Economics, in his work, Das Kapital. But, the basic Sciences were never addressed in this comprehensive way.

In spite of single contributions by Lenin and Caudwell in the key area of The Philosophy of Science, absolutely no root-and-branch critique of that Philosophy was ever undertaken by Marxists, and the whole trajectory of developments in Science (and particularly in Physics) has been with the total absence of any postulated dialectical alternative. So, the chaotic mish-mash of contradictory stances still stands, though more and more, currently, as equally inadequate “warring camps”.

Sadly, the justifiable rebellion of, first the neo-Bohmians, and, currently, from those of The Electric Universe persuasion, are both still founded upon alternative amalgams of contradictory stances. Neither have tackled the inadequacies of their long-held underlying assumptions.

The Copenhagenists are entirely without any genuine Materialist Explanations (they have retreated into Mathematics and Speculation), while the Electric Universe adherents are without a comprehensive, consistent and coherent set of explanatory theories (their technological origins are still not only evident, but remain dominant).

So, both of them are also still without any means of breaking-through the inadequacies of their still strictly “pluralist stances” - and the crucial problem of qualitative change is never even considered!

In spite of many valid criticisms put forward by the Electrical Universe adherents, they don’t wash with the Copenhagenists who now “dwell” in an entirely formal World - Ideality. But also do not and indeed cannot present a coherent, eminently extendable alternative. It is like the Technology that produced them, a collection of pragmatic achievements and relatively unsophisticated, though clearly materialist, explanations. They now, more than ever, require the thinking of well-established and well-equipped theorists, which are unobtainable from the Copenhagenist tendency.

It now seems clear to me that an entry into these ranks by Dialectically-competent theorists could make real headway. But, only if the topic of the Philosophy of Science is allowed in, and the assumptions on which these ideas are based, truly challenged. 

This paper has been published in the latest issue of SHAPE Journal, which you can read here.

Issue 51: Two Weeks in June

The papers gathered here are not about the U.K. Election or Grenfell, Jeremy Corbyn and Chunkymark are effectively dealing with all that very well indeed.

But, here am I, nearly blind and getting old, stuck at home!

Nevertheless, I am a lifelong Marxist, philosopher and scientist, so what I can do is very different but still, I believe, very important. It isn’t only politics which is going down the hole, but philosophy and science too! And, I can still do that!

This group of papers was written within a fortnight, and puts forward revolutionary ideas within my areas of expertise. They critcize the methods we all use to attempt to understand things.

Methods imposed upon us by the enemies of ordinary Working People.

Methods that hide truths rather than reveal them. 

Methods that cover up for those that have caused the ever deepening crisis that now find ourselves in. 

Methods that determinely edge us towards War as a solution.

So, though it wont be what most people feel should be done, I am convinced that apart from those who are clearly on our side, the rest of us have been misled in a thousand ways, with lies and confusion, so true human achievements are never part of our delivered News, or our Education to help our Understanding.

So, here is two weeks of what I deliver to the World.

Jim Schofield

(marxist. physicist, sculptor, activist, teacher, philosopher and lifelong socialist)

03 July, 2017

Grenfell Obituary


The funeral cortege is miles long. 

It winds slowly through the streets of London in dead silence. 
Millions line the pavements with heads bowed. 
As each Black Herse slowly passes, 
you can see the names of children 
picked out in flowers along each small coffin. 
Some are tiny, for they contain babies, 
while others form lines containing whole families, 
who are now no more. 
The usual short interlude of respect is here impossible. 
The funereal procession seems endless. 
160 dead.
The onlookers cannot bear it, crying and wailing breaks out. 
People are throwing flowers at the passing cortege. 

The perpetrators will be made to pay!

A Cure For Capitalism

Richard Wolff talking at Google

16 June, 2017

100 issues of SHAPE Journal!

Issues 1-50
Special Issues 1-50

SHAPE Journal is proud to announce it's 100th Issue!

Issue 50 - Logic and Emergence

Taking issues and specials together this journal has now published 100 editions of cutting-edge marxist theory and science, since we launched back in 2009. This one has been compiled to celebrate that achievement and to initiate the vital discussion about where we go next.

This journal has become the primary outlet for the radical theories of philosopher Jim Schofield, whose seminal work The Theory of Emergence was published by SHAPE in July 2010, as Special Issue 1. Alongside his latest work on Logic, this important thesis is included here again, to reveal the trajectory of this work over many years, but also to demonstrate fully the profound limitations of Formal Logic when dealing with change, or the emergence of the entirely new.

In this challenging new work Jim looks at the dialectical resolution of contradictory concepts, via their natural appearances in concrete reality, predominantly within emergences.

People are angry with Theresa May #grenfellfire

14 June, 2017

The Myth of Graphs

Theo van Doesburg, 'Counter-Composition VI' 1925

The Problem with Mathematics I

The "Geometrification" of Phenomena

In criticising the formal, mathematical treatment of real world phenomena into graphs, I am, in a way, NOT damning this marvellous development as wrong, but, on the contrary, drawing necessary and vital attention to its common mis-interpretation and consequent misuse, beyond its evident pragmatic efficacy.

Let us be both precise and revealing about this particular and remarkable union of Materialism and Idealism - made possible by Pragmatism - "If it works, it is right!"

The clearest, useful cases occur with the quite evident geometrical advantages of Graphical representations of whole data sets, taken from real World experiments, in up to three dimensions (using the actual three dimensions of Real World Space) to handle up to three variables across a given range of real instances.

Such a clever capture of a whole-set of related instances within a single situation, which maintains its relations in spite of quantitative changes in its evident contributions, clearly has advantages, and, pictorially, delivers the whole measured range simultaneously, "effectively" revealing the same thing as does a fitted-up formula can do covering the same real data, but is definitely a more informative representation.

Parabolas: These two graphs are not to scale and are here just to illustrate the two types of graph explored below

But, before we take things any further, it is important to differentiate between the two graphs that can possibly be constructed from the same data. For, though these two look very similar to one another, they are, in fact, very different.

CASE ONE: is when raw data is directly plotted in a graphical form.


CASE TWO: is when a pure abstract Form, defined by an Equation, fitted up to that data, is similarly plotted.

Now, mathematicians deal exclusively in Generalised Forms - a mixture of Variables (representing measureable as varying quantities), and Constants (which can actually be a vast range of values, giving a host of versions of the very same Form, without changing the relational nature of that represented Form).

These two come from two different Worlds - the data-based plot is from Reality (the real World - though usually extensively farmed), while the formula-based plot is from Ideality ( the World of Pure Forms alone)! And, of course, they have to be related in some way, to make the latter Purely formal Relation helpful for the real world situation - captured via its measured data.

Initially, of course, they are merely approximately the same, but are clearly resonating-analogues of one another, in the mind of the observer of them both, but the astute investigator recognises this, and is determined to tailor, or fit-up, the easier-handled, general abstract form to fit the collected data.

And, such tailoring is a purely mathematical operation! The original General Form has, as yet unknown, constants within it represented usually by placeholder alphabetic letters. The tailoring process involves substituting sets of data, representing a measured real world instant, into the general equation giving a formal relation in only the constants. Other sets are then substituted-in giving different versions, in which he unknowns are, once again, the constants.

Using the technique of Simultaneous Equations, these constants can be calculated from the combined use of the various versions, and substituted back into the general form to produce a particular instance or Equation representing (reasonably well) the original real world data. But, it is STILL an idealised form!

It is by no means identical with the dealt-with Real World situation, OR EVEN the full content "resident" within that measured data. And, perhaps, most important of all, it behaves very differently indeed "in the limits".

For, while the real world situation flips into another totally unpredictable situation in Reality, the Equation merely blows-up, via asymptotic approaches to Infinity or Zero: and these Singularities mean absolutely nothing in the real world - merely indicating "the usefulness over!" So, any assumption that the Equation (so-obtained) is the true encapsulation of the real world relation is, most certainly, incorrect.

Indeed, it is usually much worse even than that! For, data taken directly from totally unfettered Reality can only very rarely be treated in this way. More often, the only way to deal with the situation is to quite radically farm it to produce more conducive and informative data. The real world situation is changed - by removing any evidently confusing factors, and then also controlling others, until a possibly targeted factor becomes clearly displayed, and only then is the required data-set extracted. But, even that is usually insufficient for reliable data: so several sets of measurement are taken over the exact-same sequence of the independent parameters, and averages taken of all the results.

This technique removes other still-there variable effects, and it is only this Well-Formed-Data that is finally used in the above-described techniques.

As this theorist has explained at length, elsewhere, what is then used is both from a highly simplified & stably-maintained context, and fitted up to an idealised mathematical form (suitably adjusted to be as close as possible to the farmed data). It is pragmatically useful, if used in the same context to that from which it was extracted. BUT, does not behave the same over all extended situations. AND, even more crucially, gives major errors when used theoretically in more complex reasoning.

IMPORTANT NOTE Though not the main purpose of this paper, it must be mentioned here that the main philosophical error involved, in both sides of this inter-discipline co-operation, is the adoption of the Principle of Plurality, which is never true of Reality-as-is, where Holism certainly dominates. Plurality, in fact, only-ever-holds in strictly-stable natural and artificial situations, and, of course, in wholly idealised discipline areas such as Mathematics.

And finally we must emphatically differentiate between Graphical Dimensions and Real World Dimensions.

For, the former are in Ideality and can be as many as there are varying parameters, whereas the latter are limited by Reality itself to ONLY THREE! As soon as the wedding to Formal Equations ousted Causal Explanations in Physics, the legitimisation by reference to Reality was lost, and replaced by the Rules of Mathematics alone. Dimensions, beyond 3, were objectified by various ruses totally illegitimately.

Of course, the practitioners involved would never agree to this point, primarily because it would undermine their whole "world". They worship Form so finally, that they study purely formal equations in preference to studying Reality itself. "A blackboard-and-chalk will suffice!"

Further Reading:

David Malone and Chaos Theory

Computerised Solutions, The Nature of Mathematics & The Necessary Revolution in Philosophy (Special Issue 46)

05 June, 2017

The Contradictory Processes of Stability & Development


In addressing Stability effectively, we must understand four sets of processes:-

I: How it originally emerges
II: How it finds a self-maintaining-Balance
III: How it is undermined and finally collapses
IV: How it then recovers from a Nadir of Dissociation

Now, in posing it in the above way, we are really positioning our analyses well beyond the particular contents of these important occurrences. We are, in fact, going beyond the Physics or Chemistry of what is happening, to a more general meta-dynamical-level, indeed the famous Dialectical Level.

But, though Dialectics releases us from the misleading bounds of the usually entirely pluralistically-pursued disciplines, it presents us instead with the currently hard-to-employ, and very different, holistic approaches demanded by Dialectics.

Indeed, the required answers will still have to be revealed in the appropriate primary discipline levels. They can, with a great deal of study, be wrested from the old pluralistically-studied areas, but only by transferring our basic assumptions and premises, to a very different dynamical perspective.

For, while traditional disciplines find all their Ground in-Stability-alone, Dialectics focuses our attention upon the determining Dynamics-of-Change occurring in real multi-factor situations. And, this-alone allows the understanding of real qualitative developments - those involving significant major changes, and even actual Creative Emergences delivering the wholly New!

Now, in spite of consolidating a few concepts at the Dialectical Level, to remain at that level can easily turn any analyses into mere, if dialectical, descriptions alone. Dialecticians, like Slavoj Žižek, do indeed describe a wide range of real world situations dialectically, but he regularly falls short of explaining anything in many of the areas he addresses.

I must concede that he does get closer to the mark in his "explanations", when dealing with Psychoanalysis, due to his admiration for, and study of Lacan, but, that is eminently possible without making the necessary transition from Idealism to Materialism: in other words both Žižek and Lacan remain as purely Hegelian Dialecticians - as idealists!"

Psychoanalysis; Dialectics; Idealism

Žižek recently included a chapter on Quantum Physics in one of his books, which, without-a-doubt, proves the above point emphatically. For, his evident ignorance of Physics allowed him to claim that the currently dominant tendency in Sub Atomic Physics (embodied in the ill-famed Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory), as being "on the same side" as himself and other "Marxists".

As both a professional physicistand a Marxist, myself, I couldn't believe it, so I undertook a detailed critique (published as Special Issue 50 of SHAPE Journal in April 2017 on the Web), which exposed that ignorance very clearly, and also demonstrated that he is far from being a Marxist.

The lesson for this paper was emphatically proved! It isn't sufficient to apply Dialectics to a serious discipline, without being an expert in that area of study too. Indeed, absolutely all the principles established in the Meta-Discipline of Dialectics were initially discovered within a single particular discipline: and though that was initially only in Thinking (by the idealist Hegel), Marx's transference of all the gains achieved in Dialectics, into the very different Materialist Stance, extended the possibilities enormously!

He was able to apply them effectively in his primary area of study and qualifications, namely History, but in then turning his attention to Economics, he effectively had to become a professional Economist to carry it through. It literally took him the rest of his life, to complete that vital process.

You couldn't just apply general principles, as Žižek does, you had, always, to actually re-discover them, and in so doing, greatly enrich them via every new area addressed. And, as with all Materialist Theory, these too must be verified within Reality itself, to be also be justifiably included into the Higher realm of Dialectics.

Now, this introductory short paper cannot deliver a full account of all that is involved. But the work has been undertaken, and will soon be made available online.

Past relevant Issues of the SHAPE Journal already available are:-

Special Issue 1: The Theory of Emergences
Special Issue 3: The Theory of the Double Slit
Special Issue 48: The Limits of Žižek
Special Issue 50: Žižek's Ontology of Quantum Physics

It also might interest readers that we are imminently publishing the 100th Issue of SHAPE Journal
after eight years since our launch of

SHAPE Journal, SHAPE Blog & SHAPE Youtube Channel.

2 days to go...

As Jeremy Corbyn said at a huge rally in Leeds a couple of weeks ago, "there is nothing inevitable about this election!"

It's time to kick out the Tories.

29 May, 2017

Building the Left

Where will we find the resources?

What must be our policies?

Who should we target?

The approaches pursued by the Left for decades have never been effective!

Yet, the circumstances over the last 25 years, and increasingly since the economic collapse of 2008, could not have been more conducive to an informed, vigorous and appropriately-directed push, within the Left, to finally marshal the forces to change things fundamentally.

The Social Democratic "Left" has invariably revealed its total inadequacy to the necessary tasks, and when they get the chance to act, merely line-up with the Right to make the Working Class pay for the current, irreparable mess that is 21st century capitalism. When they get into power, even with a mandate from the Electorate to dump Austerity, they simply betray-and-administer that essentially the-very-same Austerity.

They are totally bankrupt politically - observe France!

"François Hollande's vision of an anti-austerity Europe was just a dream"

What is needed is a real Socialist Agenda - for the End of Capitalism! And, the resources to do it must be the Youth.

But, we must not be diverted into social-adjustments, which do not permanently address the real problems. The issues of Gender, Race, Jobs and Health must be predicated upon the fight to change the Capitalist Economic System.

Capitalism - if essentially left unchanged, can only make the situation worse - observe Trump!

It's got to go - this must be our Prime Objective.

All the many consequent evils of that system must still be pursued, and even more vigorously, BUT with an insistence upon these necessary political objectives.

When seeming allies warn against bringing politics into particular struggles, drive them out: they don't agree that Capitalism is the major engine for all our problems, and any gains they make will be both inadequate and temporary.

We must bang the drum for Real Socialism!

Oppose any inwards-turning or purely local "suggested solutions", whether they concern Racism, Jingoist Nationalism, Gender Equality or even Defence of the NHS. All of these battles will be lost without economic change. All must be centred upon the main thrust of Socialism!

And, the Youth will be the Vanguard.

Recruit them within all activisms as polemicists and partners for the Main Purpose! For example recruit Moslem Youth, Black Youth, Unemployed Youth, Striking Youth, Demonstrating Youth, Student Youth, Homeless Youth, Young Musicians, Young Artists and Youth at Music Festivals.

They must be our forces for change!

But, we must also be serious about Socialism. We must know what we are talking about, and why. We must be Marxist!

We must understand what we are fighting and what we will need to replace it with.

And the time for this type of struggle is NOW.

25 May, 2017

The Fake "Prevent" Initiative

Yesterday (see below), I wrote about the Manchester Bombing in the City in which I was born and brought up, and about the responses literally across the board, commending a "we will not be intimidated" response. Literally everybody interviewed blatantly ignored the real causes in a constantly repeated hymn to so-called British Values and Intransigence.

How dare they include us in their guilt, and their way of coping with it! We didn't cause such an inhuman reaction: they did.

And, when it couldn't be avoided any longer, they finally got around to what was already being done, and could in future be done, to combat the rising tide of militant Islam, among Moslem youth. And, "everyone agreed" it was this Prevent Initiative, only more so, that would do it! What a proof of both blatant lying and implacable incompetence.

As if such a web of their lying words could gain-stay the real causes of such hate, namely intolerance, racism and even imperial invasions, as have been, and are still being carried out by the Western Capitalist Governments across the Middle East and North Africa.

And a whole range of people from Politicians, and Experts-on-Terror, to even "moderate Imams" were paraded out to support this mockery of a policy.

"Prevent!" - such a fake smokescreen merely covers up their real motives -they somehow want a quiet and quiescent Middle East, so they can get their valuable OIL cheaply and in peace.

The only valid policy, is for the Left to recruit moslem youth in large numbers into the anti-capitalist fight across the World.

Workers of all countries must unite against the war mongers and the murderers!

For Socialism and Freedom!

Manchester Bombing: Who is really to blame, and what is the solution?

I have to say I am disgusted with the reaction of the Prime Minister, other political leaders, many celebrities and literally all the media to the bombing in my home city! Bleeding-heart "sympathy" and rigorous seeking for the perpetrators can never be a solution.

After all, these people actually commit suicide to further what they believe in. What could have possibly pushed them into such a final crisis?

There is but one solution: You have to remove that cause. And, not a single contribution, in almost 40 hours of a positive avalanche of "comment", has even mentioned the clearly evident causes.

First Cause: there has been the crucial colonial conquests, interventions and even full-scale invasions in Moslem countries such as Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Algeria, Tunisia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and even Bosnia Herzegovina, should have made clear that a coherent, and aggressive agenda was being pursued by the West.

Second Cause: it is the major global area for the production of OIL! Colossal supplies of that vital substance still reside under many of those countries leading to resource wars.

Third Cause: global inequality, the regular recessions and failures of capitalism, and now the current-and-still-devastating 2008 event, is causing havoc in Western Capitalist Economies, and so scapegoats-are-required!

And, guess what - Moslems are easily recognised and are pouring into Europe to escape the current wars in their countries.

So, why are these causes not being addressed?

It is because the capitalists cannot change what they are doing. It is imperative for Capitalism-in-Crisis! Absolutely NONE of the supporters of Capitalism can do anything else.

But, the Enemies of Capitalism, and the leaders of Working People everywhere, the Socialists, and, only they, can act! We can give workers of all countries and creeds a much better commitment than that offered by the Extreme Islamists by instead welcoming everyone to:-

Both Live-and-Fight for the overthrow of the True Enemy, and for the establishment of countries that are both for the people, and ruled by the people.

Our success in such an historical imperative is the only way to remove those pernicious causes of terrorism.

21 May, 2017

Latest Wolff

Marxism: A generally applicable philosophy

Greetings, friends, comrades and colleagues.

I have a perhaps surprising message to bring you from my occupation.

For, I came to my present political stance not only from my criticisms of Capitalism, or even from how it treats my profession, with regard to Funding or Training, but primarily from the inadequacies of the current stance in my field of study, Physics.

I am a professional physicist, and the current stance in that subject, trumpeted loud and long, in almost every University worldwide, and pursued vigorously at great expense with things like the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland, all the way to the Space Policies of NASA in the USA, which are, without any doubt, the results of a major, doomed-to-failure diversion, due to a badly-flawed stance both philosophically and scientifically.

And, such damaged perspectives and policies are not limited solely to just my profession: the malaise is endemic throughout the whole range of investigative disciplines from Economics to Biology, and Sociology to Chemistry. The philosophical stance, across the board, has backed itself into a whole series of related crises, which cannot be transcended by any of the usually-employed means. Our Culture in such areas is heading for a collapse!

Now, it might be wondered why I am bringing this up here, to an audience with mainly political concerns. "What have the problems in academic research got to do with our general concerns, which actually affect absolutely everybody?", for such seems to be a perfectly justifiable response. Well, they are intrinsically connected. And, the debilitation of these disciplines is a serious problem for everybody, considering what has to be done.

We are in politics to transform Society in fundamental ways, and we will need intellectuals on our side, in the building of the World that we seek.

Now, it is not by chance that the investigative disciplines have been diverted into their present dead-ends. Ever since Hegel's revolution in Philosophy and Marx's conversion of those gains into Materialism, the natural allies of that switch just had to be these intellectuals.

But, though it happened in Economics with Marx's book on Capital, it didn't happen in the other disciplines, and especially in the Sciences. For, the fact that these disciplines were historically totally staffed with people from the privileged classes, made it easy, via the similarly-staffed Universities to maintain the Old Order, and keep any revolutionary developments out! There were occasional exceptions, of course, but they were few and far between, and their privileged audiences were generally not enamoured of what these "mavericks" had to say.

And, in my professional discipline, Physics, the unavoidable crises were the most devastating, and the "solutions" employed, the most debilitating. The prior amalgam of Pragmatism, Idealism and Materialism, which previously underpinned Science, was radically modified by dropping the most important of the three - Materialism!

At the Solvay Conference in 1927, physicists accepted the suggestion of Bohr and Heisenberg to drop Physical Explanations, and rely instead only upon Formal Equations, as the actual drivers of Reality. Clearly, all that remained was Pragmatism and Idealism: the former kept Technology going, but only idealist speculation was left for the development of Theory.

The tales about Multiple Dimensions and Strings of Pure Energy, along with inventions such as Wave/Particle Duality, all fitted up with purely abstract Forms from Mathematics are indeed accurate pillars of the now universally subscribed-to Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. Explanations of the prior sort are gone, to be replaced with unfounded Speculations, based upon Formal Equations alone.

Now, "All very interesting!", I here you say, "But, how does it affect our primary concerns?"

Well, it does, because the Philosophy that is the foundation of the serious critique of Capitalism, namely Marxism, has finally not only completed Marx's intention by recently delivering The Theory of Emergences, but, in addition has also torpedoed, once and for all, the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. The shackles limiting Physics have finally been cast off. And, not only Physics, but all the other disciplines can henceforward develop as real reflections of the Reality they study, for the cornerstone of all the sciences, Physics, has been liberated!

These, and many other, contributions have been being published, monthly, on the Internet in the SHAPE Journal over the last 8 years, amounting to over 700 papers in 100 Issues

18 May, 2017

Issue 49: The Tree Metaphor - Modelling Human Knowledge

This issue looks at various analogies for the evolution of human knowledge, and how they might reveal where we have gone wrong.

Can we establish a sound metaphor for how we usually establish Human Knowledge - a Model or Pattern for how we do it now, and maybe how we should do it in the future?

The purpose of such an idea is that it delivers an overt Model for how we have done it, heretofore, which, at the same time, gives us a basic framework, to enable us to both criticise and improve upon it, independently of the content that we pack into it. Put in another way, we are attempting to make clear the philosophical bases for this vital process, which are, usually, not only implicit and undeclared, but also rarely even questioned.

17 May, 2017

David Malone & Chaos Theory

Revisiting David Malone's High Anxieties documentary from 2008 (you can watch it below), he seems, at first, to blame the collapses in social situations to ordinary people's own-and-increasing lack of confidence - their damning negativity, but, he then moved on to explaining that negativity upon to the discovery and vocabulary of The Mathematics of Chaos. 

He also recognised a generally-adopted Prejudice-of-Safety, which he put down to the prior widespread belief in Stability, as the absolutely necessary norm for Reality - for it, alone, seemed to allow the delivery of both reliable Predictions, and effective human Control of natural phenomena, via a mechanistic Newtonian-Laplacian kind of causality (taken from Mathematics).

But, clearly, the main assumption in such a stance, was the idealist-belief that what happened in the Real World was wholly determined by wholly-separable and eternal Formal Laws.

Remarkably, in the documentary, dominated by images of the debris of crumbling, abandoned factories in what had once been flourishing, industrial cities like Detroit, Malone sticks to his "revelation" that absolutely nothing is exempt from the ultimate inherent Chaos latent in literally everything that exists.

It is easy to see why some people, including Malone, are so pessimistic.

The only possible conclusion seemed to be, "Give up now, you'll never do it!", for you can't do a thing about it!


Malone, and seemingly his version of the rest of humanity, are all locked into a philosophical Dead End, totally ill-equipped to deal with such cataclysmic events. There is not the wherewithal, in their assumed stances, to suggest anything that could possibly be done about these unavoidable calamities: "they are inbuilt into all aspects of Reality!"

But, of course, he is wrong!

The universal stance, which he tried-and-failed to accurately describe (and blame?) is not the only possible position to take philosophically. If you study Philosophy, with a view to equipping yourself to actually get closer to understanding things, you can trace its development from the Pragmatism of early Homo Sapiens with, "If it works, it is right!", down through the Idealism of the Ancient Greeks, as shown in both Euclidian Geometry and Formal Logic, and then to the beginnings of Materialism with Aristotle.

All of which, surprisingly, then co-existed with prior stances for literally millennia, which were due to the universally-subscribed-to Principle of Plurality that crucially made all causative factors separable-from-each-other, so that they could (though only very occasionally) be extracted as eternal Laws.

But, even, at the very outset of this adopted amalgam, the Greek Zeno of Elea did discover-and-reveal (in his famous Paradoxes) important contradictions, due entirely to this messy-and-incorrect mix-of-stances, but, even he had no idea what to do about it. Indeed, it wasn't properly addressed for a further 2,300 years. And, long before that turning point was finally reached, Mankind had found a pragmatically-effective way of "making-it-all-work-out", by imposing a version of Plurality upon defined and controlled areas of Reality, which they had constructed deliberately to reveal, as clearly as possible, a single, targeted, causative factor.

Now, this turned out to be a major breakthrough, because it enabled the reliable use of what could then be extracted, as long as the situation-for-use exactly replicated the prior situation-of-extraction!

Indeed, without further developments, this important change enabled the whole Industrial Revolution via sequences of processes, each one delivering only a single causative factor, so that after sufficient of these stages, the required, "predictable outcome" was finally achieved.

And, it was this that enabled the mounting growth and dominance of factory-based Capitalist Economics!

Abandoned factories in Detroit

Now, Malone seems to be totally unaware of this trajectory, and instead, can only mistakenly-identify its definite undermining via "discoveries in Mathematics". But, all his conclusions are only true, if all the underlying conceptions and consequent resultant Laws are assumed as being absolutely true.

And, that they most certainly are not!

The amalgam of Idealism and Materialism, made "possible" by Plurality, and the flaws of this illegitimate amalgam, got around by the regular use of Pragmatism, was bound to generate multiple contradictions.

The resultant Dead End was true only if such a mixed stance really did reflect Reality.

And. the initial proofs that this certainly wasn't the case were delivered by Hegel around 200 years ago, when, on the basis of the very different Principle of Holism - "Everything affects everything else!", was able to show that Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts were inevitable with the current mistaken pluralist stance, and even showed how such impasses could be transcended by the seeking-out, finding and correcting of the underlying premises that had led inevitably to these dead-stops in Reasoning.

It was, of course, his assumption of Holism that alone gave him a handle upon the real situation of Reality, and which led to the addressing of qualitative changes - impossible with the pluralistic fixed-and-separable Natural Laws.

A very different stance was established, which had complex mixes of causal factors, which didn't merely "sum-unchanged" in varying amounts, but, instead, actually modified one another, until some sort of balance was obtained, which invariably consisted of the dominance of one of them, within a balance of the rest!

Such a situation, which mostly only changed as a variability, around a single dominant relation, was defined as a Stability, which had the appearance of being both predictable and permanent.

BUT, in fact, the actually simultaneously-acting multiple factors could not be extracted as they really were.

And the one-factor-at-a-time method that had been developed, always gave different factors to the ones actually acting together in unfettered Reality-as-is.

So, the sequence of processes, one for each factor, though they produced an end product which could be predicted, NEVER delivered what unfettered Reality-as-is would deliver naturally.

And, most important of all, the times when the Stability in the Real world situation was finally undermined by small but crucial qualitative-changing of the contributory factors, for then, things changed in a major qualitative way, which could never be delivered by the pluralist methods described.

Hegel realised that a situation under study in the real world, without both the simplifications and idealisations into separate processes, would instead by a varying nexus of factors, emerge often with two exactly opposite possible dominances, and which of these predominated depended upon the changing mix of contributory factors.

His studies of such situations, which he termed Dialectics, could identify these opposites and consider what might occur due to the particular changes involved.

He termed his method the Interpenetration of Opposites.

But, of course, there was an important handicap! Hegel was an idealist, so he was speaking only of Thoughts, whereas these alternatives were much more generally true. Indeed, as I have slipped into describing them above, as of Physical processes too.

So, to do more than be a criticism of Formal Logic, Hegel's Dialectics had to be transferred wholesale to a Materialist stance - a task begun by Karl Marx.

Thus, the whole analysis of the situation which Malone was attempting to deliver, in High Anxieties, was like asking a non-scientist to explain Quantum Physics. Neither he nor his supposed audience would have ever been equipped with what is necessary to address such questions, and, of course, social positions with a whole array of political beliefs as well!