02 March, 2021

Culture and Revolution

 Originally posted here 8th April 2020


Edited revolutionary painting featuring yellow vests
As culture shifts across the globe workers are beginning to realise their importance and power again - but can this be harnessed against the Capitalist class which exploit them?

Building an effective opposition within the Neo-Con, post-industrial societies 


David Harvey, in a recent Democracy-at-Work offering, once again, with his usual eminently Marxist analysis, and profound cultural understanding, finds it necessary to dramatically switch the emphasis that the Left must take, in order to effectively combat the results of 40 years of Neo-Con Capitalism, which have clearly effectively de-unionised and de-politicised the Working Class Movements in Countries like the UK and the USA.

Now, there is a lot wrong with the TV series The Sixties (currently broadcasting on Sky in the UK), BUT, nevertheless, it does reveal much of that crucial tumultuous decade which prepared the ground for the later Neo-Con transformation of World Capitalism, which by the 1980s, with Thatcher and Reagan, was beginning to dismantle the traditional Working Class oppositional politics with the systematic destruction of its historical strengths within organised Labour, and, in the USA, the Cold War effective annihilation of all the Political Parties of the Left!

Yet France, with its Gilet Jaune Left Populism, and the current joint action with the still existing Unions' own General Strike, is demonstrating what can be done in favoured areas. And a single major crack in the Neo-Con System, still not recovered from the 2008 Economic Collapse, could this time precipitate an unrecoverable Crisis from the Capitalists point of view!

(Editor: the current worldwide health / economic crisis, for example)


The Socialist Agenda

But, the usual separation of major campaigns of "The Sixties", and the lack of a Socialist Party backing them all, guaranteed failure in spite of the remarkable numbers often involved.

BUT with a Common Socialist Agenda, and a combined fight, and, a concerted effort to prevent the always agitated-for separation of campaigns, which will always and inevitably oppose this necessary aim, and the "Please Everybody" demand from them.

It must be countered, by making the disenfranchised ex-Working Class the only reliable source for Real Change on every single front.

(Editor: they can no longer hide from the vital role 'key workers' play in keeping the whole system going)

And, within that sector, the major Class Objective will be in providing a Young Socialist Movement for the discarded Youth - just as we did successfully in the 1960s with the Labour Party's Young Socialists. That youth will thrill their de-classed elders, and energise the whole undertaking, as the introduction of the Youth did in the Civil Rights Movement of the Sixties in the USA!





The Left needs a Socialist Party committed to literally all campaigns, but always unified by socialist solutions, and energised by a commitment to Working Class youth, with activities and facilities concentrated upon where those Youth are, yet mobilising them as the spearhead!

And, contradictably, NOT seeking the support of the Educated or the Middle Class, while at the same time delivering the very best informed and well explained Theory. But allowing NO exclusions of our generalist demands, and the very best organisation when under attack!

Without such a unifying participation, individual campaigns will quickly rise, and just as quickly fall. So, every single action or strike must be immediately supported, not just with individual participators. but with banners expressing both support and Socialist demands.

And, demonstrations, no matter how small, and a march directly to support the fight, with food, and collections of money arranged for the fighters, from Working Class Estates, accompanied with the most vigorous chants and energy!

28 February, 2021

Noam Chomsky's Philosophy





Noam Chomsky's intellectual approach (and what it lacks)



After watching the latest video from Noam Chomsky on YouTube - another wide-ranging philosophical contribution upon Human Thinking and Understanding, with its relation to our changing Conceptions of Reality - it became increasingly clear that, to him, this was NOT the development of various different attempts to both formulate accurate accounts describing that Reality, only in the common form of an increasingly competent, developed Language, but also never, as a revealing critique of its current contexts of different Social Organisations, involving ideas for its necessary improvement.

In his dealing with the relations between that Thinking, and the Reality it was attempting to describe, he only considers the internal relations and inadequacies of such Thinking, as the only possible-and-effective means of in any way addressing our world.

It was a wholly intellectual approach!

However, in spite of great historical breadth and an increasing intellectual depth, he also insisted upon what he saw as its intrinsic and sometimes unavoidable failures, as well as its seemingly built-in limitations.

But, Chomsky is neither a Scientist nor an Artisan of any kind: he only contributed conceptions concerned solely with Thinking-as-such, without involving any concrete means of, not only testing his ideas in Reality, but also, as Mankind had always done, not finding solutions in any consequent, concrete interactions within that Reality-as-is!

And, towards his conclusion, it also became clear that he was exclusively describing the imposed, if diverse, stances of various sections of the Ruling Class, as the only possible, as well as unavoidable-and-natural consequences of the processes involved, in only that developing system, over time.

He considered it as the sole engine of all development. He is clearly an Idealist!

So, in spite of his apparently "leftist" reputation, he had literally nothing-to-say about what had occurred in Socialist Thinking, throughout his extensive and detailed contribution. It, overall, reflected the dominant Liberal/Left Stance, most clearly exemplified in US politics, and, consequently-and-crucially also had absolutely nothing to say about real Social Alternatives, or amazingly, even intellectually about the major Pluralist/Holist diversions in Human Thinking within the last 2,500 years!

He was, therefore, wholly preoccupied with only what he saw to be both the only real means of progress, as well as the Natural and unavoidable limitations of that same Human Thinking: and consequently-but-inadvertantly, went on to demonstrate that very same limitation, even in his own analysis, dictated by his chosen-and-privileged ideas of intellectuals ONLY!



Noam Chomsky on Natural Law


At no point, did he ever address the Idealism and Materialism aspects of Philosophy, and, in particular, had zero to say upon the Dialectical Materialism of Karl Marx, and its role in the Major Social Revolutions of the 20th century. Nor, of course, did he trace the declines, both in historical gains, and within its own self-defeating short-comings, in the hands of its Theoretical developments and Political Organisational Forms.

Frankly, by his contribution in this event, you would think that he had given an extremely comprehensive account, but that was very far from the Truth. Indeed, the actual significant interactions of openly Marxist Parties in the active motivation of the Masses, into effective political action, including their damaged successes in the largely still-feudal countries, such as Russia and China, and their universal failures in the advanced Capitalist Countries of the West.

And, of course, absolutely NO acknowledgement of the fact that Dialectical Materialism was never ever comprehensively extended beyond the area of Capitalist Economics - including absolutely no such attempt to develop that key methodology across the whole range of Sciences, or absolutely crucially into either Philosophy or Language - so that consequently, it had nothing to say upon the reactionary developments in Sub Atomic Physics, and no absolutely essential and transforming contributions in Biology - particularly concerning the study of Evolution.

It was clear that throughout this presentation, Chomsky was NOT explaining his position to ordinary working people - for his whole approach was aimed at privileged middle class intellectuals, like himself, as the language he used totally betrayed his target audience, very clearly indeed!

And, I have myself suffered from exactly that type of deliberate exclusion - for though I have worked as a professional educator all my adult life, my paternal Grandmother could neither read nor write, and my Father (her son) was always an unskilled labourer. Throughout my successful career, I always refused to ape "my betters", and kept my Northern Working Class accent! So, I was usually treated as someone, who wouldn't understand the intricacies of Real Intellectual Argument, until I deigned to join in and prove the theses of "my self-assumed betters" wrong!

The method always employed in such Public Lectures (and Discussions) always uses the Names or Titles of Arguments, rather than explaining their actual contents, so that, unless you are constantly involved in such ideas with all of your time, you would not know what they meant, and your consequent "lack of understanding" would invariably be put down to your stupidity. And so, to terminate any possible explanations from me, the deliverer would show great surprise at one's ignorance of such essential Titles!

My own education, concentrating primarily upon Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, of course suffered from the same "Intellectualism", as I am here describing with Chomsky. But my Working Class background indelibly imprinted by my upbringing and status, always impelled me to attempt to transcend its clear limitations. Initially this broadened my interests to include, first Painting, and then Sculpture, and finally Computing - and slowly, in particular, due to the way I was treated in my chosen career. I was first a schoolteacher among my own Social Class, and then later in a Grammar School (educating the children of the Middle Class), after which I spent 10 years in a Further Education College teaching mature Working Class students how to program computers, along with the very best skill training Engineers for Local Industries.

I finally, after many rejections, I got a post in Higher Education, but it was only possible by attempting to get such a post abroad. I got a job in a Polytechnic in Hong Kong, where I was soon promoted to Senior Lecturer. And returning home to the UK on completion of my contract, I got a similar post in Glasgow in Scotland, where within 2 years, I was promoted to Principle Lecturer.

I decided to terminate my teaching, and concentrated instead solely upon devising and producing tailor-made Computer Software aids for researchers across the whole range of disciplines, which significantly adjusted my conceptions of Theory: as I had to help deliver exactly what my Discipline Expert Required!

And during the 1980s, many important Programmes and published research Papers were produced.

Finally, in a Director of Computing role, first in Bedford and finally in London University, I worked with an exceptional teacher of Dance Performance and Choreography, to deliver the Control and Flexibility she required, in using recorded footage of exemplar performances, that was subsequently used all over the world.

This career was sadly terminated early due to ill health, but working entirely from home I continued producing original research and software tools, and when this became impossible due to my failing eyesight, I worked with my son, Michael, who by then was a PhD, and a lecturer in Leeds University, to attempt to tackle the inadequacies of Intellectualism in Philosophy!


SHAPE Journal was my attempt to tackle Philosophy differently... 



This undertaking has taken me 14 years, 12 of these publishing over 150 issues of SHAPE Journal and this blog, involving over 1,000 separate papers. The initial project was to tackle the mess descended into within Modern Sub Atomic Physics, particularly addressing the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, and the Modern Version of Cosmology, arising from the Copenhagen Stance. And latterly an extension of Dialectical Materialism in dealing with Modern Science...

Now, I will not even try, at this stage, to "correct" Chomsky's claims on the impossibility of explaining Effective Causal Explanations, which is the universal cornerstone of all his diverse arguments about the Impossibility of Real Understanding - because, in his particular restricted presentation of that problem, he was correct! 

But, in spite of his seemingly comprehensive arguments, he omitted (or more likely was totally unaware of) the effect of the alternative to his universally Pluralistic intellectual stance, in all the means that he referred to in his otherwise comprehensive treatment. And that was because, ever since the Greek Intellectual Revolution, almost 2,500 years ago, the only way literally ANY consistent and effective Rationality was considered possible, was by limiting the experiences involved to solely pluralist situations - which did NOT allow any real Qualitative changes, and, hence, would, if rigorously implemented, profoundly limit all relations to fixed exclusively quantitative Laws, so the Rationality involved could never ever explain the real Essence of an Evolving Reality, which is therefore definitely limited to both Constant Laws, and only episodic, and always inexplicable Qualitative Changes - NEVER involving significantly any reasons for those changes.

And, to ever address explicitly such changes, situations would have to be Holistic - as was defined at the same time as the Greek Intellectual Revolution, but wholly separately, by The Buddha, many thousands of miles away in India!

Now, neither subsequent Western Plurality nor Eastern Holism, ever dealt comprehensively-and-explicably with a qualitatively developing World, and Mankind's uses of their consequent ideas to understand Actual Development does not yet exist!

For, Reality does not conform completely, with either of these simplifications of it, mainly because, in both cases, the occurrence of the many, clearly obvious Stabilities, were never understood correctly!

Plurality, in fact, made Stability the basis of Everything! Whereas Holism failed to understand their persisting occurrences, completely, making Constant Change its credo! And Mankind, for a very long period indeed, could countenance no other method, when relying exclusively upon a Single Conformity occurring straight-through all possibilities.

The idea of an actually-existing Hierarchy of different Rationalities, at different Levels, as well as the actual causal connections occurring between those apparently independent Levels, were for a long period, totally outside of any such considered possibilities - until thinkers like Karl Marx and Charles Darwin began to reveal irrefutable evidence of such important natural transitions, simultaneously with innumerable contradictory components, strongly keeping situations as they were over long periods of time!



How can you even approach these questions without reference to Marx and Darwin?


Indeed, Contradiction was considered an absolute anathema!

And until Contradiction was properly understood (outside of the formalisms of Logic), such changes would certainly remain wholly inexplicable - and so they are inexplicable to Chomsky! In the universally-applied Mathematical Rationality, all Contradiction was dismissed as impossible, and therefore revealing an error of Logic! And, it wasn't until Mankind's breadth of Study was extended well beyond the Strictly Local, in both Time and Space, that such things could no longer be avoided.

Nevertheless, most "theorists" had developed their theories separated from the Real World, and instead as a wholly cerebral exercise, and so could never personally implement any of their then necessary experiments, so to even carry them out they had to employ skilled artisans and engineers, to achieve behaving systems for them.Yet, their both avid and universal subscription to the Principle of Plurality, could not be lightly dumped, as it did successfully "legitimise" the reliable Production of manufactured goods, both solved-and-delivered by those artisans and workers, and especially for the leisured intellectuals, who were never involved successfully in such activities anyway, and so didn't consider whether they were legitimate or not - but only that they delivered the objects and services that they required.

Yet, an ever-growing army of artisans and engineers, whose credo pragmatic credo was "If it works, it is right!", were increasingly rejecting the intellectual, theoretical stances of the scientists, and, in particular, the incredible-but-necessary theoretical assumptions of Modern Sub Atomic Theory, and always instead trusted their own Pragmatic arrangements and understandings, at which they were the consummate masters, and were always relied upon by those theorists, to make their experiments fit their way-out theories!

You may well wonder how this arrangement ever worked out, until, that is, you see the kind of Mathematics that the theorists always resorted to, to make it fit. For that Discipline, being wholly Pluralistic, naturally extended well beyond Reality-as-is, and well-into Ideality, so when the technicians were setting up the required experiment, they too could do the Maths, so they would physically organise the experiment to artificially deliver exactly what the Pluralist Theory predicted!

It was an unhappy coalition, as far as the pragmatists were concerned, and they increasingly began to look elsewhere for Real Theory. This situation has led, in Physics, to what is termed The Electric Universe alternative! And while this alternative was compromised by its Pragmatism, it has certainly challenged the conformist position in both Sub Atomic Physics and Cosmology, with valuable and demanding alternatives!

You can read more about the pros and cons of this in the latest issue of SHAPE journal:






24 February, 2021

Coronavirus, the Capitalist State and the People

 

Originally published here 13/04/20 as Coronavirus and Capitalism

What are governments putting first, the health of key workers, or the health of the economy?


What the COVID19 crisis tells us about the Capitalist State
and The People - and how the response could be conducted differently...


THE ESSENTIAL PREMISE:

Remember, the UK is a Capitalist State, run by a right-wing, strongly pro-capitalist Tory Government. A vast crisis, such as this current Coronavirus Pandemic, cannot but increasingly reveal their priorities in running things primarily in their own interests - the interests of the capitalist class.

And that isn't in the interests of the majority of the People!

Their primary motivation is ALWAYS keeping their own wealth and Power.

The major issue in this serious Pandemic boils down to the main key roles of the State, the Crisis and maintaining the status quo. There can be no doubt whatsoever that State controls will be necessary in fighting the pandemic: but it really depends upon what kind of a State is involved in making those decisions.

For depending upon the Economic System currently instituted in an affected country, government policies pursued can be very different indeed, for they will depend exclusively upon what the role of the State is considered to be by those in charge. And a Capitalist State will have very different objectives from those of a Socialist State. And in a bureaucratic Stalinist State, like China, it will react very differently to a Socialist State with real Democracy.

For, as the Pandemic is certain to be limited in duration, those policies, on the one hand, will most certainly be to protect the people from the Pandemic, but they will also, most certainly, on the other hand, be very differently determined, depending on what kind of State will emerge "after the deluge"! Will the State relinquish emergency powers as quickly as it adopted them? What about during a subsequent economic crisis??

A State's primary purpose will always be determined by exactly what, and therefore also, who, in that society, it is primarily designed to serve! If it is Capitalism - or even Stalinism - and therefore, its directing practitioners, who consider themselves primary, it will pursue very different set of policies, in addressing the Pandemic, to the exactly opposite situation that which would pertain, if it were, instead, addressing the  circumstances of the vast majority of the population, and hence the Working Class.

For, such a crisis could clearly expose both gross inequality and the purposes of the Capitalist State all too overtly, and if not managed strictly in ways to purposely-hide its directing intentions. So, any policies about testing for the Virus, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) will be vital!



Getting proper protective equipment out to all key workers should be the number one priority of any State working in the interests of the people

Who will get tested and when?

And, who will receive the necessary PPEs?

And will they be isolating or protective PPEs?

And crucially are the PPEs intended for the detected-infected or for the as-yet-uninfected?

But, with the insistence upon hand-washing, where are they getting infected from?

For some countries seem to be spraying possible sites, where the virus could settle! What then would be used in those circumstances?

Now clearly, there are other ways of combating the Pandemic by using the above means in very different and better ways! We have to ask why did they choose the ones that they did?

Were their reasons medical or political?

Why have right wing populist governments such as USA and Brazil (and the UK if we're honest), dragged their feet and been so much more reluctant to lock down than their equivalents in Social Democratic countries?

The former are obviously NOT currently terminating the Pandemic: in fact they are purposely extending its duration! And, with the very clear pressures for early partial or temporary reductions in the extents of the Shutdown, could not this elicit second or even more waves of the Pandemic!?

How many of the old and infirm will survive these waves?

For, the biggest collections of deaths are in populations within care homes.




Why is that considered to be a good policy? And why are those figures not published home by home?

For answers, you only have to look at the political advantages for the powers-that-be!

Why wasn't a testing of the population organised, with those having the Pandemic being isolated, at home but with isolating facemasks until they were clear (this would in the end effectively deal with 80% of the detected infections who get a 'mild' version of the disease). They would then be monitored, and if it intensified in any they would be immediately transfered to Hospital. All others tested and found to be OK, would get a protective face mask and be released.

All travel, particularly from aboard, but also, initially, at home travel would still be banned as they are now! So, extractable zones would be systematically sectioned off and treated in these ways, gradually clearing increasing areas, within which tested clear individuals would be allowed free movement, and could meet and socialise with others similarly OK'd, but must wear their protective aids. 

Workplaces could be targeted, particularly those directly serving the public, such as shops.

Everyone else would be under similar conditions to now, but would get their turn as their zone was arrived at via constant extensions.

A General Shutdown would be gradually and systematically lifted.

From restriction to our homes, areas of locally restored free movement would be gradually be increased, until well-defined and increasing areas would allow gradually re-instituted local travel!

Instead of the total shutdown of all free and unmonitored social protest: such would be made available in all the released areas. And these MUST always start in the most highly populated districts in towns and cities, and only last-of-all in the sparsely-populated estates of the privileged!




THE VITAL POSTSCRIPT:

And, how should the system, described above be organised?
Should it be by the police or army?

NO!

It should be by the People themselves, within the successively released enclaves, each of which should elect their own Area Council to do the organising, and whose meetings should be open to the public! For, as has been shown by the discipline of the majority of the People in the Shutdown, by their are highly responsible and evident clapping-and-helpful support of the NHS, and who, along with the appropriate resources, will do an infinitely much better job than any Tory Government of Billionaires could even imagine! 

For, unlike a top-down rigorously imposed control, the maximally democratic monitoring by everyone, and immediately-responsive actions of the local People's Councils will straight-forwardly implement the maximally fair outcomes, with the energetic and guaranteed support of their People.

22 February, 2021

The (Ongoing) Coronavirus Crisis...

 This article was originally posted on this blog in April last year, but is no less relevant today.




Brooks & Wolff realise the Current Dangers
for Workers and COVID 19 and consider a call for 

A General Strike


In a key episode of The Michael Brooks Show on YouTube we see a significant critical-&-political Turning Point has suddenly emerged. Instead of focussing all the usual diverse criticisms of the way the Pandemic has been addressed by Governments worldwide (and in the USA in particular): it is alternatively conceived of, for the first time, as a clear Pro-People and Anti-Capitalist Combined-Agenda for a General, Co-ordinated Action of the Working Class, against the inhuman Economic System and instead consider an alternative one, for the benefit of Ordinary People!

First, Brooks himself, in a remarkably energetic contribution, reacted to the currently increasing pressures from Big Capital, to try to get all workers back to work, in spite of the still raging Pandemic, and, to instead propose, via a bottom-up organisation, of what Brooks termed "localist solutions" - wherein the people in a well-defined local district, would organise, for themselves, their own, democratically-elected committees to control both the safety and provisions for their locality.






And only the very day before, the writer of this paper (in England) had suggested very similar "Special Local Councils" with the same purposes to Brooks' suggestion, along with a very different plan to, when the time is ripe, release small areas from the Total LockDown, along with appropriate & essential Testing of the contained population, adequate Personal Protective Equipment deployment, and the instituting of freedom of movement, within such enclaves, for those proved to be clear of the virus, by prior population-testing.

While, the shops and essential services, within the enclaves, along with both employing organisations and Firms there, should be a priority for Testing-and-release from shutdown as soon as possible. And, the small sizes of such enclaves would make this majorly effective, and new co-operative services of all kinds could easily be self-organised and made safe! And the evidently necessary discipline, on all fronts, wholly organised solely by the locally-elected Councils for the enclaves. Such organisation, alone, would allow a gradual and reliable extension of Released Areas with ensured safety!

Second, Brooks then brought in Economics Professor Richard Wolff (one of the founders of Democracy-at-Work) into the discussion to contribute his political ideas of "What is to be Done!" And, he immediately changed the emphasis, by suggesting that the pressure of a return to Work by the Big Capitalists, should be countered by what would amount to A General Strike!

Sent home workers would NOT return, without the guaranteed provision of full and adequate safeguards for the workers involved, with the Pandemic still raging! And, if the Government failed to do it: they would do it all for themselves!

With the colossal death figures still appearing daily, Workers would NOT expose themselves, their fellow workers. and their own families and children, to the risk of catching the virus!

Thirdly, Chris Smalls, a worker within Amazon, was included in the Discussion, for he had been suspended by Amazon for organising his fellow workers against the conditions in which they were being expected to work - with fellow workers working well within the generally-set inter-personal limits of 2 metres, and in which some were actually falling ill with the Coronavirus, while actually still working.





Chris had little trouble getting the agreement of fellow workers upon what should be acceptable conditions of work, and in the midst of all this, he was sent home by the management as a "danger to his fellow workers!". But his still energetically-pursued objective has remained to get his fellows to go home until acceptable conditions are provided. 

This single YouTube video has changed the game in the USA among ever-larger sections on the Left, and if Trump, which seems likely, joins the Big Capitalists in attempting to hurry People back to work, it is clear that this Turn, could become an Ever-Growing Flooding Wave of Dissent!

Indeed, in spite of its terrible death figures, the Italian Government is already getting sections of workers back to work even now.

So, it appears likely that many will refuse to do so, to protect themselves and their families! If this happens, it will be a key moment in the long fight against Capitalism's exploitation of the Working Class.

20 February, 2021

Re-building History?



Adam Curtis stitches together an array of extraordinary archive film footage in Can't Get You Out of My Head


Re-Building the Real History &

Organisation of a Required Class Consciousness



There is a current on-going series of films on the BBC (Can't Get You Out of My Head), which far from being politically radical, is actually in concert with that station's News Programmes, and much of its General Content across the whole range of genres, from Drama to all other types of entertainment, are purposely working increasingly hard to either instil-into, cajole, bully or merely influence its listeners and viewers, into a hopeless and increasingly cowed state of accepting that all of the mounting calamities besetting them, at present, are entirely of their own selfish making, and actually natural built-in weaknesses within themselves.

But this isn't True!

Even the total dishonesty and complete incompetence of the Tory Government, led by Boris Johnson, is NEVER revealed by the media for what it is, and what they are trying to impose both physically-and-blame-wise by allowing to pile up, all the agonies of their OWN mishandling, into a slowly-but-surely drift into putting most of the blame upon the people themselves.

Even, any "good policies", are never carried through to a satisfactory conclusion, because they were really always only gestures, included in order to con ordinary Working People into thinking that the Government has their best interests at heart, while, in fact, always-and-ever getting things back to having the money once again rolling into the pockets of the Wealthy - their pockets: with every one back at work - preferably on lower wages, and inferior working conditions, and, if possible, well-separated from each other, rather than working together, where their natural Class Consciousness would be mutually generated once again!

Though the powers-that-be may seem to be failing, we have to clearly acknowledge just how the seemingly tumultuous mess, is, in fact, dramatically changing the forms, conditions and remuneration of employment or benefits for most workers, to significantly minimise the possibility of collective action by Workers to defend and even extend their circumstances.

And with the demise of the Unions and genuine Working Class Political Parties, the once possible means are no longer available. JUST when they are needed most!

So, they have to be replaced in a wholly new way, by using any still-extent Democracy, but now legitimately extended, well beyond the rare occasions when Ballot boxes are involved - to Public Meetings, initially addressing local issues, in the current Crisis, with decisions by Culminating Votes, along with actual organisational arrangements, to effectively carry them out! And, selected enforcers - subject to Instant-Recall-and-Replacement, if they are not carrying out the democratically-arrived-at will of the majority in such meetings.

Much earlier in this health crisis (in 2020) I published a series of papers urging that the organised response needed to be in the hands of such local democratic structures, for doing the basic jobs nest, and putting any National organisation into the empowered hands of the NHS, bypassing the Tories biased structures, and installed "leaderships"!

And all that would have been incomparably better than what actually ensued.

I will now re-issue these papers again herewith, to allow The People to make THEIR Judgments as to what should happen NOW!


Issue 72 of SHAPE Journal: Is the Universe Electric?

 




What is the Electric Universe? 


This edition examines the controversial Electric Universe group of physicists and their ideas, comparing them to the consensus position in Cosmology, and attempting to reveal both of their inadequacies, regarding a shared basis in Pluralist thinking. 

If we were to judge Electric Universe solely by their representation in the mainstream media and in popular science writing, we would quickly discard their contribution entriely, as pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories, lacking in any evidence or even brand it a dubious cult. Have a little read of this article from Vice magazine for a flavour of the discourse in question. Electric Universe adherents are called believers, rather than investigators, in the writing, and the substance of their ideas is written-off as total crackpottery. 

SHAPE Journal takes a more nuanced position to these matters. There are certainly major problems with much of what falls under the Electric Universe banner - but the project seems to be a surprisngly broad church - and one that welcomes many outsider scientists and non-conformist thinkers in Physics, that actually have something worthwhile to say. Some of the research undertaken by people affiliated or associated with the Electric Universe, is actually rather good indeed - but doesn’t seem to benefit in terms of credibility, from their link with EU. 

The Electric Universe was established by Wallace Thornhill in 1994, and now has a fervant worldwide following and annual conference. In 2007, Thornhill published a book with David Talbott under the same name, and this became something of a bible for the movement, alongside the film they made, Thunderbolts of the Gods. The guiding principal, is that electricity is the most important force in the Universe and Plasma is the dominant form of matter. 

Jim Schofield first became aware of Thornhill on Youtube, during the early stages of his research into Substrate Theory, as Thornhill also seemed to insinuate the presence of some hidden substrate - a sort of reformulated Aether theory being necessary to explain the propogation of Electromagnetic radiation across the Universe. He also seemed to reject the mathematical reductionism in Physics that Schofield was pushing against in his own research. Unfortunately, Thornhill went no further down this road - and it quickly became apparent that the leader of this movement had no coherent integrated basis for these ideas, no over-arching theory at all in fact - and that he and his closest followers were worryingly prone to fishy mythological references and conjecture, relying on rhetoric rather than evidence to support their arguments. Despite all of the gaps, the absence of evidence for many of their ideas and lack of quality control on the research that falls under the EU umbrella, there is some interesting stuff to be found there - Gareth Samuel’s “See the Pattern” videos being one such example.

Plasma research and Plasma Cosmology theories seem to be the source of the best contributions the extended Electric Universe family has to offer. Work on plasma filaments, the Structured Atomic Model and various hints at some electrical medium pervading space, all have potential with verifiable ideas being postulated. 

Both Plasma Cosmology and Jim Schofield’s Substrate Universe, attempt somewhat similar things - reexplaining physical phenomena in space, using only known particles of matter (Leptons) in various different arrangements and states, linking up the Universe in various ways, allowing the propagation of EM radiation and the construction of vast electrical and magnetic fields, if not gravitational ones too. Both offer materialist solutions without recourse to the mathematical idealism we see in the mainstream - spooky action at a distance, Quantum Entanglement or Uncertainty, for example. 

It certainly seems possible that these nascent sciences could end up supporting one another, or even combining, to construct a new view of the physical Universe grounded solidly in material reality, and its observable electromagnetic properties. For this reason, and others, Jim Schofield has given the Electric Universe gang a little more time than most theoretical physicists would, with particular interest in the front line of Plasma research. 

Digging deeper reveals other important connections. For Schofield, Eric Lerner’s research into Plasma and Fusion Reaction, is some of most exciting happening today - certainly pointing towards a much more holistic way of conducting Physics research, and scientific experiments, more broadly. 

Although not directly associated with Electric Universe, in the video below we see Lerner talking with Gareth Samuel about Fusion Energy, Plasma and Cosmology. The unacknowledged role that Plasma plays in the Universe is of key concern to both Lerner and the wider Electric Universe crowd, who see plasma filaments as vital to linking up their electrical stars and galaxies. 




Whether or not all these ideas have much merit, Lerner has certainly shown both the importance of Plasma in understanding the Universe, and that much of the received wisdom in Cosmology is not settled at all - the Electric nature of the Universe is still open to question.


18 February, 2021

What is the Philosophy of Mathematics?

 


Worlds created from abstractions are virtual, not real



What is Mathematics?


And what is its Relationship to Reality?



I have been looking for satisfactory answers to the questions above for sometime - none are forthcoming! Having just watched a couple of lecture videos on Youtube - one by Ray Monk on The Philosophy of Mathematics and another via Google Talks by a Dr. Stephens on Emmie Noether, my question (posed by the title to this paper), that literally demands to be addressed, remains unanswered. It was needed to clear up exactly where Reality-as-is terminates, and the products of Human Thinking, both claim to take over and intervene, by Reversing-the-Process, and beginning instead to contribute to the actual defining of "A Reality" via man-made Purely Formal Relational System!



The Ray Monk video


Indeed, though not admitted as such, that actual change was one of the unavoidably Key Products of the Greek Intellectual Revolution of the 5th century BC, when a successful attempt to do precisely that was actually made possible by their invention-and-use of certain

Simplifying Relational Abstractions

applied to concretely impossible, yet mathematically essential relations, between such things as:
               
- Points with zero parts

- Lines with zero thickness 

- Planes with zero depth

For it was these abstractions, and these alone, that made Mathematics possible, by restricting the whole exercise, with such transforming physical constraints: that they also made all subsequent relations in that discipline to become Forever Fixed in quality! Everything was made, by these changes, to conform to an essential

Principle of Plurality

- but though easy to validly insist upon, within the Realm of Pure Forms alone, it was wholly impossible to apply in Concrete Reality-as-is! So, when usefully applied to "such a Reality", that too, ALSO just had to be majorly-constrained to deliver only such necessarily-Fixed-Relations- achieved by forcibly-limiting the situation involved, into a rigidly-constrained Stability - indeed, into a guaranteed Pluralist Situation, to enable Mathematics to be effectively-used.

Therefore: Reality is NOT revealed by Mathematics!

Reality has to be made to conform to our abstractions.

However, such seemingly-unchanging Stabilities can occur naturally, and often do if only temporarily, AND, in addition, man-made Pluralist Stabilities were often fairly easy to both construct-and-maintain: the consequently extract Pluralist Laws, from both such contexts, were then further-assumed to be the Natural Truth, but usually often hidden under many overlying and masking extras. 

So, this major and false inversion, promoted Pluralist Laws as the "Actual Truths of Reality", and material Reality-as-is was demoted into becoming "a misleading fiction"! And, consequently, all arranged-for situations in Production, which obeyed those Pluralist Laws, were wrongly seen as exposing the "Real Underlying Reality" of the natural world.

But that isn't True!

Also, all insertions algebraically, from one Pluralist Law into another different one, are totally illegitimate! The whole universally-established Method of Mathematical Rationality as a means-of-extending these discoveries into a comprehensive valid discipline, are also totally mistaken when dealing with Reality-as-is.

But, Mathematical Plurality was universally employed because it validly enabled a whole and successful means of implementing a totally reliable Method of achieving Successful Consequential Productions, merely by breaking the Production Process down into a series of separate individual stages, each with its own physical restrictions and consequent Pluralist Laws!

And paired with the longtime-prior, pragmatist legitimiser of "If it works, it is right!" the New Approach vastly-enlarged what could possibly be done: for the new system was a truly major advance over what it replaced! And, it even encouraged the beginnings of a possible alternative and Causal Approach, with added-in possible notions of exactly why things behaved as they did.

Though the two sets of ideas did not mesh at all well, and Causal Explanations were never an integrated part of the Main System! Explanations provided merely a helpful accompanying narrative. And, any really-attempted causal explanations were restricted only to limited areas of study, which were naturally much closer to Pluralist situations, always due to these sustained periods of "Stability" (which could last millions of years, admittedly) as were evident in the Night Sky of the Heavens!




So, it is not surprising that such an evident conducive Tail would wag the confusing real Dog, and put the usually defeating nature of most of Reality as being due entirely to the large number of different active contributions overlying the hidden significant determinators! So, one way of "revealing" the "main determinator" in a not-too-complex system, would be to purposely-suppress all the "inessentials", and so completely reveal the underlying "main cause".

Science was deliberately converted into a wholly Pluralist Discipline, via Mathematics and pragmatism, because in such arranged-for situations, wholly successful productions were always possible, proving the value of the approach: though, of course, it could not lead to a successful integrated Theoretical System on the natural world - indeed a real Science- but only Technologies, involving many separate, achievable Contributing Productions, but NO integrated-and-cerebly-developable Theory.

Indeed, it is correct to insist that, at best, Mathematics can only deliver a partial Reflection of the Reality it seems to deliver, but simultaneously it can, in addition, deliver a whole collection of related features, BUT ONLY from elsewhere in the involved realm, where Mathematics legitimately reigns- that is within Ideality!

Indeed, Ideality, being only a Conceptual World of Pure Forms alone, enables Mathematics, but NOT Reality, to be infinitely extended! Many of the extensions to Mathematics, brought in to "explain" features of Reality that Plurality fails to deal with, are also totally illegitimate in Reality-as-is, so can tell us Absolutely Nothing: they seem not to exist anywhere in concrete Reality.

Maybe I should mention a few of these, in case you are in doubt!

How about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Quantum Entanglement, Multiple Universes, The Uncertainty Principle, The Heat Death of the Universe, The Big Bang, Initial Inflation, Infinite Expansion, Normalisation, and many, many more!






But many of the real problems caused by the Illusions of Plurality, can be compounded in various different ways: and perhaps the most important ones are those caused by the mistakes of Plurality, but complicated by the formulaic simplifications caused by substitutions from one pluralist equation into another, because, once two, or more equations have been merged in this way, the result will certainly NOT be delivered by using that combined Form, as the concrete result is never a single process, but still a simultaneous set of mutually effecting processes.

For though we have made a combined single Formula, in Reality such will still be individual processes competing for resources and producing outputs into a general pool of consequent resources, once again to be competed for. Yet, the original amounts of the various components now being lost in the new and different pool!

And the algebraically arrived-at formula cannot in any way mirror what is holistically going on in material Reality. 

And, to complicate things even further, apart from being essential resources, when each process proceeds separately, many secondary products from one process can and will affect another when all happening together: and these will be totally unknown from the wholly separate cases that delivered the supposedly contributing processes... 

17 February, 2021

The Rape of Yemen


 
Having presented the main Resolution on Yemen, many tears ago at a Young Socialists Annual Conference, I have always searched for a real Socialist account of what has been happening in that part of the World, usually without any real success!


But, the recent virtual video conference compiled by The Workers Party of Britain, is by far and away the best I have seen, and I have therefore suggested that SHAPE present the video in full. For though extensive, that kind of treatment has been exactly what has been essential for some time.

While SHAPE Journal & this blog usually concentrate upon new developments in Marxist Theory, most particularly within Philosophy and Science, as the primary area of study, SHAPE also represents an Internationalist Socialist Political line too - so, we reproduce this important piece here with the greatest enthusiasm!




24 January, 2021

Special Issue 71: Enter the Microverse!

 

Enter the Microverse by Jim Schofield

Special Issue 71 of SHAPE Journal


This edition looks at our latest Physics research and continues this publication’s ongoing critique of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory - and the general consensus within this Science, that the dynamic physical Universe we inhabit can be reduced to Mathematics for study. This issue argues for a re-examination of the materialist Microverse, rather than the idealist Multiverse. Philosopher Jim Schofield argues for the use of Analogistic Models, rather than Mathematical Abstractions, in a new Holistic Physics, influenced by the research of Yves Couder, Eric Lerner and Karl Marx - to stop stabilising reality in order to study its forms. Instability is the real key to understanding...



The Pluralist Limitations


in Modern Sub Atomic Physics



Though the limitations imposed by the Pluralist Stance is a reucrring feature of my criticisms of Current Science, it isn't always realised just how profoundly damaging it is.

And the main reason is, that there is so much of a many-layered superstructure overlying and effectively hiding these mistakes, that they are easily omitted from the general foundations upon which discussions are based.

By far the most insulating of these is the undoubted power of the "enriching" role of Mathematics, upon the Reality it is assumed to accurately represent, which is significantly mistaken, not primarily because it is LESS than true Reality, but because initially, at least, it appears to contain vastly MORE - and of a coherent, consistent, and frequently very beautiful nature within what we term Ideality - and particularly those aspects of the World which conform only to forever Fixed Laws.

And, what underpins that mistake, is the fact that within always-temporary interludes within Reality (both temporally and spatially) those relations DO indeed fit the actual circumstances perfectly - but ONLY while the necessary fixing conditions are maintained.

It certainly didn't help that Mankind soon learned to artificially achieve-and-maintain such stabilities for himself, both in investigative experiments, and also-and-necessarily in directed Productions - FOR Mankind wrongly assumed that they were revealing the actual underlying relations, hidden beneath a collection of other simultaneous and non-mutually-interfering relations.

But in doing so we also assumed the total independence of all those relations - NOT affecting one another, but merely summing somehow, and thereby hiding the assumed pristine fixed relations underneath.

Unfortunately for Physics, this is certainly NOT the case!

It would be so, if-and-only-if, Reality were Pluralist in nature, but it isn't: it is Holist.

And the proof of this is that "all development" can be shown to happen via holistic inter-relations, and NEVER due to mere collections of Fixed Laws.

But, what is it that Ideality has to offer that can't be derived from holistic Reality? It is true, for everything which involves Pure Forms, and the complexities possible thereby - and that "richness" again intervenes, because though certain complexities are Real and due to holistic interactions, they can also be occasionally approximally-approached by wholly pluralist complexities - BUT never causally and interpretably, as is possible only in Reality.

Now, this distortion of the Sciences, and ever more generally applied to Logic, it is still universally dealt-with, based upon the assumption of Plurality throughout: so there is absolutely NO general realisation of the unavoidable distortions so unavoidably produced. And, the misconceptions are merely guaranteed, as being what is attempted to be understood, and so gets further and further away from everyday Reasoning. And consequently seen as the norm in such a specialist area as Sub Atomic Theory, so cannot but be also dominated by the Plurality, always employed throughout that specialist area. And, of course, being distantly separated from everyday Common Sense Logic, it cannot but be thought about in terms of Mathematical (pluralist) Equations, so that further investigations will ONLY be via mathematical means, and hence well hidden behind Equations and the usually allowable Pluralist Manipulations, as the easiest and reliable means of delving any deeper into that invisible World.

But, of course, it can only be carried-out pluralistically, using only easy to achieve manipulations of their Algebraic Forms, and consequently assuming that what comes out of such manipulations readily reflects Reality-as-is - when that is NOT the case at all!

If the totally dominating developments are exclusively Pluralist and Mathematical, they will NOT be the correct Physical Truth involved, but a purely rationally formalist development of those incorrectly attached Forms: and by the addition of more of the same kind of assumptions, will inevitably lead the search, ever further away from Reality-as-is - though occasionally, and always for the wrong reasons, arriving in a place where we can convince ourselves that it is an exist-able situation in the Real World, when that isn't the case at all.

So, let us begin to demolish Plurality from top to bottom!

First, as all pluralist relations are eternally Fixed Laws, they, at best, will be viable only within a Descrete artificially organised Range of Applicability. For outside of that Range, each will be totally wrong!

Neither could it self-transform into what describes the situation outside of that range: for its variables are only changeable quantitatively, and being beyond its existence limits, it will no longer exist within the Fixed Law. It may vanish altogether to be replaced by something else! For, even if it continues to exist within a New Relation, it will be differently related to wholly New other variables.

Indeed, pluralist-dedicated investigators, often use the passing of a Threshold Value to signal the demise of the relation, and the consequent dominance of another different, but as yet unknown one.

And, one such cannot transform itself into any following Forms: for they are eternal Forms only.

Indeed, though we associate them with situations and processes, they ONLY deliver the performance of, and relations between, fixed Forms, and absolutely nothing else.

Indeed, such a mathematical approach cannot be called "a Theory", because, though it directly relates variables in descrete interludes of purely quantitative changes, it says NOTHING about the crucial transitions of qualitative change involved.

Unless, you are an idealist and believe the numeric laws magically drive Reality, and merely knowing what will happen and when, is Understanding Reality! It isn't! 

You also have to know "Why?"

23 January, 2021

The Death of Mathematics




The Future of Science and Philosophy


Following the Demise of Mathematics

as

The Lingua Franca of Reality




I have been a Scientist and Philosopher for sixty years now - but I fell-out with my primary subjects and evident mathematical abilities when I was just 18 years old, in my very first term at University (studying for a degree in Modern Physics). And that was already the second profound setback in my, by then, very short life.

I had first, while still at School, settled upon Mathematics, as the key to Understanding the World, as I turned out to be a natural in seeing and using its Theorems and Proofs, and was always top of my A stream Classes in the Grammar School that I then attended, from my prior Elementary School. For I alone, had managed to pass my Scholarship to enable me to attend - which surprised everybody, both in my family of unskilled labourers, the teachers at my initial school, and even those I was taught by at the Grammar School. In spite of being top of my classes throughout my whole education there, and ultimately obtaining a record 7 "A" and "S" Level Passes by the age of 18. Indeed, the one constant comment upon every single one of my School Reports was "promising". And, having been pressed to take those 7 Sixth-Form courses and exams, my achieved marks were not what I would have achieved, if I had taken just 3, as did everyone else.

But though while still at school I was initially-at-least satisfied with Mathematics as a general Lingua Franca, it was very soon found wanting in my increasing commitment to Physics, because instead of merely formal relations to phenomena, Physics also delivered Explanations for them, too - it was possible to also understand Why things behaved as they did, and luckily all my Science teachers thought the same.

So, though I continued to excel in Mathematics, it was Physics that held the promise of a continuing expansion of my understanding of the world! So, I only applied to take a Physics degree at the Universities I applied to, in the late 1950s. 




Hence, I was devastated when in my very first term at University, literally no explanations were forthcoming whatsoever: the sole purpose of study was to arrive at a mathematical formula that fitted the acquired evidence.

And questions weren't allowed: it was assumed that if you asked for an explanation, you couldn't follow the Maths!

So, the only access to staff that was available, were the postgraduate demonstrators who helped with experiments, but they were the worst, and would get angry at my insistence upon explanations. They were all involved in the NEW Physics, a subject totally dominated by Mathematics - explanation was banned!

Clearly because of my abilities in Mathematics I could do what was increasingly demanded, just as my educators were less and less competent at the explanatory side! I who, contradictory to my tutors probably the best at handling their version of Mathematics, was also the most critical of the way they were doing it.

I had taken up Painting, when I was 16, so I joined the University Art Society, and by the end of the Academic year I was running it as its secretary. But I couldn't be satisfied with what I was doing in Physics at all, so, I spent a great deal of time in the magnificent Brotherton Library within Leeds University, seeking an alternative to what I was being given within my course. I found nothing at first, until I slightly widened my criteria, after which I found a book entitled Materialism and Empirio Criticism- which was a trenchant philosophical critique of Henri Poinaré and Ernst Mach - who originally developed the Positivist Empirio Criticism, which later became the Basis for Modern Physics!

The book answered their mistakes philosophically, but not physically, so I decided to trace his sources - the writer of the book was Vladimir Iliych Ulianov (more commonly known as Lenin - the Marxist who later was to lead the successful Russian Revolution in 1917). The philosophic stance involved followed Karl Marx's criticisms of Pluralist Philosophy within Social Phenomena (usually termed Marxism, but more properly termed Dialectical Materialism).

But neither Marx, nor anyone else, had ever applied the new philosophic stance comprehensively to The Sciences! I knew what had to be done: I had to undertake that task, but aged just 19, I simply did not even know how to start - so I joined the Communist Party and afterwards a series of other purportedly Marxist Parties, but I never found a single person who could help.




I turned to other things over the years, becoming first a Sculptor, and then a System Software Expert, and in that capacity finally returning to Higher Education, with a series of posts in three countries - but it was in my expertise in designing tailor-made Software Aids to High Level Researchers, followed by a final career as a Writer, that I finally knew sufficient to do the job myself!

It certainly wasn't straightforward, though, as a universally-subscribed-to major limitation upon all experimental investigations, permanently terminated the study of Reality-as-is, for, instead, the major distortion of only ever taking data from entirely artificially-produced Pluralist Contexts, and also, over two millennia, finding it imperative to have to implement diverse tricks and workarounds, to try and circumvent the unavoidable short-comings of maintaining such an entirely and mistaken and consequently strictly Pluralist approach, especially when it came to using the inevitably distorted Laws, in every single form of consequent Production.

For, in making successfull the pragmatic production of particular outcomes, meant that what had to be arranged-for, and carried through successfully, was NOT involving Reality-as-is, but instead entirely by achieving predictable outcomes within an artficially-constructed-and-maintained Pluralistic Context! While those arrangements did deliver what was required, it was absolutely always achieved entirely within separate unique, artificial situations, that were always different in each and every case.

And this made it impossible to get Generally True Laws, as each-  and every one only worked in its own tailor-made Pluralist situation.

Consequently, NO Everywhere-Applicable-Law was available: and, in addition, NO purely-manipulative-substitutions between different laws were possible! Indeed, the whole set of Formal manipulations - the mathematical transformations of supposedly Scientific Formulae were totally illegitimate, as being the case in Reality-as-is. Consequently, the whole usual systems were illegitimate, and all purely on-paper manipulations were simply wrong!

In actual Real World production, every Law was forced to have its own tailor-made artificial context (technology): and complex situations had to be transformed into a series of entirely separate experiments to even be able to achieve a required overall result. Hence, all cerebral investigations were impossible to he legitimately carried out, and Real Theory was impossible!

And, the reason, for all this, was the Pluralist Myth of Stability as the Natural State, which was always, in fact, an unnaturally-maintained "Stability"! For, in Holistic Reality-as-is, all stabilities are naturally-and temporarily-maintained, as "Balanced Stabilities". So, the Pluralist assumptions are never true and actual "Balanced Stabilities" turn out to be naturally-selected bundles, consisting of balanced-diametrically-opposite processes, so selected for as to be self-maintaining, by means of equal and opposite processes in the bundle, one of which, that with anotherhaving the same external initiator, will always counter the errant process. And then, to compound the overall Effect, the various bundles involved perform, in the same way, by their mixes of cancelling opposites.

As soon as the artificially Fixed World and the Fixed Laws of Plurality are replaced by a multiply-simultaneous factor Holist World, the evident Interludes of apparently stable natures of the natural stabilities of Plurality cease to exist, and Hierarchies of Systems and Subsystems governed by opposites come into the reckoning in far more complex ways. This is why a dialectical logic is needed rather than a formal one.

Now, in such a short paper as this, a comprehensive set of explanations is, of course, impossible! The very fact that it hasn't been attempted in two and a half millennia illustrates the difficulties involved. But this work  is now, finally, securely underway,  and will indeed result in an even larger Intellectual Revolution than did the Greek contribution in the 5th century BC. 

But if Mathematics can no longer be seen as the language of nature, how should we approach it going forward, and what will ultimately replace it as our primary means of understanding?











 

17 January, 2021

A New Kind of Science?



... 


A Critique of - and Alternative to - Stephen Wolfram's


 "New Kind of Science"


With his computer software products of the last 30 years - solely based upon Cellular Automata - Stephen Wolfram builds, by very simple rules, certain surprisingly complex patterns. He compares them with the Binary 1s and 0s in Computing Machine Code where they are used to emulate a whole range of complex systems, that he and the Computing community have developed to a remarkable degree. But here, involving only Black and White identical squares, which via the "Wolfram Language", he has suggested a further, "more basic-and-abstract" set of Software developments, which, he insists, transcend all the anomalies-and-contradictions of the two currently dominant theories in Physics, such as those delivered by both Relativity Theories on the one hand, and Quantum Theories, on the other.

For, he insists that the far-more-basic study of all the results involved in his new kind of simple abstracted elements, are very different from those currently subscribed-to in those "Fundamental Theories" mentioned above. And, to that same end, he has also produced a "Wolfram-based" piece of software, incorporating, in addition, an extensive Knowledge Base, and possible direct access to its solutions, when posed with obviously relevant questions typed into it.

BUT, (and this is most important) he nowhere in his "New Science" addresses any of the causes inherent in those usually Subscribed-to-Areas of Theory and Knowledge, which have always been wholly dependant, ever since the Greek Intellectual Revolution, absolutely solely upon the artificial Rationality of Mathematics.

This foundation was possible due to an invention I have dubbed Simplified Relational Abstractions.

These abstractions were very effective, and have been used ever since, but they are true only in the relationships between Fixed Pure Forms, that always exist only in Forever Fixed Relations to one another (Laws or Rules), and therefore could alone be used, via Theorems and their Proofs, using that unique Mathematical Rationality, which, in order to work at all, just had to conform exactly to The Principle of Plurality.

But Plurality was not, and never can be true, of literally all other Reasoning, which instead must conform to the Principle of Holism, in which all "Laws" or "Rules" eventually vary, and such qualitative changes have to be the sole-means of Rationality, used in tracing out the only possible qualitative changes. Purely quantitative changes can never deal with such areas, and they will definitely include both General Reasoning, and ALL of The Sciences too, for all natural reality evolves and changes over time unless we try and stop it doing so. 

Now, though Plurality can-and-will approximate to Reality within Effectively Stabilised Situations, they are never, as is usually assumed - The Natural Norm of Reality. They are instead actually only temporary, if occasionally very long-lasting interludes, which will always terminate as the nexus of mutually-supporting-factors, are ultimately always and naturally successfully challenged. All Real Qualitative Development simply MUST, and indeed WILL, only conform to Holism.

At the same time as the Ancient Greeks were settling upon Plurality as the means for studying reality, in India - majorly influenced by The Buddha - they were settling instead upon Holism, as the rational Basis of all Reasoning, AND crucially all Development too! But, of course, both of these conceptions were, at that time, inadequately defined, as Mankind was, in both cases, breaking wholly new ground, and as with all such "Incomplete Understanding", it will always turn out to be less-than-sufficient, to include all the relevant factors.




Indeed, a crucial tenet of Modern 21st Century Holism, stresses the unavoidable multifarious basis of all Reality-as-is, as being inevitably composed of many different-yet-simultaneous factors - all of which do NOT just SUM, but actually affect one-another continually and qualitatively.

So, Causality in Fixed-Law Plurality, and hence also in Wolfram's identically philosophically-based stance, all fixed Rules are either ON or OFF, and can only Quantitatively SUM, when acting simultaneously with other Pluralist Laws. 

However, in Holism which more accurately represents how physical reality behaves, a huge variety of interactions are possible - all of which can change-each-other in various ways. While overall - taking all of them together, actually produce a range of diverse, consequent Phases, depending upon the weights, but also crucially the kinds, of the influences involved. The crucial thing about Plurality, is that the Laws cannot change qualitatively, and, as such, remain fixed no matter what the containing circumstances are.

But, the same cases within Holism, because of their mutually modifying effects, infer an almost continuous variation in how they all act: including, once changed, how they then react-back-upon what changed them, and, indeed, change that too, in consequence! You are bound, therefore, to get both Recursion, and even the ultimate appearance of the Wholly New: where it WILL, in such circumstances, also be the Emergence of total Novelty - real Qualitative Development is therefore not only possible, but inevitable - and this is reflected in the dynamic reality we observe.

Now, additionally, there will also be actual contention- indeed sometimes all the way to processes producing the Direct Opposites of other processes. And the amount of such opposition, will vary in various ways from effectively Ignorable in one direction, all the way to Total Cancellation, with neither process NOT having any effect, on to the Total Dominance of one over the other (and all states in between these distinctive Phases). And Recursion will also guarantee that the many modifying Effects will "in sum" create constant variations in literally everything, though itself will be adjusted by the sizes of the differently-acting Opposites.

Now, in such a melée, it seems inevitable that very long-lasting Stabilities could, and occasionally would, be totally impossible, but that turns out to be incorrect! Indeed, when the above relations, all acting together, work themselves out, a kind of Balanced Stability is achieved, with the diametrically opposite processes controlling groups of situations into constantly varying, yet effectively "constant" results by a built-in entire controlling into a "Negating Balance of Opposites", which whenever an unbalancing commences, quite mechanistically also varies what will change it back in the opposite direction: though all such operations occur over very short time-spans.

Interestingly, these "Balanced Stabilities" are NEVER permanent, and in rare Crisis Situations, can and indeed do, carry on into overall avalanches of collapses of all the Balanced Stabilities into a total Dissolution of the overall System of them, into what appears to be Total Chaos! The name usually applied to these situations when we observe them in society, is a Revolution, but similar patterns are observable in natural development too - and its following resolution into a New System of balanced stabilities, if such occurs, is termed philosophically, an Emergence.



Stephen Wolfram


Now, all of these criticisms of Plurality, also apply equally well to Wolfram's new alternative Science: so it is certainly no solution to the myriad problems associated with the Pluralist Stance - the well-beloved mathematical view - and the crisis it has precipitated in Physics.

So, now, we must begin to adequately equip a genuinely New Kind of Science - based resolutely in a New Holism - as the old historical version of holistic thinking is, as yet, ill-equipped for the necessary task of solving Science's philosophical inadequacies. 

We dealt with some possible new Holistic approaches in the last issue of SHAPE Journal - Circles, Spirals and Helices

Now, both the problems, and the virtues, of the Holist Stance arise from its maximal variability! For, without any Stable Waystations being available within its Reasoning, all Explanations get turned into different seemingly Infinite Regressions. So, there have to be both Processes and consequent achieveable Waystation States, wherein reasonably "long-lasting Interludes of Relative Stability are achievable, where in, in some cases at least, the old pluralist methods could still be used within the achieved Temporary Stabilities. BUT, it could never extend to predicting those States' guaranteed terminations, and, crucially, what they would then be replaced by. Indeed, ALL Qualitatuive Changes are totally beyond Plurality!

So, even in the best of circumstances, the actual trajectory of all Development is always unavoidably due to a kind of ever-present Blind Holism - it can never describe exactly what you will get in such Holistic Changes! But, Reality is never in a single Universe-wide State. It is inevitably structured as a Hierarchy of Levels, and within those Levels of Further separate Localities - all ruled by Holism, but everywhere attaining temporary interludes of Stability - both achieved, maintained and ultimately terminated along with its temporarily "stable states".

Let us begin to investigate just how these are achieved!

Here again we must approach "Circles, Spirals and Helices", because it is never in single instances that qualitatively changed Compositions, and, therefore caused flips to alternate States, are thereby achieved: it can only happen in constantly repeated Cycles of Processes, which, alone, can over-time dramatically change compositions, and hence ultimately precipitate Wholly New Outcomes. Indeed, such changes, initially, have negligible effects: but, nevertheless, they will be affecting many different simultaneous processes - to different extents - until the whole system flips-over into a series of different modes, each of which, either settle into a self-adjusted relatively stable state, or precipitate an overall collapse into a major Qualitative Change!

The Cyclic Nature of the System, both "steadies the boat", in one sense, by briefly returning to previous conditions, but also ensures Cumulative Build-Ups, that take the System to Wholly New Circumstances. The multi-factor nature of these Cyclic Systems is governed by the multiple simultaneous interactions, which can both steady things, or alternatively build-up to destructive proportions.

It is the former of these two alternatives that usually dominates, and ensures that the situation remains stable most of the time - look at the cyclical stabilities of atoms, metabolic pathways, ecosystems, orbits in planetary systems and the fusion reactions in stars. These recurrent stabilities throughout nature allow us to use Plurality and Mathematics to understand their forms, but we understand nothing about their underlying dynamics, lifespans or origins. 






These cyclical stabilities boil down to the unavoidable Causal Dominance of Diametrical Opposites: for ONLY these can oppose their opposites, entirely cancel their effects, and maybe even precipitate their individual domination or even demise!

Now, these latter paragraphs reflect the very different Nature of Holistic interactions. They not only differ from the usual Pluralistic Causality, but can actually take different consequent and even diametrically opposite paths. So, there is a great deal more to it, than I have inferred here.

Holistic Rationality is still in its infancy, and that also means that Holistic Science (especially in subjects like Physics), is practically non-existent! We see its origins in the Dialectical Materialism of Karl Marx, both in History and in Capitalist Economics, but even that took Marx the rest of his life to just begin the process, AND even in those areas it has to be constantly updated with new study, for nothing we discover is fixed like in Mathematics, everything constantly evolves!


ASIDE:

I cannot let this important passage pass, without describing its relationship to "Balanced Stabilities". For these are the Holistic Equivalents of all the Supposedly Basic, and potentially-permanent Stabilities in Plurality.

But, of course, they are in fact the very Opposite of Basic, and are, somehow, actively-maintained as Stable (presumably via the cumulative effects of processes in Repeating Cycles), which usually effectively eliminate all destructive contributions by the ever increasing successes of Pairs of Diametrical Opposites, not only selectively eliminating all others, but also, settling into whole sets of Balanced Pairs of opposites, acting as self-adjusting maintainers of the achieved Overall Stability.

Now, the switches, from absolutely NO causally-explained Qualitative changes, as in all Pluralist Science, is still not universally accepted, as most scientists actually recognise such changes, but either totally fail to explain what causes them, and/or just signal-and-describe, rather than explain, the occurrence of such changes, by merely noting-when the exceeding of a previously observed and thereafter known threshold occurs, and the consequent switching to a different behaviour then happens, without any explanation for that change in the Science.

Clearly, this tells us nothing: but such was the established norm, with the various behaviours considered to be adequately described by mathematical equations - that have been fitted-up to measured values from experiments, and both dominated by, and sufficient for, Effective Pragmatic Use (or Technology) only, but often with little or no explanation of Reality (or Science).

The "use-tail" therefore always wagged the "explanatory dog"!

And with the dexterity of Human Hands, tool-making and the development of our intelligence, even that had been sufficient to transform their World and Lives truly significantly! With the gains of the Greek Intellectual Revolution, Humanity would continue to do so for still more millennia.

But a New Approach (as yet undefined) was even then, clamouring-at-the-Door! It was the need for a deeper Understanding of our world, and therefore Real Explanation of its mysterious and dynamic nature. Now there had been many failed attempts to do this in human history, via Magic, Chance, Religion or even the Plans of Great or Wise Leaders, but what was already becoming possible were the emerging means of investigating aspects of Reality - in order to really Understand them - not the Technology which took over, but Science itself!

But the steadfast commitment to Plurality was already deflecting attention, even then, into only Fixed Laws limited to constrained contexts: and the vast majority of Causal Systems were not Pluralistic at all! So what began to be discovered were individual Laws, within rigidly-maintained circumstances, but never how those limitations and their necessarily Fixed Laws could be transcended, which was still causally unknown!

Two millennia ago, The Buddha was already developing an alternative approach, which later became known as Holism: and slowly the dynamics of Natural Qualitative Change began to be attempted to be addressed by human beings - but still not yet via a developed System of proven ideas, though, initially, at least, by continuing re-assessments and occasional profound Thought - and always available for improvement.




https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2017/06/oh-my-gosh-its-covered-in-rule-30s/


But, in Science, that approach was minimally developed because of the Pluralist Myth that absolutely everything can be adequately addressed by Fixed Laws alone. They most certainly cant!And, what is almost entirely undeveloped in Physics, for example, are the Dynamical Emergences of Qualitative Changes, as causally explained phenomena.

Yet that is absolutely imperative, if Science is to form a basis for most Reliable Understanding: and we must start with how they work within recurring processes as in Cycles, as in Orbits and in Spins.

With the one-off occurrence of an effect, qualitative changes are likely to be small and soon swamped by a cascade of other very different ones. But, in constantly repeated, seemingly-identical cycles, such changes can, and indeed often do, accumulate into an ever growing Effect, which can ultimately become dominant, and flip the whole situation into a different mode! Now, such things can literally never happen with Fixed Pluralist Singly-happening Laws: but, with collections of multiple, different and simultaneous Holistic sets of Laws, particularly in repeated Cycles, they could be very likely indeed.

But, such changes within an Holistic set of laws can do several very different things! They can establish temporary Stabilities for long periods. Aberrations can cause the total collapse of such a Stability. Cycles can selectively eliminate aberrations in Systems. They can allow Qualitative Changes in Real Development. 

And, as the common form of "Stability" in a Holistic World, it is only ever temporarily delivered within a Balanced Stability of many laws - linked Laws primarily in Balanced Pairs of Diametrical Opposites, such aberrations though similarly ineffectual singly, are on the contrary, within constantly repeated Cycles, highly likely to grow, for though normally singly eliminated by the self-adusting Pairs, which can usually overcome a single aberration, they will, on the contrary, be highly susceptible within constantly repeated identical Cycles, so such aberrations can then accumulate over many repeats, which can in some circumstances even precipitate a complete dissolution of the system - not only of single Balanced Pairs, but could, along with others, dissociate an entire Balanced Stability.

In an Holistic situation Formal Logic doesn't hold! 

But it is still Causal!

Many simultaneous causes contend!

You have to reveal The Whole Mix!

But, notice that, because any diametrical opposites will mutually-cancel, they will not be easily eliminated: on the other hand, less related and thereby balanced-and-maintained components, will instead be selectively-eliminated over the constant, successive repeats of the ongoing Cycles - to leave only the more retainable content over time!


ASIDE:

The Nature of Modern Holism, not appreciated until very recently, now involves very different dynamic scenarios to those of the usual Pluralist Stance, because the simultaneous interactions of multiple contending and modifying factors, are now seen to involve a whole range of different outcomes, that were wholly inconceivable previously in Plurality.

Indeed, even The Tetralemma, as mentioned in the writings of many Buddhist Philosophers, that listed the 4 conceivable judgements, that cover all the possible applicabilities of such ideas - indeed that they can be

True

or Untrue,

both True & Untrue,

or neither True or Untrue

- instead of being only absolutely unexplained Descriptions, are now each capable of being covered by a series of rational explanations for the first time.

And the initial places these began to become possible were in changing contents and ultimately outcomes of constantly repeated Cycles!

Now, this development has already precipitated an alternative to the usual Pluralist Theories dominating current Cosmology: as they have led to a rejection of the usual Theories particularly concerned with the Origin and Subsequent Development of the Whole Universe. Indeed, all sorts of extensions to Reality are referred-to, in compiling current explanations in this significant area of ideas, actually taking most of them well beyond Reality and Deep into the heart of Ideality!

Yet, the sort of possibilities now being revealed concerning Natural Electricity and Magnetism, are not only providing a fully-explicable "Non-Big-Bang" beginning to Everything, and thereby not only providing an alternative initial primarily Electromagnetic Origin, but also delivering the best chance, today for a Nuclear Fusion means of providing Electricity in the near Future, with the efforts of Eric Lerner and his Fusion Focus team in New Jersey, USA!




So, a major New Intellectual Revolution is at least nigh, if not already underway, which will change literally every aspect of our Philosophy and Culture, if carried-through to completion, or their ultimate demise if not.

Now this paper commenced with the proposed alternative deep mathematical abstractions of Stephen Wolfram, but in taking this new Holistic Route to Understanding has expounded the real way forwards, while also demonstrating the truly vast, indeed Infinite extent of Ideality, that seduces with its detail, but nevertheless leads Mankind only into the Swamps of Myth!

There is a New Kind of Science on the way, but it isn't Wolfram's.

Science must break free of Mathematics and Pluralist thinking to deal head-on with the dynamic, evolving, material and Holist Universe we actually inhabit, for the first time.