The Fight Back!

What is to be Done: XII

The essential tasks for the Marxists of today

Now, such a reactionary step had to be defeated. Scientists had been aware of a tendency to do this across the board in Science, but these “brilliant” Nuclear Physicists now had come up with a reason.

My first effort was to suggest a classical explanation “in the old style”. Various steps were taken to construct a viable explanation from a definition of the nature of the electron stream, as being solely determined by its Source, via a Diffraction of the electrons at both slits, giving a fan-out of velocities, with the fastest going straight through, and the slowest being inversely proportionately deflected.

So far so good, but if nothing else was involved these fan-out could NOT produce an interference pattern at the detection screen.

What was Missing?

There had to be something BETWEEN the slits and the screen which could deflect electrons, and this “field” would have to be very similar to an interference pattern. What could it be? Nothing had been detected!

But, something MUST be present in that space. It can only be caused by either the “slits” or the moving electron streams” or BOTH, but it does not have to be extensive. If it were initially strong but dropping off very quickly, that would still be sufficient to do the job. Two interfering components (one form each slit) would be involved, and as the effect is known to vanish as the slits are moved apart, it is clear that the mutual effects must at least be the distance apart of the slits in extent. Obviously, the problem that caused such a solution to be immediately discounted was the fact that interference can ONLY be caused by contributing elements that include both positive and negative (i.e. oscillating) parts, so that they can either re-inforce or cancel-out.

Now that sounds like wave motions, but such DO NOT terminate over very short ranges. They impart a momentary disturbance and then move on. But such have certainly NOT been detected over many years of trying and by innumerable researchers.

Do the Phenomena Demand a Substrate?

So we are talking about something NEW!

Let us put asode exactly what it might be for the moment, and instead work out what our required “field” would have to do.

Imagine that TWO components, one from each slit, come together very close the the pair and interfere in a fan out from the slits. The shape would be radial, and would be composed of alternatate reinforced effects and cancelled effects.

The electrons, as we have already established classically, would also produce fan outs due to diffraction by the slits.

Imagine the superimposition of these.

The reinforced fringe regions would deflect the –ve charged electrons, while the cancelled regions would allow the electrons to go straight through. When you work it out, you arrive at “gaps” where the electrons were not deflected, and “field” areas where they were. All electrons would end up in the target regions determined by NO FIELD at the slits., while those determined by ACTUAL FIELDS would deliver NONE.

The result at the detection screen would be the observed fringes.

But, What is it?

Now, of course, there is still a question mark about our postulated post-slit field. But the electrons ARE –ve charged, and are known to produce magnetic fields when in motion, while the proximity of charges are also known to produce induced charges in appropriate materials nearby. We are not exactly whistling in the breeze with these surmises are we?

And, of course, this does produce an Explanation. In this effort the electrons are NOT obeying a disembodied “Probability Wave”, but are generated the fringe effects by physical causative factors.

Remember, scientists throughout the centuries were willing to state such evidence as physically caused, long before they had full and accurate explanations as to the causes. THEY could have taken the route of the New Physicists, but they never did. Were they right? I would have thought that this particular version could be confirmed or denied by appropriate experiments.

New Ideas and Methods

BUT, my second alternative approach is NOT irrevocably based on this attempted explanation. I have also attempted a very different route, via my criticisms of the usual scientific methodology. Indeed, if anything, the following attempt is much more sound, and also delivers the necessary rebuttal to our reactionary scientists and it is not as alarming as it sounds.

It does not throw away the gains of that well established method of Experiment & Explanation (or even the truncated version stopping at the derivation of an equation). What this alternative explanation does is to explain the observed phenomenon via an Emergence-like transition.

The FLAW in their attempted version is the suppression of both the containing Context on the one hand, and the treatment of the negligible factors on the other. These are unavoidable in the usual scientific methodology, and delivers results, while-ever the situation remains, within a stable Context (or Level) and whether by Nature or arranged by us. In addition, having removed, or totally constrained, all systematic minor contributions, we treat both the bundle of negligible minor perturbations and any unknown (because invisible) remaining contributions as mutually contending, and this allows us to remove their effects by merely averaging our results. We can do this because these tend to cancel each other out. But, such averaging is “over time”, and moment by moment, these are evident as seemingly tiny, random perturbations. So we have these Random perturbations which as well as being very small, cancel each other out over time, and our averaging delivers a good sound result (accompanied by a small random error).

Now, elsewhere I have demonstrated that at an emergent boundary of any sort (whether minor as in Changes of State, or major as in a full blown Emergence), what were dominant factors and subject to normal scientific study begin to SUBSIDE, and the minor perturbations GROW in significance until they usurp the situation entirely.

What were tiny zigzags of perturbation, become MAJOR ZIGZAGS which totally swamp the situation.

BUT, they can STILL be predicted by averages, as they were selected as such by our methods. Thus situations can occur where by seemingly inexplicable individual events can be summed to produce predictable results.

That is what happens in the famed Double Slit Experiment. Because we NEVER did know anything about the mutually contending perturbations, they when magnified they are totally inexplicable.

Now, this is only an interlude in a paper with an extensive and wide-ranging remit, so I cannot present the full case here, but it is available in the personal Theoretical Journal The Double Slit by the author.

The crucial point here is how criticism of method traced through from Zeno to Modern Physics reveals the reasons for their failures in this and other crucial areas.

Postscript

This now complete, 12 part series was meant as an introduction to the current Marxist Work delivered by the SHAPE organisation.

Current research and findings are at the forefront of such work, and the very latest is available on-line in the SHAPE Journal, Blog and Youtube Channel. It had become clear that a more basic outline of Marxism was necessary, and the above series was taken from our work 10 years ago as a suitable introduction. So, whether it has triggered an abiding interest, or an avalanche of criticisms, we can offer a substantial range of the very latest developments. This body of work is now available as a Special Issue. Read it all here!

Current Theoretical Work

What is to be Done: XI

The essential tasks for the Marxists of today

The Crisis in Physics

Since my intellectual birth in my late teens at Leeds University, I have struggled unsuccessfully with the idiocy of the reactionary ”revolution” in Sub Atomic Physics. A Reaction that was exactly simultaneous with the rise of Fascism in the World.

I have, in the past, laboured long and unsuccessfully in attempting to correct this massive retrenchment, but have for most of the time been totally unaware of the cause of that retreat, and have largely and unconsciously limited myself to their pluralistic methods to combat these “errors”. Needless to say, I did not succeed. Indeed, it was ONLY when I “tracked back” to philosophical fundamentals, that I began to get anywhere. And the touchstone for me was Zeno’s Paradoxes and the realisation of how significant were our assumptions and premises in erecting explanatory systems.

NOTE: In case my readers think that this was a fairly obvious step, let me vigorously dissuade them. Having read many contributions to the assessment of Zeno’s efforts, I have to say that what he did is almost never understood. The commonest content in articles about these Paradoxes are of the type “Where Zeno went wrong!”. The usual conception of what Zeno was doing was that he was a “spoiler” cleverly undermining the sound basis of Mankind’s achievements with his cleverly constructed contradictions. But, of course, Zeno’s purpose was no such thing. He wanted to draw attention to our unquestioned assumptions, and to show where they led “in extremis”. In missing the point in this way, NONE of them came anywhere near an understanding of the limitations of their own implicit methods. Zeno was, and still is, totally ignored to this day.

My researches kept being driven “ever backwards” to such fundamental elements, and my research into The Processes and Productions of Abstraction began to reveal the nature of man-made Explanation, and the incredible erection of the World of Pure Form alone – Ideality, which has turned out to be for many the actual objective of scientific research.

Double Slit Experiment

At a certain point I began to feel that tackling the Old Enemy might well be within my grasp, and a return to Zeno led me to realise the vital role of plurality in Mankind’s attempts to understand Reality.

In the last period, I have focussed my efforts on the crucial Experiment of Modern Sub Atomic Physics called the Double Slit Experiment.. I commenced to bring all I had learned to bear on this “foundation stone” of the “New Physics”.

I decided on TWO separate and unconnected assaults on this troublesome peak!

Herman Von Helmholtz

Back to Explanation

The first would attempt to explain this phenomenon by purely classical methods. I have always found the pinnacle of Science to be that version pursued in the Victorian Era (My personal Hero being Herman Helmholtz). And, have long been against throwing out the baby with the dirty bathwater. It should NOT have been Victorian Science’s explanatory tradition that was dumped, by Modern Physics, but merely the errors of the past. In other words we should have treated the situation we encountered in the sub Atomic area of study in the same “explanatory” way as previously. So this exercise would be an interesting one.

The second approach would vigorously expose the theoretical assumptions, and all subsequent stages in the erection of the final wholly unprecedented Theory. This would be based on my extensive researches as referred to above, but would be more particular, and address the various steps one at a time to reveal the basis for every one.

Both these lines of research have been successful!

I have not dotted all the “i”s, and crossed all the “t”s as yet, but full solutions are clearly possible.

As far as I can tell by studying the academic literature, mine is the ONLY Marxist attack on the problem. Nobel Laureate Laughlin, Emmeche of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and Holland – the leading researcher into this area at the Sante Fe Institute all take an Emergentist standpoint, but none of them are Dialectical Materialists, neither have they understood the bases of this modern reaction, or that these same things are still unchanged in their OWN methodology.

Their chances of success must be as minimal as those who have attempted to explain Life in terms of non-living processes. In spite of their commendable attempts, they seem to me to be doomed to failure.

Let me briefly outline my dual undertakings in this area.

The Key Experiment for the New Physics

The Double Slit Experiment (originally called Young’s Slits) has two versions.

The first uses Light shone through a pair of closely positioned slits in an opaque plate.The separation of these slits is close enough to to produce an interference pattern of fringes on a receiving screen beyond the slits. This is easily classically explained by treating the Light as a Wave Motion.

The second version of this experiment uses not light, but a stream of electrons, and surprisingly the receiving screen again displayed the same sort of interference pattern as with Light.

All hell broke loose!

The Copenhagen Explanation

With Light simply replaced by electrons, the immediate, and simplistic reaction, was to say that electrons must be wave-like in nature. If the stream of electrons was like a wave, then the experimental set up would indeed do exactly the same things. But, of course, this is a very unscientific conclusion. The same results CAN be produced by very different phenomena. That is the basic fact behind mathematics. We don’t assume that all phenomena utilising the same mathematics MUST be produced by the same physical reasons. And such a slight conclusion was also not appropriate here too.

So how can particulate electrons interfere? They can’t of course!

They could, if they were waves, but they are not. The arrivals at the detection screen were definitely of individual and decidedly “local” particles. These arrivals occurred one at a time, but built up to finally deliver the same sort of pattern as would be produced by waves..

Our physicists were perplexed! How could they explain this confusing Experiment?

They did it by abandoning all classical explanation. They were impatient with ”theory”! Many of their number had already found the mathematics to deliver exactly what occurred. Why bother with Theory at all? They therefore proposed a non existent “wave” associated with the electrons as a whole. No such wave was detectable, but that didn’t matter. These revolutionaries were departing from “old Science” into a wholly new approach. The “waves” were not physically present at all, BUT delivered the probabilities as to where the individual electrons would end up.

It was the epitome of a purely maths-driven Science.

WAVEFUNCTIONS?

A Fulfilled Objective

They had found a Pure Form in mathematics that could be easily shoe-horned to deliver the “right numbers” to account for the final cumulative pattern.

And, “If it works, it is right!”, took over. NO explanation was proferred for this, just the fact that it fitted perfectly. Indeed, these physicists stressed that no explanations should ever be attempted. For scientists were condemned for ever even trying to explain.

The New Physics had been born.

Now, after centuries of explanation most scientists world-wide were quite unwilling to abandon what had been achieved over the most significant period in the History of Mankind. But the new physicists were adamant. Explanation must go!

Mathematics was the Truth of all things, and the “old fashioned scientific process” HAD to be truncated as soon as a mathematical form could be fitted to the experimental data. The usually following “explanation phase” had to be dumped...

This post is the eleventh in a blog series entitled "What is to be done?" on the crises in both Marxism and Science, and how a revolution is necessary in both. This body of work is now available as a Special Issue. Read it all here!

Emergence is Key

What is to be Done: X

The essential tasks for the Marxists of today

Now, we must not get embroiled in the many possible diversions which can be brought to notice at this point.

This is NOT a similar “ignoring” as was essential in the pluralistic methods, but a refusal to be scuppered by irresponsible “Yes, buts...” A coherent contribution is always welcomed, but the throwing of rocks without evidence must ALWAYS be excluded. [I have dealt elsewhere with Changes of State (Phase Change), such as in the transitions from solid to liquid, and liquid to gas, but these are accommodated elsewhere, and would only (and perhaps purposely) confuse this current and important narrative, with which we are primarily concerned here.

In addition, I must admit that I am laying the essential groundwork for that most important radical change in the history of Reality, which is termed an Emergence. For where these arise may be seen as somewhat similar to those of Changes of State, but they are NOT identical. Though when attempting to explain Domains of Applicability this is still a fair approach, though applied in a much more limited area. The differences are to do with repeat-ability, and reverse-ability. While Changes of State and “Domain hopping” are reversible, Emergences are NOT. An Emergence is NO local change of phase. It could, I believe, be considered as a “System-wide Revolution”

Instead of a local, formal or organisational-only change, we are here addressing a major flip, which would take the form of a whole series of veritable avalanches, finally precipitating a Whole New Level. And such a Level – the Emergence – would be not only organisational, but also creative and indeed revolutionary.

Now, if such a description seems mystical or airy-fairy, you MUST be directed to consider the first, and totally unique Origin of Life on Earth. That was no mere Change of State, was it?

Did it happen? Indeed it did! And what did it achieve? It created wholly new Forms – living things – which were both self-maintaining and self perpetuating, and which transformed Everything.

They even transformed their own environment, such that the very rocks beneath our feet are the remains of living things (when limestone), or or even the products of living things when they are oxidised minerals, as the necessary free atmospheric Oxygen was only possible with the constant action of Plants during Photosynthesis.

An Emergence then is most certainly a Revolution. It couldn’t possibly described as anything else.

And it also has a more profound element – that can only be called Overall Stability. From one universal environment with its own form of this stability, an Emergence precipitates an entirely NEW environment, with a different but similar stability. So different, indeed, that the new form is packed full of new, never-been-in-existence-before entities, properties and even laws.

Indeed, within the New Level, the old prior Level situation has ceased to exist, and has been replaced by something entirely New.

It is HERE, at this remarkable transition, that the old pluralistic methods fail absolutely, and can provide NO explanations at all for what has appeared and taken over. The old Level dominant relations have gone, and new dominances have arisen. Even the old variables have vanished into that same obscurity as that to which we relegated our old unobservables and negligibles of our prior Level Science.

Indeed, this process, along with the creations of entirely new variables and relations, prohibit the extrapolation of the old precursor Level laws into the new Level. You cannot predict the New Level from the Old due entirely to our methods of analysis, which though practical “within Level”, deliver nothing when Levels change.

The Consequences of Emergences

Thus, we cannot use our old pluralistic methods to explain the Origin of Life, because they do NOT contain the essential factors that are involved in the transition. We had thrown them away!

But even more amazingly, the very Stability of the new Level militates against our wholesale condemnation of those methods.

Why is this?

It is because it re-enables their use “from scratch” at the New Level. The same pluralistic compromises will AGAIN be possible to allow its entities, properties and laws to be isolated, extracted and abstracted in exactly the same way nd with the same pragmatic usefulness, BUT FOR A DIFFERENT WORLD, and hence producing a whole new set of things at the New Level.

AND, it must be stressed, that this resurrection of Plurality infers NO CONTINUITY across the transition.

The system simply DROPPED OUT during transition, but could be effective again within the new Stability, at the New Level.

Yet that Assumption of Continuity is precisely what the vast majority of our researchers assume. They DO expect to be able to explain the Origin of Life from prior non-living processes using the old pluralistic methods.

It is in our Thinking that we are Stymied!

Now, once again, I must stress the difference between Being and Epistemology! The above assertions do not mean, “Give up now you’ll never do it!” Not at all! There is NO doubt that there is a “continuity of cause” between the pre-Life Level and that of Living Things – just as there MUST be between precursor and consequent Levels in every single Emergence. That is indisputable! But what we are revealing here is that such a Continuity is impossible to reveal using our universally accepted pluralistic methods.

It is WE who “wall off” the possibility of our understanding, because of our current inadequate methodology. Being is undoubtedly coherent, but our methods of dealing with it are not!

The impasse (as always) is one self-made by Mankind. We always construct the barriers to our own understanding, by the very methods that we invent to reveal Reality, for in finding ways to bring fragments of Reality into our sphere of affecting it, we simultaneously prohibit the revelation of how Reality itself continually recreates itself in innumerable new Levels of existence.

Our tackling of Reality cannot be direct and obvious, but ONLY consistent with where we are at any particular point in the process. We can NEVER jump out of our situation. Our methods can initially ONLY arise out of what we already know.

But we are Thinking creatures, and we do make break-throughs, and indeed progress!

It is just that such particular required break-throughs are truly MONUMENTAL! To achieve it we have to transcend our previous methodology! AND IT HAS BEEN DONE ALREADY!

A Sucessfully transcended Emergence: but what have we learned?

Momentary and significant transcendences of the sort necessary here HAVE been achieved, and then LOST!

What do you think Lenin did in 1917?

So, let us recap how far we have got in the re-vitalisation of Marxist Theory.

We have deduced that the usual pluralistic methodology of theory development over the whole range of Human endeavour, including Science, is incapable of dealing with the real drivers of Change in Reality, and crucially in its most significant and creative mode – that of an Emergence.

We have, I believe, already demolished that methodology outside of within-Level Stability. That old methodology has fragmented our Understanding into quite separate Level-defined Sciences, and has directed all our gains towards technological Control and Production.

Though attempts to understand still exist, they are also largely emasculated by the universal acceptance of the same pluralistic methods. The best of our scientists have realised the problem, and have taken on the task of opposing the worst excesses of pluralistic Science – as in Quantum Theory & Cosmology for example –BUT they are clearly inadequately equipped to succeed. They have neither understood nor rejected the established methodology, but ONLY its results.

Their standpoints are modern, secular versions of the God-of-the-Gaps “hope”, in that they know what fragments have been achieved by their pluralistic methods, but they merely “expect” that they will be unified in the future by new discoveries – found by the same, old methods, that will “bridge the gaps”

So, how do we Proceed?

I believe that by now it must be clear to the reader that this is a forlorn hope. The waited for “bridging discoveries” are indeed unabtainable by those methods,

What has to be done is to complete the task, and that is no mere “add-on” to old work! It involves the thorough demolition of the old methods, and a root-and-branch overhaul of our methodology to devise a NEW appropriate set of techniques equipped to deal with Emergent Change.

For someone who has been attempting to be a real Marxist for 50 years, such assertions seem unnecessary, but the reverse is true. I have never come across an anlysis of pluralistic assumptions and methods by any Marxist in this very long period. The self-professed Marxists themselves subscribe to these alien methods as if they have no choice in the matter. They embrace the same methodology as their avowed enemies, and true philosophical Marxism dissolves away to be replaced by a sort of moral socialism.

Marx himself in his Poverty of Philosophy, and many other works, condemned Socialists such as Proudhon and his like for their Utopian Socialism, and their totally inadequate philosophical methods. He (like me) arrived at Socialism via Philosophy, but he was aware that Mankind’s knowledge and methodology was “drenched-through” with a totally inadequate approach. He spent whole decades combating such things. But, in spite of their crucial role in the development of his overall Philosophy and Programme for action, we miss all this out to concentrate on his political commitments.

We copy his activism, while ignoring his fundamental philosophical work.

And, sin of all sins, we look to him for ALL the answers. That MUST be the most damning error of all! High-point though Marx was in the Ascent of Man, he was no God. He didn’t have prescience to accurately predict the future and direct our work for the coming centuries.

That MUST be our job!

But, that Task has already been commenced... My efforts, particularly in the last couple of years, have, I believe, begun to indicate what has yet to be done. The most thrilling and demanding task must be in carrying through Hegel’s objective of a Science of Logic – a Logic of Change, and the subsequent orchestration of all the gains of Mankind since the second flowering with Lenin & the Bolsheviks in 1917 into a coherent Whole, PLUS the central crux that is the trajectory of an Emergence. (see The Theory of Emergences in SHAPE Journal)

How does Reality raise its game, and rush to a new creative Level?

Can we tackle “bridging the Gaps” ?

This post is the tenth in a blog series entitled "What is to be done?" on the crises in both Marxism and Science, and how a revolution is necessary in both. This body of work is now available as a Special Issue. Read it all here!

The Crucial Outstanding Tasks for Marxist Theorists

Gustav Klutsis

What is to be Done: IX

The essential tasks for the Marxists of today

The very unavoidability of the Origin of Life on Earth could NOT be tidied away. It demanded explanation, and slowly but surely using Life as a template method, initial definitions of Emergences as radically transforming Natural Events began to be formulated.

Surprisingly, these were NOT lead by the Marxists. Instead, individuals and small groups of scientists began to formulate these generally.

Many Wrong Turnings

Various diverse groups embraced the area of study “from their own discipline standpoints”. Green campaigners were enamoured of the approach, but did little to develop it scientifically (Lovelock comes to mind). The Nobel Prize-winning physicist Laughlin in opposition to the consensus in Modern Physics also lined up on the side of Emergences. Emmeche from the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen published a joint paper with two colleagues from other areas of study espousing the Emergentist approach, and finally Murray Gell-Mann and colleagues at the Santa Fe Institute in America also insisted that they were ”of the same persuasion”. But though I suppose that these were a significant and diverse group of supporters of the idea of Emergence, I’m afraid that they did not turn any significant corners. They were, of course, ill equipped to address the real problems and tasks involved, for these were unavoidably philosophical. In addition it turns out to be impossible for anyone to make contributions in this field who are still following the standard pluralist approach of the majority of scientists. It is clear to me that such researchers, no matter how dedicated, cannot overcome the problems inherent in the pluralist approach. After all, the most essential feature of Emergences MUST be that they are creative! In the same way that Evolution was incessantly punctuated by the entirely New, and involved a regular opening up of new Potential and Form, so it was with all Emergences. The creative aspect of these Events was anathema to most thinkers.

The iron grip of strict Determinism on the one hand, and still-existing religion on the other, were sure they had ALL the answers already. They had always had the answers, of course! To depart from strict Determinism was condemned as Metaphysics on the left hand side, and Sacrilege on the right.

The epitome of the Scientific approach was embodied in the work of Holland (at Santa Fe), who along with ALL his colleagues it seems, was convinced that he could “demonstrate” Emergences via
Computer Simulations.

Forgive me while I fall about laughing uncontrollably. The idea that a retrospective form such as a computer simulation could possibly produce creative Emergences was unbelievable. But, remarkably, that turned out to be the Determinist/Reductionist consensus. Quite clearly such people could never tackle the problem: the Emergence of Life on Earth could never be addressed merely by a re-mix approach.. All they would be able to do is emasculate it! They might be able to turn it into a vehicle for their careers, but they could never address its true essence.

So, Who Could Tackle This Problem? It should be obvious WHO should be doing this work. IT IS YOU!

Indeed, as far as I can see ONLY dialectical materialists could ever address the questions posed in this area. With a multi-discipline approach, and taking in ALL the developments since the time of the great Marxists, we should attempt a Marxist description of Emergent Events, and to do this believably, we must first tackle, then reveal, and finally destroy the prevailing scientific consensus methodology based on Plurality. We must bring about the demise of Reductionist Determinism as the main barrier to progress in this crucial area ( as well as many others)

The undertaking is about Epistemology – the task of understanding and explaining Reality, and about Method – the means by which we do this. The established methodology CANNOT address what we must deal with here, so we must first criticize fully, and then replace, the old methods. We must see the flaws in the old reductionist/Determinist methods and define the necessary alternatives. Not Plurality, But a New Holistic Science.

Now, earlier in this paper, I already intimated that Plurality is not only a purely pragmatic approach to the study of Reality, but also, and unavoidably, imposes the consequent conceptions of Determinism and Reductionism upon how we see things as a whole. These ideas “unify” our global conceptions into what seems like a coherent and comprehensive Whole. But, it is merely a useful myth.

Its opposite, Holism, fared even worse, for though seemingly more all-embracing, still delivered NO effective methodology with which to deal with Reality, and, in any sort of scientific way, reveal its inner workings. So, we are presented with this pair of alternatives, neither of which is adequate to the required task. Therefore, though it seems incomprehensible, our task is defined as having to work through this dichotomous pair to another, different approach, which really does reflect the real situation.

We must explain in detail how these alternatives have in the past only led us astray, and following this attempt a synthesis which transcends their evident contradiction.

No easy task!

First, we must reveal the unavoidable dead-ends involved in a purely pluralistic methodology, and then without clanging over to the opposite extreme of ineffective Holism, point the way instead to a superior methodology.

Of course, such a task is a supreme undertaking, and of course, way too big for a single paper, or even for a single contributor. But a start must be made, for only by such actions will other additional forces be recruited to this fundamental task.

Charlie Chaplin

What is Wrong with Pluralist Technology?

Let us first establish irrefutably the limitations of the now universally established Pluralistic Method. By the processes of isolation, extraction and abstraction we separate embedded relations from their Real World context, control or ignore formative, as well as seemingly trivial, simultaneous factors, and then limit the ground for their intended use, so that they do indeed deliver what is required when used there.

We construct stepping-stones across the veritable river of changing Reality, without tackling the torrent as such. Of course - we are aware that each and every extraction is limited to its own Domain of Applicability – our secure stepping stones, and that if their limits are transgressed, our formulae fail, and we step into the midst of the torrent, and are swept away to oblivion.(For once beyond these limits the formulae are totally useless and give false values for all crucial variables). Indeed, the experienced user of these methods knows, that to ensure any progress, we must abandon our last stepping stone for another in the next Domain.

Our feeble attempts at transcending these boundaries automatically are similar to constructing makeshift bridges from one stepping stone to the next. Such “bridges” can only be retrospective, as each and every stepping stone has to be separately investigated to produce its pluralistic formulae. Only then can these purely artificial bridges be constructed.

The method is what I call “Additive Complexity”, where the various Domains and their formulae, become different “terms” within a cover-all single equation. The terms are integrated in such a way that as we move from one domain to the next, the old term vanishes, while the appropriate new one comes into dominance. It is a clever (and once again pragmatic) trick. But it delivers NO explanation of the transition at all. It is a purely retrospective frig, to deliver a practical, mindless solution..

Though, highly popular amongst engineers, these frigs tell us nothing about what is actually happening, and why. They could not by any stretch of the imagination be called Science. They are mere Technology!

It HAS to be asked, “What is really happening as we move across such boundaries?”

It is abundantly clear that our pluralistic methods cannot address this question, because the answer MUST be contained within the VERY FACTORS that we have either “nailed to the floor” or totally ignored. Clearly, our selection of what was vital, ceases to be true. Our banker, dominant factors will melt away and themselves become negligible, to be replaced by others from those we cast away. Indeed, the very factors necessary to deliver the changes are unavailable, as our pluralistic methods disposed of them as irrelevant.

This post is the ninth in a new blog series entitled "What is to be done?" on the crises in both Marxism and Science, and how a revolution is necessary in both. This body of work is now available as a Special Issue. Read it all here!

A Necessary and Revolutionary Change

What is to be Done: VIII

The essential tasks for the Marxists of today

Most of our established methods assume immutability and seem to have served us very well. Even Formal Logic would crumble if nothing stays the same – if all things were in constant change into other things! 

Systems of rationality, such as Euclidian Geometry would surely prove to be mere invention? It is clear that we are reaching the nitty-gritty in a number of separate and vital ways. 

Once again, our dichotomous imperative drives us towards the precipice of contradiction. We immediately assume that Change undermines everything, and all our achievements grounded firmly on permanence will be thrown away. But as they say on the cover of the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy – DON’T PANIC! 

We have to see Stability within Change to cope with these problems. 

Stability & Change 

The reason that we succeed with our immutability assumptions is that Reality is MOSTLY stable – indeed, it is actually self-regulatingly stable as its primary mode. It keeps itself stable most of the time, in spite of constant minor changes. In spite of the holistic Whole of innumerable contending factors and the bottom to top, and side to side mediations, these do NOT generally lead to total Chaos. And the reason is that there are also stabilising top to bottom mediations that constantly adjust to keep a maintainable balance. The normal situation is that destabilising factors are countered by changes by the rest of Reality, producing periods of relative stability, where assumptions of |immutability are approximately and usefully true. 

BUT, all this is NOT to say that immutability is therefore the Truth. It isn’t! 

Behind the temporary stability, there is always an incipient instability, which DOES lead to Change of various kinds. The most conducive Changes we term Evolutionary, while the cataclysmic changes we term Revolutions! 

Emergences! 

Within the tiny DOT of our span of existence, Reality has been relatively stable, changing only in an evolutionary way, but as soon as we expand the timescale beyond this DOT, we see Reality as subject to the most drastic and far reaching revolutions, where everything can be overturned. 

These are termed Emergences, and are most clearly and exhaustively categorised by a single stupendous and irrefutable example – The Origin of Life on Earth! 

Do you doubt that this Revolution occurred? 

The evidence is indisputable!. And as they say in Logic “There exists a…….”, which implies that others of a similar nature must also be possible, indeed likely. Now, working up a generality from a particular is not to be recommended as a reliable process, but the very existence of a particular of such vast and far reaching importance, does at least infer that it is one of many. 

So though we can establish that such a category of Events does exist we cannot fully define that generality. To do that we must have available a whole range of examples, within which we are able to discern the commonalities that can be seen to DEFINE the category. 

Nonetheless, the Origin of Life is pretty special. Whatever is wrong with this back-to-front method, its existence does pose a whole series of vital questions which strike at the heart of our previous (and now rapidly dissolving) assumptions. and if for nothing else the indisputable occurrence of that Event does prove the case foe other such Events – for Emergences as regular, if rare, creative Revolutions. 

But, as I have already intimated, such things don’t happen very often, indeed NEVER within the time on earth of Mankind, so in chasing the nature of these important happenings, we have no choce but to take what is available. 

G.W.F. Hegel

Friedrich Hegel 

The really fundamental work on this area was undertaken WITHOUT full consciousness of a physical significance or even of a sociological aspect. 

The crucial work was done by Hegel, when “Thinking about Thought!”. He too was preoccupied, as Zeno had been, with the limitations our our universally agreed assumptions and premises, but these occurred primarily, and to his way of seeing essentially, in Human Thinking.He cringed at the absence of Change in Formal Logic, for he was perfectly well aware of the trajectory of Thought itself, which was shot through with Realisation and new conceptions. To consider Thought without addressing Change was moronic. He became intent upon the need for a Logic of Change to replace Formal Logic. 

He could conceive of only one area of study to develop this new Logic, and that was obviously in dealing with the trajectories and achievements of Human Thinking, and despite, once again, it being a non-objective way to do it, he felt that he had no choice but to trace the pathways and the poetry of effective Thinking, and reveal ITS LOGIC. 

His contributions (in the esoteric area of Philosophy) were a total revolution, and left a mark on Humanity still evident to the present day. He was able to show that Emergences (though he didn’t call them that) were in fact legion within Thought, and he attempted to map their diverse trajectories. A whole generation of disciples (The Young Hegelians) mushroomed up around this significant work, and it was they who realised the universal nature of his “Emergences"

Karl Marx

Karl Marx

They, and most particularly, Karl Marx, widened the subjects of study to include History, Economics, Science and Social Development – indeed, Marx had the objective of widening the sphere to include the Whole gamut of Human Endeavour and study. Indeed, he was intent upon that crucial area of Social Emergences - or Revolutions, (and in particular the French Revolution) which he saw as evidence of Emergences occurring everywhere and at every possible Level. 

But, though vast strides were made by the Marxists, it has to be remembered WHEN they did their work – in the latter half of the 19th century. 

Though what was available in Science was avidly annexed to the new approach, there was still a paucity of areas for detailed studies. Just as with Hegel and Thought, so with the Marxists, the obviously available and vital area was clearly the Social Revolution. The unavoidably aberrant growth switched from Thought to Politics. Such interludes were lopsided but essential nevertheless, and they brought significant results. 

Active Philosophy - Revolution 

The next generation carried out the FIRST conscious Social Revolution in October 1917 in Russia. 

Now, this is not a political essay, but no-one can deny the vital contribution of Marxism in this essential undertaking. The path was unavoidable, yet crucial, sothere need to be no apologies for what was achieved. For, it was, as usual the problem of pulling ourselves up by our own bootlaces. 

Undelivered Application 

The general study of Emergences was NOT undertaken. By this I mean the must-have-occurred Emergences in the development of Reality as a whole, which includes the Emergence of the Origin of Life on Earth, and the obviously following cascade of Emergences involved in the subsequent Evolution of Life itself. 

In spite of the importance of such Events throughout the full history of Reality, this approach was neglected and indeed “elbowed out” by the well established methodologies of Science and Formal argument. The consensus attitude omitted addressing Emergences at all! 

Indeed, they were dismissed as self-kid! 

A mechanistic alternative ruled the roost, and because of the evident inadequacies of such an approach, substituted a pragmatic patchwork of separate Domains, for any attempt at a coherent, comprehensive and integrated Emergentist perspective. 

And it still pertains to this day.

This post is the eighth in a new blog series entitled "What is to be done?" on the crises in both Marxism and Science, and how a revolution is necessary in both. This body of work is now available as a Special Issue. Read it all here!

Explanation or Use?

What is to be Done: VII

The essential tasks for the Marxists of today

We have a bifurcation between Explanation & Use.

For literally centuries these were only used as a "team of horses" and clever scientists (like circus performers) learned to "switch horses" whenever necessary with remarkable agility. But the horses got bigger and more powerful and began to wilfully pull into their own ìfavouredî directions. The circus act became more and more difficult.

The Crisis in Physics

In the early 20th century, the long established, classical explanations in Physics began to fail drastically in certain sub atomic areas.. The age old problems of Descretness and Continuity, first intimated by Zeno again raised their contradictory heads and the physicists were stumped.

They then did a remarkable thing.

They abandoned Explanation completely as unreliable, and plumped for depending entirely on their mathematical equations. This gave them prediction, so they could do things with their formulae, AND as these were Pure Form alone, these could be manipulated in any way they liked. AND used in Formal Proofs as well. Even Absolute Truth was available when only Pure Form was involved. So all in all their decision made life much, much easier.

The only "minor" difficulty was that you had to know which formula to use where, but such people were used to juggling ñ they just did it now SOLELY within the realms of Ideality (for perfect forms) and Reality (for Use).

Mining Ideality?

But. Explanation was never a mere luxury. The bran-bin of Forms just got increasingly packed full of separate, unrelated alternatives.

Some co-ordinating narrative was STILL essential to guide our disembodied maths-manipulators through a still-there Real World. They couldnít admit defeat and return to Explanation in the old sense, so they turned inwards to their maths formulae and studied them instead. They looked for Unity within their extracted Pure Forms (for they believed that THERE only could be found the true Essence of the situation. And they started initially looking for identifiable sub-forms. The Truth was in their formulae!

And they found such sub forms in abundance, and taking their cue from Einstein, labelled each of these as if they represented physical entities or properties. Initially, they gave them shame-faced names such as charm and strangeness, but very soon these names became ìvery likeî the names of actual physical entities ñ such as , for example, particles and properties.

The scientists had learned to"mine" Ideality for new entities and properties for some conceptual glue!

The new Abstraction Processes involved in this are shown in the Modified Abstraction Diagram (shown below) in the overlap between Science and Ideality regions.

The essential role of Reality as the supreme arbiter in Science had been overthrown. This role was now to be taken over by Mathematics.

The maths-derived entities are correctly shown WITHIN Ideality in the modified diagram below. Where else could they be? And the pernicious amalgam of classical explanation with these new forms is shown by process XIII as below:

Man --- Maths Forms --- New Entities --- Analogistic Models --- Maths Forms

Now, this is ONLY a diagram!

A full analysis of what Modern Physicists have being doing does exist, but we have a more general objective here and must press on without too many detailed diversions.

To proceed, we MUST return to the basic philosophical assumptions about Reality which underlie the whole of Mankindís Thinking. We have NO choice! We must address his basic assumptions critically, and find out where he has ìgone wrongî

Reality Evolves!

I have already mentioned Holism and Plurality, and the difficulties associated with this dichotomous pair, but there is an even more profound assumption (connected to these for sure, but even more far reaching). It is connected with the question, "Is Reality the result of a summation of independent Parts - a Complexity - or does it actually EVOLVE?"

The normal answer to this question is always the former, whereas the evidence is mounting that the latter HAS to be the Truth. Reality must have a history. It must change with Time. Indeed it must evolve creating ever NEW forms and possibilities. Now, this is not merely an assertion of belief. The evidence is all around us. We have only to LOOK!

On a hundred fronts it is clear that Reality DOES have a history of Change and Development, in which New things emerge and its very Nature changes profoundly.

But as soon as we bring in Change in this way, all hell breaks loose philosophically

• "If things change, why do they change?
• "If things change, how can we alight upon the elements of Reality in order to understand it?"
• "Is Reality totally self-moving, and actually creative in itself, or merely mechanistic?"
• "Can we deal with Everything in Reality with Matter & Energy alone?"

 - and of course, an abundance of other similar questions.

This post is the seventh in a new blog series entitled "What is to be done?" on the crises in both Marxism and Science, and how a revolution is necessary in both. This body of work is now available as a Special Issue. Read it all here!

The Early Solutions

What is to be Done: VI

The essential tasks for the Marxists of today

Now, in spite of the difficulties with the current pluralistic forms, they had emerged fairly late in the history of Mankind, and throughout that long, long "prehistory" Man had developed OTHER important views on the World around him. Indeed, sometimes Reality itself seemed to be organising against him, and a holistic attitude to Nature was unavoidable. In addition Man was an intelligent animal, who had learned to intervene with Reality in order to survive and prosper. His own necessarily purposive actions coloured his World View, and he felt the need to endow purpose to Reality itself. He expected causes, just as he himself was the cause of many things in his day to day life. Of course, this led to animism and ultimately to a God, made in his own self-image, but it also expected useable causes to be available for dealing with Reality in general.

Contradiction Premise

Now this led to primitive versions of philosophy and science originally, and when Experiment finally arrived to invigorate his investigations, it also accompanied the experimental method as its Explanation. The tradition of looking for causes gelled with the extraction of relations and gave a meaningful narrative to those isolated achievements. Mankind developed Explanatory Science. But, this cosy idea of what Science became was a myth. Indeed, the experimental imperative was technological(?), whereas the explanatory imperative was surely scientific(?). These were NOT a perfectly matched pair!

Abstraction

Some years ago I realised this and determined to investigate. For a long time I kept tripping over my own incorrect basic assumptions and getting nowhere. But I finally settled on the man-made process at the heart of all of these diverse things. It was Abstraction!

I began to try to categarise exactly what Abstraction consisted of, and to effectively define it, started to conceive of the crucial Processes of Abstraction, and their resultant Products at various stages in a sequence of essential Abstraction Processes.

The task turned out to be prodigious!

For Mankind's earliest conceptions were also abstractions, So, I began to attempt to construct a sequential list of the Stages of Abstraction used by Mankind in his attempt to comprehend the World.

He certainly started with Observation, Recognition, Categorisation and a crude very speculative attempt at Explanation, but after the advent of Societies wonderful new forms appeared including Logic and Geometry.

The Processes and Productions of Abstraction

Finally, with the rise of Experimental science, the first true Theories began to emerge.. [I have written a great deal on this, under the title of The Processes and Productions of Abstraction, which has even culminated in a general overall Diagram. This figure attempts to relate the whole area as a single system] We cannot attempt here to replicate the whole of this extensive research here, but its final diagrammatic Form can be useful, and is reproduced here.

Now we must never lose sight of the fact that Abstraction is a man-made invention. It recognises diverse things in Reality which display features in common, and attempts to concretise this commonality under an appropriate Category Title, whose Name, then represents that commonality.

Note: This diagram is NOT the latest version, nor can it ever be, as it is constantly being revised and improved. But for the purposes of this paper it should prove quite adequate.

Once more the usual dichotomies and difficulties occur, due to our assumptions and premises, and even in Thinking and Thought ñ more particularly Abstraction ñ the bifurcations appeared which clearly showed TWO diverging roads which seemed impossible to merge.

Without this necessary excursion expanding into a veritable ìworld tourî, let us just concentrate on this parting of the ways. A brief explanation of the Diagram will be necessary.

Explanation of the Diagram

At the centre is the Active Element in the whole series of Processes ñ which is, of course, MAN, The background to the whole figure is, as it must be, Reality. While, in between these two there is an annulus containing the various Productions of Extraction ñ shown as labelled circles.

Between Man, Reality and the Products of Abstraction are the Arrowed Lines which represent the actual Processes of Abstraction. They too are numbered to both indicate their presumed sequence of use, and to allow them to be referred to precisely.

The earliest likely Processes can be seen to be fairly simple loops. From Man via Reality to the Product. Later the Processes take in previous Productions on route.

For example: Man via Categories to Objective Relations

The crucial Split occurs in the Science Region, where we have:-

VII --- Man --- Objective Relations --- Reality --- Analogistic Models

IX --- Man --- Objective Relations --- Maths Forms

Now, this is not a treatise on Abstraction, so the reader is asked to merely notice these TWO Processes.

Though the Process ending in Analogistic Models goes via Reality, and ends up within the Science region, the second alternative Process bypasses Reality and ends up in the World of Pure Form alone, which I have termed Ideality.

As you have probably guessed, I have highlighted these two because they reveal exactly where the most important problems arise. If we are to use our relations back in Reality itself, we have to go via this realm of Pure Form. Yet, it is a thoroughly laundered place. In it there is NO Reality, only Abstract Form. 

This post is the sixth in a new blog series entitled "What is to be done?" on the crises in both Marxism and Science, and how a revolution is necessary in both. This body of work is now available as a Special Issue. Read it all here!