15 January, 2014

Issue 33 of Shape: The Logic of Change

This short set of papers by no means comprises a definitive
statement of the Modern Logic of Change that it purports
to deal with. They arose as a separated series of brief
explanatory contributions to various different research
areas, and hence, in their intended contexts both assumed
that context, and in addition each had a fairly limited remit
as to their objectives.

Nevertheless, on inspection of these clearly-philosophical
contributions, it became clear that they could indeed be
put together as a brief, if varied, introduction to what is
evidently becoming an extremely valuable approach to
Developmental Change.

Though there are some references to other areas of study, I
have modified the parts that would be meaningless outside
of the context for which they were originally produced.
Therefore, hopefully, these essays will indicate the path
that is currently being constructed – a Holist approach to
Science with an appropriate and useable methodology.

Ecce Habilis

Ecce Habilis by Jim Schofield

11 January, 2014

The Electromagnetic Effects of the Neutritron

If this is the form of the neutritron, then even though overall it will have a zero net charge (like the atom), it will also have a zero net matter (unlike the atom)!

But, that will certainly NOT be the case in close proximity to the joint particle – that is locally!

So clearly in any interactions with other entities, which are physically positioned, so as to definitely be in close proximity, these will certainly be determined by very local conditions indeed!

Let us therefore consider the following image, which superimposes the fields of the two component particles upon their mutual orbit and the surrounding area, as viewed from a position perpendicular to the plane of that orbit.

Clearly, when seen in this way, very close to the joint particle, hardly anywhere is neutral, on either electrical or magnetic criteria. The intended colours for the two fields will, ultimately, in the final version, be RED for the positive electrostatic field, and BLUE for the negative field. In both the strength of the field will be evident from the depth of colour.

We will then clearly see strong electrostatic fields in the close vicinity of each of the sub particles.

And, as these fields overlap, they will neutralise.

Now the decreasing strength of the fields are indicated by the increasing paleness of the colours involved. And where the two fields cancel out completely (particularly in the line between the particles) the zero positions are shown as black dots.

In addition, of course, such a diagram can only present a snapshot instant of a continually changing situation, for as they orbit all fields will be changing continually in all static positions, so that overall there will be NO residual field effects over time – they will average out to zero.

Now, it is extremely revealing to consider the effect upon a static single point (depicted here using the black circle near x). For, due to its shown position it will of course be subject to a strong positive field. But now we have to follow the changes in the field at this point, as the two sub particles move round as they orbit one another.

Let us assume that the rotation is taking place in an anticlockwise direction, so that the orbiting particles approach new positions at z and w. Clearly the positive charge upon our stationary position near x will decline until it reaches ZERO, where the two fields exactly cancel out. Then, as the rotation continues until the moving particles reach y and x, the effect on our position will have risen to a maximum negative value.

Clearly, over a complete cycle this point will suffer a classical complete cycle of oscillation of the field, over time, resulting in the following pattern. 

Now, of course, we still have to consider the unavoidable magnetic effects of the moving charges, which are essential to Maxwell’s formal representation of a disembodied electromagnetic radiation. So, could these necessary components occur too?

Considering our very simple diagram, we have a problem! For, both a single electron and a single positron orbiting together will again cancel their magnetic effects overall.

But, once more concentrating our attention, as with the electrostatics, on the effects during a single cycle of rotation at x, it becomes clear that there will be a magnetic fields, at a maximum at the beginning, which will decline first to ZERO then rise to a maximum in the opposite direction after half a cycle. The N and S magnetic effects will also be reversed, via a midpoint where thery exactly cancel out.

It is becoming clear that the magnetic effects at x will also oscillate, as did the electrostatic effects, but at right angles to the plane of the orbit.

Now, if all this is true, we can see why Maxwell’s purely formal encapsulation of electromagnetic radiation did indeed fit the bill in many circumstances. But rather than the overall effect, it would be in contrast be delivering oscillation effects at local levels. (See the full electrostatic and magnetic trace below).

Now, let us consider the alternatives physically!

Theory One: Electromagnetic radiation is a purely disembodied-yet-energetic oscillation of nothing, which which can hold and propagate energy over otherwise entirely Empty Space!

Theory Two: There is NO disembodied E-M radiation, but there is a joint particle with these E-M properties, which can propagate them either by movement of the receptacle particle, or by passing it on bucket-brigade fashion across a universe-wide undetectable paving of these units.

Now, of course, put like that the choice is surely “no contest”, but the failure to find any such paving, or even explain how such a vast structure could ever have come into existence always condemned such a suggestion as untenable.

Clearly, such a theory demands many as yet unrevealed things about Reality, whereas the other merely attributes all the necessary properties to Empty Space itself – that is to Nothing!

Now, though the new alternative does, in fact, work out nicely for propagation, that is certainly NOT the case with a single electron orbit within an atom. For the reversal of the magnetic component in the delivered propagation within its cycle of oscillation, seems to be impossible to generate directly via such an origin in the atom!

But, this might not be such a problem, if a prior-existing paving unit, with mutually orbiting particles of opposite charge receive merely a gobbet of energy at a given frequency. For the already existing, receiving structure would determine how than energy was internally distributed. Thereafter, both to other such units in propagation and finally given up to something else, the required full Maxwell form would be the quantum being dealt with, NOT as a wave in a medium, but as a pair of mutually orbiting particles with a receptacle-per-quantum.

So, it is merely energy at a given frequency transferred from the promoted electron orbit in the atoms to a paving propagation elsewhere.

Slavoj Žižek - The Safe and Useful Rebel?

What happens when the writer adopts the vocabulary of the consensus in his society?

It is usually explained as being an attempt to speak in a language everyone can understand – presumably to win him or her to a better and more profound standpoint. But it isn’t, and it doesn’t! Instead, it is bound to pull the writer into the “currently dominant” standpoint, where such definitions have been developed over centuries to fit what basic assumptions and explanations were readily available, and indeed, in common use.

And, the question has to be asked, “Who would have been in a position to both formulate and disseminate such concepts?"

Is it the man in the street? Definitely not!

It will always be the products of those in power: those will have the education to be able to express such things, and the wherewithall to be able to disseminate them through their “owned” organs of information.

Any radical motive cannot be easily maintained in such circumstances, and the prophet, in seeking resonances with an alien readership, and in order to get into print, can very easily become the apologist!

The contradictions in meaning between any revolutionary criticisms and the acceptance of the status quo, can never be resolved, as the words used only make any kind of sense in their currently employed meanings: and who is it that will be doing the using? The dominant standpoint within a society that produced the current meanings of that vocabulary will unavoidably be those of the people in charge, and NOT the mass of the population, who for most of their history couldn’t even read, never mind write!

So, the “radical Marxist”, attempting to make a living in the highest institutions of learning must explain things using the accepted vocabulary of those who will make up the vast majority of his colleagues, though couched in the occasional words that seem to be revolutionary (but aren’t!)

Slavoj ŽiŽek seems to be the perfect example of this!

On reading the Introduction to his book In Defense of Lost Causes, he manages to set the stage for this long book, by excusing the “failures” of revolutionaries, and he does it by revealing their clear good intentions. He even calls their “evident virtues” – idealism – a quality of trying to achieve a better world. But rather than the usual advice to therefore, “Give up now you’ll never do it”, he alternatively says that unavoidable failure is really the best that anyone can ever do!

Isn’t that stimulating?

“NO!” And, if you think that, you are right!

Here is the absolutely-guaranteed, safe revolutionary for you!

Does this self appointed prophet not know what Idealism really is? And it has absolutely nothing to do with Marxist revolutionaries. They are nothing if they are not the most realist operators in the world! Real philosophical Idealism is the direct opposite to Materialism, and Marxists are avowedly materialists! They commit to an entirely materialist standpoint, which takes Matter as primary, and attempts to explain things in terms of the entities present, their properties and their inter-relationships.

And, in case anyone is assuming that these Marxists see everything in purely mechanistic terms – the exact opposite is the case! Their standpoint is the only one that can both deal with real qualitative change, and is also essentially multi-disciplinary!

Indeed, these two philosophical words have very different meanings to what ŽiŽek attaches to them: and his meanings are those of the ruling classes, NOT those of committed revolutionaries.

Instead of the idealism of the status quo defenders, revolutionaries see Idealism as a standpoint that has the whole of reality determined entirely by eternal abstract laws, which can be totally encapsulated in purely formal equations. Contrast this with ŽiŽek’s chosen interpretation as a yearning for something better. And, if he were to be consistent with his chosen language, he would also use materialism to mean chasing after material gain, wealth and position. Not even remotely similar are they?

And yet, such very different meanings were considered crucial by real Marxists. Not only Marx and Engels, but also Lenin took this position, and wrote an important book entitled Materialism and Empirio Criticism to counter an idealist trend within the Bolshevik Party (led, I believe, by Lunacharsky, who after the Revolution became the Minister for Education in the Revolutionary Government)

So ŽiŽek’s introduction establishes an amazing position!

One side of it has already been established above in his choice of language, and the second must be his breathtaking apology for the catastrophes following the Russian Revolution, which he, along with the enemies of that revolution, sees as inevitable, but in his case somehow excusable too!


His "inevitable consequence" was no such thing, for it took Stalin many years, a World context of active hostility, and even military interventions by 14 capitalist powers, and, in addition, there was an externally, as well as internally wealth-sponsored Civil War, with the Royalists and Capitalist attempting to overthrow the Revolutionary Regime.

And, even then for Stalin to complete his proposed transformation, internal dedicated revolutionaries had to be successively removed, imprisoned and executed, or even pursued and assassinated (as was Trotsky) to achieve this supposedly “inevitable result”

It’s an odd kind of inevitability is it not? It’s a bit like the opposite of damning Stalin with faint praise to excuse this traitor to the revolution, both in Russia and worldwide!

Let us put our self professed revolutionary Marxist in his proper context!

You can picture a dinner party in London (say) where the “radical” ŽiŽek had been invited to entertain the gathering where various very comfortable academics could “discuss” ŽiŽek’s ideas without any rancour, and with conclusions such as, “All Revolutions are bound to fail!” and “Their idealism simply doesn’t match with Reality”, not to mention, “The inherent greed and insufficiency of people guarantees ultimate failure.” And, such a group beating up ŽiŽek with their mutually agreed vocabulary, could go home to their own comfortable beds, and sleep peacefully!

And such a description is certainly accurate, for this writer was similarly invited to such a Dinner Party for the same reasons, and with a similar bunch of invitees. The only difference was, that I didn’t speak their language, and if anything they went home worried to death!

Also, watching a discussion programme on TV yesterday, a wholly similar social situation was evident. And in a similar way to how I have described the certain treatment of ŽiŽek, with a similar Aunt Sally as he, it was clear that no matter what were the professed affiliations of the participants they all used exactly the same language, and just as effectively tidied away as ineffectual, idealist and bound-to-fail were all revolutionary threats.

Yet somehow major interventions, or their possibility, were constantly coming up in response to the Arab Spring, and you have to ask, which side they would be on when it came to resolving the situation!

P.S. And this is only in response to ŽiŽek ‘s Introduction!


Once more into the breech, dear friends!

For, on thinking about ŽiŽek’s lead-in to In Defense of Lost Causes, I felt that I should do the same with the introduction to his book On Belief.

And it was indeed the right decision. For, he analyses the debate occurring in 2000 on US TV in which clerics from the Jewish, Roman Catholic and Southern Baptist faiths discussed religion and Heaven. The Baptist explained that many “good people” would most certainly end up in Hell, as they hadn’t committed themselves to Christ during their lives.

And such an unwavering “principle”, ŽiŽek likened to that shown by Lenin in his revolutionary activities in Russia, and in his “re-casting” of Marx’s position with respect to political tasks.

[Clearly this academic philosopher is scared to death by such intransigence!]

But, of course, such a supposed resonance, could only be found by a modern “opponent” of Liberal Capitalist compromise, and was totally disregarding of the actual political natures of these two completely opposite men. For it handily coupled the two extremes as essentially similar in their steadfast positions. It is, of course, total and completely irresponsible rubbish, and sees them both as steadfast in their “beliefs”!

And, to thereafter promote himself, as ŽiŽek does, as being on the same side as Lenin, is total nonsense. As Trotsky said when describing such people as ŽiŽek – “They wear the yellow jacket of rebellion, but are still fast asleep in their beds when the factory gates are receiving workers in their thousands”. That would be anathema to someone like ŽiŽek: he is an informed faker, and no revolutionary!

Even mentioning Lenin’s name in a book about belief soils Lenin’s real and significant contributions, and effectively demotes a revolutionary commitment to merely another kind of “idealist” belief! Clearly, this analyser of Society is no Marxist at all, and certainly no revolutionary.

He, though, takes, along with all the enemies of that revolution, a position in opposition to Liberal Capitalism and compromise, which will resonate very well with the Right in US politics.

What a remarkable stance, it is so full of contradictions, it is no wonder he is visibly in constant, jerking agitation when he speaks, but it will certainly get readers. For if he (even if only apparently) took a Leninist Bolshevik stance, he would be crucified as are all such dangerous outsiders, so he wisely appeals to all sorts of people, and he does it from an evidently impotent, yet “clever radical” standpoint. Can you guess which side he will be on when the time comes?

I vividly remember innumerable avowedly “marxist” tendencies in the UK, when the troubles escalated in Northern Ireland, they all supported the sending of troops “to defend the republican Catholics” against the then rampant unionist mobs.

But, whom were they used against?

Any Marxist would know that immediately!

That betrayal, more than any number of written treatises, revealed their real position. Only one tendency opposed the sending of troops and they were the nearest thing to revolutionary Marxists at that time. And I know this because I was in that tendency!

Language and Plurality: The Disabling of Science

A quote from Wittgenstein made it clear that you cannot enter any specialism unless you know its language.

This was pointed out to me, in response to my damning critique of the self-professed Marxist philosopher Slavoj Žižek, who’s implicit, but unstated, position on revolution, revealed a very different kind of person.  For, I had made it clear, in that critique, that the very language and assumptions he used in defining his “radicalism” was absolutely nothing to do with either revolution or Marxism, and clearly everything to do with his position and milieu in the Universities in the capitalist world.

Yet, that criticism of mine wasn’t an appropriate example of a similar standpoint to Wittgenstein’s, for though mine is based upon a holistic philosophical standpoint, a working class origin and a lifetime in revolutionary politics, Wittgenstein’s was just as clearly based upon the usual pluralist philosophical standpoint, and it also implicitly justified, as absolutely essential, the identified set of different languages as unavoidable in the various different specialist disciplines. Indeed, it implied that the only way that investigations could ever be conducted, by specialists, was by first isolating, and then thoroughly simplifying a particular area of interest, and only then applying an analytic method to it. And, such an analysis would be meaningless, unless what is so revealed would definitely be unchanged from when it also occurred in totally unfettered Reality.

Indeed, that crucial assumption is embodied in the famed Principle of Plurality - often alternatively stated as the separability from context of all relations extracted by such means.

But, that assumption just isn’t true! You simply cannot assume that!

And, to prove my point, no one can apply relations found by such methods and apply them with confidence in a totally unfettered environment! They have to reconstruct the exact same and essential context, from which they were able to originally extract their “eternal” relation, in order to successfully employ it towards some sound and predictable outcome.

Now, how does this modify Wittgenstein’s statement?

It confirms that all such walled-off, and purposely “farmed” areas, as with all others from very similarly arranged situations, will inevitably generate their own “local lingo”. How could it be otherwise? In Wittgenstein’s mouth, such a statement is surely a consequence of a pluralist position, and a pluralist methodology. It is nothing to do with socially determined language in a Class Society.

Now, Wittgenstein may have considered that to make judgements in any specialist area (that would be of any real value) you would have to have studied it sufficiently to know what is meant by the terms other experts will use, and that is certainly true! But, you cannot ignore the effect of the pluralist filtering, which can only isolate specialisms, one from another, due to such a universally applied method. And, it therefore makes almost impossible, any more general realisations that occur between many very different areas of study. For, instead, this universally adopted method crucially encases each extraction with its own ideally-tailored context, and is therefore and unavoidably, a locally-determined knowledge.

Indeed, it usually amounts to a set of such situations, and their relations, that are sufficiently close in their required contexts, to be taken as a coherent subject, but still walled off completely from the rest of Reality. Indeed, the specialisations just get more and more restricting as new entities and their properties and relations are discovered. New specialisms seem to grow around particular investigative means.

The most glaring example of this being in Sub Atomic Physics, where the almost total reliance of investigators on High Speed Accelerators, or more properly, Colliders, have produced a remarkable walled-off World, so odd, that it is said to have its own unique laws, and even its own and very different Philosophy to the rest of Science – and, of course, its own language!

Now, if these criticisms are considered to have some merit, the usual and necessary response must be to ask “What is the alternative?" The so-called pluralist methodology has not only allowed a vastly extended knowledge of Reality, but crucially, it is entirely useable to required and valuable ends. What can possibly replace it with at least a similar efficacy, if not something clearly better?”

Well, these are certainly valid points to make, for the alternative standpoint to Plurality, is Holism. And its main tenet is that you cannot separate out a relation from its context without changing it or indeed, sometimes even destroying it altogether! Holism has all things affecting, and, to some extent, actually determining, all real behaviours.

Plurality actually “solved” that difficulty by isolation and comprehensive tailoring in order to make such extractions, and then replicating such ideal conditions in order to be able to effectively use the relations so achieved. What on earth can be done if we turn our backs upon such a powerful and useable method, and instead, somehow, attempt to directly study Reality-as-is?

The criticism is that any strictly holist approach is bound to confront us with unfathomable, simultaneous complexity, and hence the impossibility of making any explanatory progress at all! But, such a criticism only holds if Reality is some complex mechanism making any kind of analysis totally impossible. But, that is not the case!

Indeed, in spite of its “everything included” tenet, that does not stop coherent overall behaviours emerging from the melee. In spite of its complexity, it does not ever become totally chaotic, or indeed wholly unpredictable. And the reason for this is that in these all-things-included interactions, there are always systems and sub-systems that can, and indeed do, become dominant.

But they are never permanent!

Indeed, in most situations, though a period of relative stability can become established, so that conditions, for a time, can seem to be unchanging, and particularly important relations can be so frequently glimpsed, that stability is clearly a kind of active balance, and what is glimpsed comes and goes. It is that suggestion of an underlying eternal element that caused investigators to establish their tailor-made Domains of Investigation, and extract their presumed “eternal“ relations. But, without this artificially imposed stability, such temporary interludes will always subside and the situation will regularly, for its own fleeting interlude, become a different one.

Clearly, what the pluralist approach does, is it attempts to “freeze” a varying situation, then simplify it until its dominant relation is clearly and permanently displayed, and can be effectively extracted.

“So, what is the problem?”, I hear in a chorus of cries, “Isn’t the pluralist approach vindicated?”

Well no, I’m afraid it isn’t!

For it is totally unable to deal with the qualitative changes that will definitely terminate that prior wobbling Stability, and cause it quite naturally to turn into something else no longer dominated by that prior extracted relation.

Plurality is a method for dealing with Stability only, and it also erroneously extrapolates its findings by considering them to be eternal.

Major flaws, I think you will agree!

Let us be clear, it only allows a "hopscotch" type of Science, where only isolated stabilities can be subject to analysis, BUT not a single transition to a new, natural and consequent situation is included! You have no option but to “hop” onto the next stability (and its consequent rules) without any understanding of why it had to occur!

Important? I should say so!

For example, a pluralist approach will never, ever in a million years, discover and understand the Origin of Life on Earth, or its Evolution. It will merely provide a few stepping stones towards (and away from) such transformations. Without any real understanding of the actual changing dynamics involved.

Yet, the disabling of Science by Plurality amounts to far more than that. For, the proliferation of ever narrower defined specialisms is inevitable, and even more significant, the transitions in Reality between these ever dwindling footholds, is totally prevented from ever being properly addressed, as long as that standpoint and method continues to hold sway.

The exemplar for the only possible future, pluralist development is demonstrated already by Computer Simulations.

In these totally pluralist models of unfettered situations the situation is removed from its natural holistic nature, and is replaced by an invented situation wherein multiple, eternal relations are all acting both simultaneously, but also separately. And, the actually existing problem of dynamic transitions is simply stepped over by evidentially established Switches. When a certain “key parameter” passes an established threshold value, the program is written so that it merely switches out one relation to be replaced by another, both of which were laws of the usual pluralist type, but rather than any sort of real dynamic transition, we model it with a simple switch-over that being the only way the pluralist standpoint can attempt to deal with a holist Reality.

Plurality deals only with Stability, and even then, very inadequately, as Mankind delves ever deeper into its newly revealed entities, causes and processes.

For Reality is not, as it is assumed, monolithic! It, on the contrary, consists of distinct and qualitatively different Levels, which are not mere hierarchies with a straight-through causality from bottom to top, but a system of superstructures, each of which is established by creative and indeed revolutionary Emergences.

The Origin of Life on Earth is the Key Exemplar!

Let me attempt to make this crucial point as clear as possible.

You can never reduce Life entirely to some new arrangement of separated pre-Life elements. For, an Emergence of this stature isn’t just a new turning in an entirely predictable development, but a Revolution, which can only occur when prefaced by a terminal crisis in the prior stability, which then precipitates a wholesale collapse into something resembling Chaos, but which is then followed by a remarkably creative period entirely holist in its nature that creates the entirely New via a myriad of simultaneous and mutually modifying processes to transform their own natures and context top down!

The new Level is not just a foamy product on the surface of a once calm, and now stormy, sea, but a wholly new Level that has significantly changed its own causing context.

How could that ever be analysed in a pluralist way?

Yet, it can still be disregarded as absolutely unnecessary because of the pragmatic effectiveness of pluralistic extractions, when used in production, and that, I’m afraid, is much more damaging it at first appears.

Like Formal Logic, the current pluralist-based Sciences really only deal with things which do not change into something else. It stops the actual dynamic of real qualitative developmental changes, by an approach assuming, or even purposely guaranteeing stability. It turns its back upon real qualitative changes, and attempts to transform what occurs in those indisputable interludes of significant qualitative change into descrete-state situations, with signals of when to switch. The actual beauty and power of emergent interludes is swept under the carpet, and replaced by non-explanatory rules-of-thumb.

It is therefore a major and damaging retreat, and in fact transforms what we proudly call Science – the attempt to get ever better explanations of all aspects of Reality, into mere Technology – the effective use to produce easily organised results!

Science is gradually shunted out, to be replaced by useable discoveries and methods of employing them.

Indeed, the attempt to explain things in a certain areas are not only abandoned, but actually banned as “self-kid”, as is increasingly the case in Sub Atomic Physics, which has transformed itself into a branch of Mathematics, and has left Reality behind to explore the much more conducive delights in the seemingly universal laws available in the World of Pure Form alone – Ideality!