29 April, 2015

John Berger: ‘Writing is an off-shoot of something deeper’

"Words, terms, phrases can be separated from the creature of their language and used as mere labels. They then become inert and empty. The repetitive use of acronyms is a simple example of this. Most mainstream political discourse today is composed of words that, separated from any creature of language, are inert. And such dead “word-mongering” wipes out memory and breeds a ruthless complacency." JB
Very interesting piece by Berger for the Guardian newspaper on language and writing as a process of understanding - he always was a hero of mine!

Link to article

Lost Wisdom

The Pragmatic Road to Knowledge

I was reading a piece the other day which mentioned Zeno and his Paradoxes (from 500 BC), but “explained” them with a couple of throw-away lines. Yet, the crucial question, “Why did those Paradoxes work, as Zeno had intended?” That was certainly not delivered! Indeed, if you looked very carefully at the proffered “explanations”, you could only come up with something like – “He was using his assumptions in the wrong places!”

But, Zeno was making his points long before the discipline, we now call Science, so he took the principles that he, and his contemporaries employed – as being generally true, and then proved that they weren’t. But, in addition to losing this crucial context, the throwaway “explanations” were also totally insufficient, in themselves, because what was actually being dealt with was an example of a Dichotomous Pair – where ideas derived from the very same grounds (as assumptions and principles) ultimately delivered contradictory concepts. They couldn’t both be true.

Yet, they had been developed from what everyone believed to be a single consistent and coherent set of premises. But, even this analysis proved to be so subtle that it was not arrived at for a further 2,300 years. It wasn’t dealt with until Hegel’s researches into Human Thinking arrived at what he realised were unavoidable products of incomplete and inaccurate premises, caused by our only available method of Abstracting-from-Reality. For, though this had been a remarkable and important invention, it had to both simplify and idealise what was being observed in order to be able to make any current sense of any studied situations.

It wasn’t a mistake, for it was inevitable at our then state of understanding.

But, what was really devastating, was that Hegel realised that inaccuracies would always recur, time after time, for Mankind is making up his methods of Thought as he goes. These Dichotomous Pairs would definitely recur continuously.

Now, before there is a general chant of, “Give up now you’ll never do it”, two things have to be made clear.

First such abstractions were still very valuable indeed, because they did contain some Truth, if not all Truth! So, at some point further on in thinking with such abstractions, while they could most times be extremely useful, they could also produce these contradictory Dichotomous Pairs, which couldn’t both be true, and hence cast doubt on everything else founded on those same basic premises.

And, Hegel did not only deliver all this revelation: he also devised a methodology for transcending these dichotomies.

Now, somewhat surprisingly, to this day, most reasoning is totally unaware of his successfully devised methods of transcending the inevitable impasses. Listen to any politician, or reporter, and you will get absolutely no recognition of this vital feature of our thinking, never mind any attempt to apply the means to transcend them. Yet Hegel lived over 200 years ago!

Now, you would think that such a story is totally unbelievable, but the reason for Hegel’s gains being largely ignored is to do with where they inevitably led. For, Hegel’s best, and most dedicated students – the Young Hegelians, took his ideas much further – indeed, they transferred them wholesale from Hegel’s own Idealism into the opposite Materialist stance. And, thereafter, they were applied to absolutely all Development – not only in our heads but also to evolving Reality in general.

The leader of this philosophic revolution was Karl Marx, and he spent the rest of his life on the side of the Working Class, and against the ruling Capitalist Class.

Such ideas became anathema, and were never allowed to be taken further in the Citadels of Wisdom of the Capitalist States (unless, that is, they were emasculating it!).

24 April, 2015

Marxism and The Origin of Life

 How Philosophy Aids Science

“What?”, I hear you say, “What could possibly be a Marxist view of such an Event?”

Well, it is the only approach capable of solving that important question. And, the reason that such is the case is because Marxism, from the outset, was, and still is, a Philosophy. It is not only a political stance in the Modern World. It was first devised by Karl Marx, a philosopher, and a follower of the great German idealist philosopher, Frederick Hegel, and everything that he did consequently stemmed from what he and his tutor managed to find out about Reality, and Mankind’s place in attempting to understand it.

It is claimed by many (who do not understand it fully) to be “Scientific Socialism”, but such a description fails because, at present there is no comprehensive and consistent “Marxist Science”. And, such a description never tallys with what people see in the everyday actions of those claiming to be committed Marxists.

It is certainly more correct to call it “Philosophical Socialism”, because truly great gains in Philosophy were its real foundation stones.

And, the most significant step in that direction were taken beginning almost 200 years ago, by, first of all, Hegel, with his truly profound studies into Human Thinking, and , thereafter, by Marx who “Stood the idealist Hegel upon his head, or rather on his feet!”

By the time of Marx’s Communist Manifesto of 1848, the new philosophical stance had already been applied to History and Social Revolutions, and was later comprehensively applied to the overall development of Human Society and its latest phase, Capitalism, in his book, Das Kapital.

But, the most obvious and potentially fruitful alliance, benefiting both, would certainly be with the other strongly materialist discipline, Science.

But, that did not happen!

The reasons were understandable, but also unforgivable. Science at that time (and still to this day) was in the hands of the privileged classes, and they could not stomach Marx’s conclusions about the need for revolutionary change. Occasional exceptions among scientists were too few and too amateurish, philosophically and/or scientifically to divert the enormous momentum of technology-inspired success in Science, and the necessary turn around of that important discipline never happened.

Yet, as with all such necessary revolutions, there always has to occur a major crisis and consequent collapse of the old stability, to initiate major changes, and that finally occurred – too late! For those who could have led such a Revolution were dead or removed from having any influence, within the organisations of the Working Classes internationally.

The turning point should have been in 1927, when Bohr and Heisenberg won the day in turning Physics into a thoroughly idealist discipline with their Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory. But crucially, there were absolutely NO scientists who could deliver the telling blows, and demolish the speculative ideas of these so-called scientists.

But, also, and crucially their were NO self-proclaimed Marxists who could do it either. Since the Russian Revolution the development of Marxism itself, more or less, came to a halt.

But, finally, at long last, the situation is beginning to turn around. There are an increasing number of scientists who are turning away from Copenhagen and towards a more holistic approach, which grows ever closer to a real Marxist standpoint philosophically.

They don’t necessarily term their new position Dialectical Materialism, but that is where things are heading.

And within the Working Class movement there are Marxists who know what has to be done, and are beginning to do it.

In the last few years the Theory of Emergences has been described, with the remit of a stance applicable to all disciplines, and the proof of the pudding has been in its eating. The famed Double Slit Experiments have finally been explained physically without any recourse to the Copenhagen position.

And, we are proud to present a collection of contributions to the number one question in Science: It is, of course, the Origin of Life on Earth.

And a series of papers starts with "Ideas on the Origin of Life" in the current SHAPE Journal:

Issue 38 of Shape: Ideas on the Origin of Life

This latest edition started as a reaction to an article in New Scientist (3008) on Eukaryotic and Prokaryotic cells in the development of life, but soon drew in the prior work by this theorist on the Origin of Life itself.

It was worth stressing that either working downwards from living entities, or working upwards from non-living entities, would both fail to explain this crucial event, which rather than being a mere incremental development in the evolution of matter, was certainly a kind of revolution, and must have occurred in what we now term an Emergent Event. Thus this collection of papers became a kind of review of the ideas vital to a solution to the most important problem in Science: why does life exist at all?

14 April, 2015

The Tories are Scared Shitless!

Have you noticed?

Watch Osborne and Cameron on the TV, if you can stand to. 

Look at their eyes!

Look closely. Can't you see that they are telling lies?

They are genuinely scared because they have NO answers. This major capitalist crisis has not gone away, however they gloss over the figures. All the tricks they have used have solved precisely nothing. The world slump was due to global capitalism and blaming Labour is a straightforward lie! The Tories would have done exactly the same thing if they had been in power, the same bailouts the same deficit - only worse. Every day as the election approaches they get more and more desperate, and their lies more reprehensible.

Chuck them out!

Real Marxism? It is a Philosophy.

There are today many people in left-wing politics, who say that they are Marxists. But, what do they mean by it?

For decades after the Russian Revolution, it was that Event, which guaranteed their stance. It was, after all, the ONLY successful socialist revolution, and had most certainly been led by followers of Karl Marx, after his central theoretical role in the establishment of both the First and the Second Internationals.

But, what was it that made Marx’s position both entirely appropriate and unique?

Activists had been calling themselves Socialists for many decades before Marx, but he started from a very different place to almost all of them. He started as a philosopher; a follower of the Idealist, Frederick Hegel, and his conversion to that standpoint was achieved by the truly tremendous contributions of that academic philosopher in his chosen area of Thinking about Thought. It couldn’t have been more different than that of the majority of avowed “socialists”. And, after his conversion to Materialism, Marx spent a great deal of time criticising what he called the Utopian Socialists.

For him, the KEY was Philosophy!

And by this he did not mean Academic Philosophy – knowing and describing all the possible varieties, but, on the contrary, and with the same imperatives as the fast growing discipline of Science, his objective was to base all political activities upon establishing the closest understanding of the real nature of Society that he could achieve.

And, he was certain that to be able to do that, you had to follow Hegel’s analysis of Human Thinking – Dialectics, but applied to absolutely all developments, and particularly to that of Society itself.

Now, having myself been in one or another self-professed revolutionary party for over 50 years, I can insist that the people I worked with were NOT like that. From being 19 years old, studying Physics at University, I had come across Lenin’s critique of the philosophy, then in the ascendency in Science – Empirio Criticism, and as a real Marxist, he immediately had known that here was a philosophy that was going badly wrong. On reading his Materialism and Empirio Criticism, I knew it too. And from that moment on I became a very unusual person indeed: for I was both a Physicist and a Marxist.

I soon found that, in my academic studies, these two commitments were said to be on opposite sides. Not a lecturer or a fellow student in my course agreed with me. Physics as a discipline was marching steadily in a very different direction from the Philosophy of Marxism. Yet, it was clear to me that the exact opposite should be the case!

Now, experiencing such a revelation was, I’m afraid, insufficient to either bring about this necessary union, or even develop myself as a Marxist. So, I joined an overt Marxist Party to remedy my evident inadequacies. I hoped that I could be an affective political activist AND a better physicist from what I could learn about Marxism.

But, that wasn’t what I was able to get from a very long history in the Communist Party, the Labour Party the SLL and the WRP, nor did I find anything better in the many other varieties of Trotskyism in UK politics.

In fact, philosophically, they were nowhere, and the reason was that they didn’t DO Marxism as professional, full-time method. Indeed, the only reason I had got so much from Lenin’s book was that I was a physicist, and he was dealing with the then standpoint in Physics, but better than the agreed leaders in the field.

You could never become a Marxist by merely reading the Marxism of the past: you HAD to be doing it NOW! And, in an area you were intimately knowledgible about.

I finally became a Marxist by constantly applying what I knew of that stance in my own specialisms. And, these ranged over Politics, Physics, Biology, Archaeology, Evolution, Sculpture, Mathematics and Computing. Indeed, my stance took me on an unusual journey, and by the time I had posts in various Universities, I was the first port of call for researchers in literally all disciplines, who required tailor-made software to aid them in their studies.

Though I didn’t plan it, my specialism became Computers in Control in a surprisingly wide range of disciplines. I even won a BIVA award with a colleague for our Dance Disc – a Multimedia Aid for the Teaching of Dance Performance and Choreography.

With an increasingly Marxist stance and method I became the leader in this field, and finally got a professorial Post in London University, on the basis of this work.

There could be no doubt about the importance of Marxism as a philosophy, but, the understanding of exactly what that meant in particular areas of application, was something that had to be discovered, involving both successes and failures.

It wasn’t an infallible formula, but a philosophical method that had to be constantly re-applied to an ever-changing context. Book-Marxism was a waste of time, and speculative-Marxism also regularly proved inadequate. Marxists had to be professionals in the best possible sense.

Now, problem number one was that many “Marxists” would agree with all of this, but only apply what they had learned to tackle, which was solely concerned with political problems. But, that could be a dead end! The real power of this philosophy was its universality and its recursivity, for that meant that it could, and indeed, should, be applied to all other disciplines, especially those that were your professional area of expertise.

So, how does it differ from the usual approaches?

First, there are no eternal Natural Laws in Marxism!

The task is always to increase the amount of Objective Content in your theories.

Let us take the example I know particularly well – Physics!

This supposed-to-be Basic Discipline – on which all others are causally based, is incorrect.

It is the simplest basis, but can tell us nothing about the real dynamics and development of all other higher levels of organisation. Most particularly, it can say nothing about Life, about Mankind, or about Human Societies. Indeed, the modern Marxist stance on Physics has been greatly advanced by discoveries at higher levels – not least in the revelation of Emergences (or Revolutions) in the real Qualitative Development of these levels. For now, these same features have been revealed as absolutely imperative in Physics itself – especially in the Major Crisis now unresolved for almost a century!

Indeed, more generally, the usual methods were constantly coming up against both contradictions and dichotomous Concepts, and “solved” them by setting up new categories of study, to ignore these impasses, and carry on with the same methodology, but now in a new, isolated subject. The old methods proliferated the number of these categories, and forever shelved the contradictions that separated one realm from another, as something for “resolving later”.

Now, how did this affect my attempt to become a real Marxist, via my own specialism – Physics? I finally realised that it was up to me. No one else could do it for me.

Initially, literally all my work as a teacher in schools was determined by what I had been taught in my own education. And, there was much there to be communicated and explained to my students. Indeed, it was this imperative of Explanation, that had taken me upon a different route from the now-in-charge physics community. Explanation, which I considered to be Science’s main virtue, was steadily being replaced by Formal Equations as the real, driving causes. So, as a teacher, I from the outset considered it to be my job to “Explain Why” things happened as they did.

The effect on my career was significant. I switched first to solely teaching Mathematics, then Biology, and finally, Computing.

But, in spite of a better approach, I still had to develop philosophically, when I finally scaled the heights via Further Education, finally getting posts in Universities in Hong Kong, Glasgow, Bedford and London. The clincher was when I switched from a Teaching Department to Computer Services, and made my job one of helping researchers in ALL disciplines by writing tailor-made computer programs demanded by the full range of discipline experts. Success in a variety of unusual disciplines caused me to be approached to write a chapter in IBM’s Research and Academic User’s Guide.

Only then, did my philosophical development become consciously Marxist.

The epitome of this work was to be awarded a British Interactive Video Award for the Dance Disc – a multimedia Aid for the Teaching of Dance Performance and Choreography. A following series of projects took us to a leading position in the field, where we have been for 15 years. You would think that more experienced practitioners in the Dance World would catch up and pass us, but it hasn’t happened. There are NO Marxists working in Dance Education!

Now, the above is, of course, a very truncated account.

Indeed, I continued to do research of my own in Mathematics and in Philosophy, and by 2010 I had produced a non-Copenhagen Theory of the Double Slit Experiments and a New Theory of Emergences. My colleague in Dance and I produced another dozen titles, and she was awarded a Ph. D. for her brilliant adaptions of her extensive teaching knowledge to our products.

When my sight began to fail, I retired from that work, and became a full-time Marxist writer on Science and Philosophy

And, in politics, it wasn’t just activism, or knowing what Marx said in innumerable situations. It was definitely his philosophy and dialectical method that was crucial. And, I had to apply it (once I grasped it) to the biggest ever Crisis in Physics – the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and begin to solve its many anomalies to confirm that I was finally a Real Marxist.


Of course, this very short paper has said very little about The Marxist Method, because stating in it generally is neither easy nor informative. The core of the Method is constructed upon Hegel’s discoveries into how we actually think, and, most importantly, how we are regularly brought to a halt by impasses, occurring as consequences of our assumptions and principles. What he then delivered was not just a view of this trajectory, but also a means of transcending its impasses.

And, of course, the detailed nature of these will look very different in widely separated disciplines. Finally, this method cannot be a final and fixed set of procedures, but will be at any juncture limited by the width of our applications and consequent understanding. So, to continually develop it, it has to be re-discovered in discipline after discipline, and literally all the time, not only solving the particular problems involved, but also in developing the philosophical method too.

09 April, 2015


There is a widely distributed myth about Revolution.

It is characterised as a very bad thing, when the “lower orders” of Society rebel against their “betters” and overthrow a steady and working system to absolutely everyone’s detriment. In this version, everything possible must be done to defeat it – including waging war.

In the 1917 Russian Revolution, not only were the Royalist forces supported from outside the country, but also after the execution of the Tsar and the establishment of a Socialist State the internal Civil War was followed by invasions by 14 different countries, in attempts to terminate the Revolution.

And, such an attitude is considered to be legitimate by those who benefit greatly from the system being dismantled before their very eyes. By God, it might even lead to their own, more than comfortable existences being threatened in their own countries! Clearly, such opposition to Revolution is mainly by those who will lose all they hold dear – their positions, their money and their power!

But, of course, even this basic characterisation, by these clear “Conservatives”, is an outright lie. The so-called “lower orders” are never in any position to even conceive of such a thing, never mind carry it out with a predetermined plan. And everyone accepts this!

So, how can it happen and even succeed?

The next position of the anti-revolution front is to explain that such events are purposely fomented by dedicated Revolutionaries – people who hate the current set up and feel that if they can use the legitimate dissatisfaction of the masses, they can make a Revolution happen! They can achieve such things because they are equipped with the ideas of Karl Marx, about the nature of Social Revolutions, and can convince the people to work together to overthrow the current regime. In other words, these activists are the cause of a Revolution, falsely persuading the masses that it will be in their interest to organise for an overthrow. Our defenders-of-the-Faith are convinced that a successful outcome for the revolutionaries, will be a calamity for everybody else: for the theories of the revolutionaries are purely self-kid, and they could never deliver anything better for anybody (including the lower classes).

Now, is this true, or is it a downright lie? Are Revolutions actually arranged for by selfish agitators? Could something like the Russian Revolution really have been the result of a dishonest plan? It couldn't have been.

The only valid way it can be understood is by detailed investigations into Development in general! The most brilliant and profound contribution in this area turned out to be by the Idealist philosopher, Frederick Hegel, who set himself the task of understanding the trajectory of Human Thinking, as both his, and our, most important question that had then to be addressed. How does Thinking actually progress? For that it most certainly does!

What is the true trajectory of significant change in Thinking that allows real progress in understanding to actually be achieved?

Since the Ancient Greeks, a system termed Formal Logic was believed to be how we thought. It was based upon the belief that facts were produced by Eternal Laws of Nature (though made ever more complex in their summations). Now, this inevitably made thoughts merely the incremental addition of all such laws to explain all phenomena, and the more of these that we knew about, the more we would be able to understand.

But, Hegel realised that this was NOT what happened in his own thinking, and was likely not to be true in general either. He realised that progress was only made when hard and fast premises were overturned.

Progress was NEVER a simple building up of more and more Laws: it definitely included major crises, caused by contradiction-produced impasses that seemingly brought reasoning to a dead halt. So, how was progress ever achieved?

It was not an easy problem to solve – for these impasses were indeed unavoidable, yet they always produced contradictions, and hence scuppered Formal Logic as being sufficient in itself to enable such impasses to be easily transcended.

So, how did Hegel in his thinking, manage to actually do this, and break through to higher levels and a superior understanding?

He actually realised that Mankind deals with Reality in thought by making conceptions and relations between them, which became generalised principles. And, it was these that turned out to be the problem, for they were never totally correct!

They always contained some truth within them, but the method of arriving at these basic premises, was arrived at by them by both simplifying and idealising the conceptions into forms that could be more easily handled, indeed, could be used, via Formal Logic, to generate a whole panoply of consequent derivations.

And, it was this methodology, though, indeed, a necessary major step forward, also absolutely guaranteed an inevitable limitation upon just how far these reasonable extensions could be taken.

Now, believe it or not, these weaknesses had been intimated over 2,300 years previously by the Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea, who, via his famous Paradoxes, had actually proved the inevitability of contradictions via the everywhere-agreed method of reasoning. He had identified two concepts, which we now term Continuity and Descreteness, which totally unavoidably came from the very same bases in thinking, but somehow came out as mutually incompatible. But Zeno, at that juncture in Mankind’s development, couldn’t take these ideas any further. Though, after 2,300 years, along came Hegel, who realised that this was still the most important problem to be tackled, and set about the task. 

G. W. F. Hegel

Now, we must position both Hegel and his problem, historically, in a much wider context.

In both England and in Holland, and then finally in France in 1789, revolutions were emerging, and being taken to wholly transforming conclusions. These resulted in the fall of the old Divine-Right monarchies, and to the dominance of a new economic system – Capitalism was being made the order of the day, and the resolutions did not come easily. These major crises, via enormous and chaotic changes not only were undermining the political set-ups of many countries, but also having major effects upon ways of thinking, that had also been in place for millennia. And, this unavoidable reached into the studies of Hegel too.

He revealed that given a set of premises that were not the complete truth, though a penumbra of consequent “truths” could be generated from them, it was also inevitable that they would also, at some point, begin to generate impasses, indicated by pairs of contradictions – termed Dichotomous Pairs, which could never be resolved until those premises were replaced by some that were “more true”. Hegel’s method, entitled Dialectics, had the initial task of finding these Dichotomous Pairs, and, thereafter, unearthing their inadequate common premises, which then had to be criticised and ultimately replaced by something better. But, the task indicated by these necessary processes was not, as might be assumed, the unearthing of Absolute Truth – that was impossible, due to Mankind’s always inadequate knowledge and understanding. So, on the contrary, it involved the finding of new ideas containing more Objective Content than those they were replacing.

Such work would enable further progress to be made via their consequences. But, would also in turn, ultimately produce their own impasses and Dichotomous Pairs.

What Hegel had done was to produce a revolution in how we consider our thinking. The Greek idea of Formal Logic was finally shown to be inadequate, and needed replacing by what Hegel termed The Logic of Change, in which were embodied the discoveries he had found.

But, his new Logic was never completed as such, for it needed to be applied extensively in the currently dominant areas of Science, and Hegel was not equipped to do that. And, his best disciple, Karl Marx, had his own priorities.

He took Hegel’s revolution away from being solely about thinking, and suggested that the discoveries were applicable far beyond just Human Thought, and relevant in absolutely all Development. And clearly, if Marx was right, the trajectories of all kinds of development now had to be redefined. The Crises, Impasses and even Revolutions would occur in all developments, including, as Marx emphasized, Social Development. 

For, in such a context, Revolutions in Society occur when a prior stable social organisation, is surviving well beyond its capability to evolve any further on the same basis, and more and more contradictions will increasingly become evident, until a final major Crisis arises. In such circumstances the resulting Revolutions are never due to some conceived-of plan. They are the natural outcomes of the built-in limitations of a current social organisation system.

However, unlike many other similar natural phenomena, these upheavals include thinking human beings, and even some adequately equipped to understand what was actually happening. And they will certainly organise to affect the outcome in the best way for themselves. And, of course, those in power are often the best equipped to put down rebellion and attempt to retain the status quo.

Although no one can decide to have a Revolution, which is entirely out of any single person's hands, if you are a follower of Marx you may well be able to understand the process and intervene somehow by analysing what was going on, devising the best actions necessary, and leading the rebellion to a victory for the working class.

Support the East Ukrainian Revolution!

I have a strong suspicion that the story being peddled throughout the West about the uprising in eastern Ukraine is a lie. What we have there is, I believe, a Revolution! 

While the Ukrainian Middle Class in Kiev and to the west want the privileges and wealth of their counterparts in Europe (and expect to get it if they can join the European Community) the mainly ethnic Russians in the industrial East of the country want nothing of the kind!

Indeed, I am daily seeing socialist reactions not only there, but also in Russia itself. 

The West is purposely drawing upon decades of fostered hatred during the Cold War, and liken what is happening now down to the ex-bureaucrat oligarcs in Russia.

But they are most worried about the peoples in those countries, currently being shown the way by their brothers and sisters in East Ukraine.

Great stuff! 

04 April, 2015

New Special Issue: Analogistic Models II

Clearly, the establishment of a comprehensive basis for a whole new standpoint and methodology in Science, was not, and could not be, achieved in the few papers of Analogistic Models I. Indeed, such a demanding and consistent basis will take a great deal of effort, and a considerable amount of time.

However, certain breakthroughs have already been achieved by a number of researchers, some of whom did not fully realise the true import of their contributions. And, indeed, the supertanker that is today’s consensus of Pluralistic Science, will still take an enormous effort to re-direct into an entirely different Holistic direction, especially as the much admired gains of isolation, simplification and idealisation of the Pluralist approach, will be sorely missed in this new and much more difficult realm in which, “Everything affects everything else!”

Some measure of the difficulties involved has been demonstrated by the problems encountered by the two pioneers of this approach, namely Charles Darwin and Stanley Miller. For, in Darwin’s case, the evident strong opposition to what he was doing caused him to continue studies and delay publication of his Origin of Species for decades. While, Miller’s brilliant experiment revealing the natural creation of amino acids in his constructed emulation of the processes taking place in the primitive atmosphere and seas of the early Earth, had to be abandoned as no viable Holistic methodology was available to take things further.

To finally address Reality, in its true complexity, recursivity and evolution, involved a substantial step into much more difficult territory, and, crucially, a return of the currently universally dominant quantitative relations, to their correct and subordinate position in Theory, and the re-instatement of Explanatory Models (based upon analogy) as the primary theoretical achievements of Science.

So clearly, the task cannot possibly involve a quick fix, indeed, based on the discoveries of the philosopher Frederick Hegel, the development of theory is NOT an amassing of many eternal Natural Laws, but the continuing development of a whole infinite series of models, validated by their increased Objective Content. This second in the series on Analogistic Models attempts to clarify this objective.