An Objective Worldview?

Marxist Philosophical Practice: A Matter of Approach (PART 1)

Here are a couple crucial questions:

“Is there a primary discipline, which underlies all the other serious study areas of Mankind, and which is, therefore, an absolute prerequisite for them all?”

And second, “What allows human beings to penetrate Reality deeper than any other approach?”

The answer to the first question is, “Yes!”, and that to the second is “It is Philosophy – the uniquely Human View of Reality!”

Let us attempt to establish these conclusions by considering three key disciplines that I have been involved with all my adult life. The first was Mathematics, the second Physics, and the third Marxism.

In each discipline, there is a body of prior work, representing the gains of that area of study, but, at every moment in time, it will always be partial, and even contradictory, and hence will have its limits – situations which bring a line of reasoning in that discipline to a shuddering halt – seemingly incapable of, thereafter, being taken any further!

And, indeed, only one discipline, if you can call it such, enables such impasses to be transcended. It is the discipline that relates Mankind and Reality – Philosophy.

Yet, not all ideas which claim to be Philosophy are such. Most supposedly philosophic stances have the very same limitations as all other intellectual disciplines, but, nevertheless, because of its remit of both Mankind and Reality, only Philosophy, because of its recursive self addressing stance, has any real chance of dealing with the problems involved in the attempt to understand Reality by Mankind, in a remarkable recursivity of Thinking!

Other claimants to the title appear objective by basing everything upon Matter and Energy - Physics, or upon Absolute Pure Form - Mathematics, but those are the illusions that actually scupper their claims.

Now, historically, it might seem that Philosophy has the biggest handicap of all, as it regularly slips into Solipsism, with the Mind being taken as the basis, but the other contenders don’t even admit that it can only be human minds that can attempt the task. At least Philosophy is self-conscious enough to know its limitations, whereas the others claim an un-established objectivity.

Only Philosophy itself can attempt to address “Thinking about Thought”, as did the brilliant German philosopher GWF Hegel, and arrive at a true conception of the effective conceivability of Reality by Man.

But, in addition, and crucially, Hegel also discovered the means of revealing its regularly occurring limitations, and even the means of transcending them.

I think you must agree, only Philosophy goes beyond the individual restricted areas of study, to address them all – via their common factor – The Thinking of Man!

It becomes increasingly clear, when the various disciplines are criticised by the true meta-discipline of Philosophy, that Mankind has no direct access to so-called Absolute Truth, so that in order to get any sort of handle upon Reality, Man has no option but to both simplify and idealise what is seen, to have any chance of revealing even partial truths (or Objective Content as they are usually termed).

And, also it is clearly critical that the various assumptions, that are also and unavoidably made, will always be inadequate, and will, in time, inevitably result in guaranteed impasses, as always indicated by the emergence of what Hegel called Dichotomous Pairs of totally contradictory concepts, which, though, surprisingly, arising from identical premises, nevertheless, delivered totally contradictory outcomes – indeed opposite results that could not possibly both be true!

Indeed, these impasses have been occurring many, many times in Mankind’s history, and are usually not transcended.

In fact, both arms of the dichotomy they represent are KEPT, and USED – by switching between them in attempts to find what will work in a given context. This trick is the essence of the indeed useful intellectual backstop – encapsulated in “If it works, it is right!” – in other words Pragmatism!

Rene Magritte

And, such is not only the defeatist cornerstone of current Postmodernism, but crucially and revealingly that of the current consensus stance in Physics – The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory.

Now, after millions of such pragmatic compromises, Human Understanding is finally in something of a mess! It is, at best, a vast patchwork of “small working areas” glued together by a set of pragmatic myths. It isn’t useless, of course, but, with so many pragmatic solutions, it gets ever harder to integrate into a coherent and consistent whole. And hence, makes the development of an all- embracing means of understanding it all, ever more unlikely!

Indeed, impasse after impasse were never transcended, and instead became the impassable boundaries of new “specialisms”, sub disciplines or even full-blown disciplines, in themselves.

Hence Human Understanding, in spite of a preponderance of evidence, lost its initial seemingly integrated comprehensibility, and the various “disciplines” proliferated at an ever more alarming rate.

Yet, even more damaging than this ready resort to Pragmatism, were absolutely crucial mistakes in basic premises, which became so universally subscribed-to, that the users became almost completely unaware of them.

One crucial split took place some 2,500 years ago in Greece and India, where the lauded Ancient Greeks (ignoring Zeno’s revealing Paradoxes) plumped for the Principle of Plurality (as a powerful simplifying tenet), while at about the same time, in India, the spiritual leader, The Buddha, chose the very opposite Principle of Holism, as his primary tenet. 

Some idea of the real nature of Dichotomous Pairs, is evident in the contradictory use of BOTH of these opposing stances, in what later became Science.

For, in attempts at explaining things, Holism turned out to be essential as it alone took all factors as significant simultaneously.

Yet, in concise and useable description, it was about various quantities, and Plurality was used instead, and worked very well in appropriately “farmed” and maintained contexts.

But, even such a contradictory union was not a full description of the mix of stances employed, for, STILL, the unifying Principle was always the oldest of all – that of Pragmatism – “If it works, it is right!”

Clearly, even in Science, the supposed pinnacle of a rational study of Reality, a great deal would have to be done to open up a real possibility of a comprehensive, consistent and coherent “Understanding”.

My “initial solution”, as both a qualified mathematician and physicist, was driven by my subscription to the philosophies of Hegel and Marx, yet I found NO similar purpose among my political colleagues. So, in spite of my intended task, little was achieved until I became an inter-discipline specialist contributor, using my abilities in writing complex computer programs, to assist colleagues in many different disciplines.

I soon came across particular “truths”, not considered in other disciplines, and, perhaps surprisingly, found Key philosophical ideas when working with a world-class Dance Teacher and Choreographer in designing and delivering Multimedia Aids for use in the teaching of Dance Performance and Choreography.

The understanding in most of these was very different from my Economics-based Marxist stance in politics.

And, I was forced to go all the way back to Hegel’s discoveries and methods to review my own rather limited and as yet un-criticised premises.

Though I didn’t immediately realise why, I was having to solve problems in a discipline that I knew little or nothing about very quickly indeed! In fact, our very first production won a British Interactive Video Award, beating many so-called experts, with greatly more resources and better facilities.

On reflection, I realised that I had finally understood what Hegel and Marx were doing as philosophers, which could be applied in something as surprising as Dance Education, by the very best practitioners.

The usual rational ascent to ever more “explanation”, was never adequate when a Dichotomous Pair of contradictory concepts arose, as with Zeno in his Paradoxes concerning Movement, and they also emerged 2,500 years later in the teaching of Dance via recorded footage of exemplar performances.

No matter what manipulations were tried, such a pair of contradictory concepts both seemed applicable yet contradictory, and pragmatic switching was the order of the day among most practitioners. The usual impasses were dealt with in the old pragmatist way, but were useless in solving concrete problems in delivering what was required due to adequate Access and Control of the relevant recorded footage.

But, Hegel’s method of seeking out Dichotomous Pairs and then severely questioning the common premises that had led to both arms of the dichotomy, proved entirely appropriate in this area too! For example, Digital footage was excellent for accurately locating positions the various parts of a dancer at a certain moment, yet absolutely useless for also delivering the dynamic trajectory of the movements involved. While Analogue Video was immaculate at delivering real movement, but rubbish at giving accurate positions. After an extended period of research we found solutions to the problems using BOTH means, recorded simultaneously, and using accurate positional data from the digital footage, to produce animated overlays synchronised to the Analogue footage. The results were brilliant!

The now-termed Marxist methods of identifying an impasse via Dichotomous Pairs, and then transcending it by a major revision of premises, will always allow progress. These methods still lead the World over 25 years after they were devised!

But, it will not be by access to Absolute Truth. For, such is impossible for Mankind to achieve. Instead, Mankind must, step-by-step, impasse-by- impasse, move beyond the limitations of prior premises. And, it cannot be but a truly infinite task, for several important reasons.

First, Evolution in producing human beings via Natural Selection could not endow them, with all that was necessary to alight directly upon Absolute Truth! It doesn’t work towards such targets, but allows the most fit, in survival terms, to increase at the expense of those not so well endowed in those areas.

So, Man could not find himself appropriately equipped to naturally see what is involved in the general development of Reality. The determinators delivering human beings are much more prosaic.

So, instead Man has had to “pull himself up by his own boot-laces” to only forever approach, but never arrive at, Absolute Truth - which cannot but be wholly infinite, as it is always changing, so it is never a stationary target. 

El Lissitsky

Second, in making significant gains in this task, Man is also actually changing Reality himself, because he is “of Reality” – he is changing the very thing he seeks to understand. 

Third, independently of Man, Reality is evolving anyway, it isn’t a static System.

Hence, conceptions of homing in upon a static Reality are a myth! The strategy must be to ride the wave of change increasingly well, though always falling into the water with every seemingly successful surfing attempt.

Issue 44 now available

This paper is the first in a series of articles to be published here weekly, on the theme of Marxist Philosophical Practice. This work isn’t about Capitalism or Socialism, and certainly says nothing about Economics. This is about Marxism as a philosophical approach, applicable to any field of study, any aspect of reality. The series takes four very different issues in Philosophy and investigates them via this Marxist stance, which is termed Dialectical Materialism.

These papers are also collected as a new issue of the Shape Journal (44) available here

The Paths to Truth

Perhaps surprisingly, I see important resonances between the best scientists and the best fictional writers. I am sure that the reason is because there is no direct path to Absolute Truth in Humanity’s abilities and techniques. Whether you are a committed scientist or a dedicated writer, you have to find meaningful indirect routes, carrying sufficient Objective Content to deliver a measure of progress. But, of themselves, and in any particular production, these turn out to be never wholly sufficient.

Of course, I am not talking about all scientists, or all writers. I mean the very best in both these fields, who manage to reveal something of the Truth in their work.

This aspect wont be immediately evident, when considering the work of the majority of scientists, nor in that of most writers. For, the overwhelming majority of scientists are really technologists, and are primarily intent upon finding exploitable discoveries, while most writers readily admit to being entertaining story tellers. I am talking, in both areas, of those who earnestly tackle the question “Why?”.

For, believe it or not, such an imperative is not common to either most scientists or most writers: where a version of answering “How?” is considered sufficient. But, when you come across the very best writers, you are immediately aware that important things are being addressed, and you come away from reading their work with a definitely deeper understanding of important questions.

And, it is likewise, with the work of the best scientists (though I must emphasize that I do not include the “equation manipulators”, who currently dominate Sub Atomic Physics in this definition). I mean those who glimpse possible significant meanings, and are motivated to address why their studied areas are as they are.

We must realise that such people, in both areas, do not comfortably fit into the general social status quo! And, they are frequently given a hard time by those who feel threatened by their work. For, such purposely questioning work cannot but come up against the many things in their world, which hold it back, and keep it safe for those who currently hold sway.

For example, the writer of this piece is a scientist, and throughout his career he has been forced to take two unavoidable and directly contrasting roles in the opinions of his superiors. At first, he would invariably be the “blue-eyed boy”, for his abilities were soon evident, and he was seen as an asset to his superiors, and his place of work. But, such an interlude would never last! For, these entrepreneurs could not count upon his subservience to their requirements. He evidently had imperatives of his own to pursue. So, the alternative phase would always be that of the “enemy of the people”(see Ibsen’s famous play), in which he was seen as a thorn in the side of his superiors (and sometimes even his colleagues). The work being achieved was still of the same quality, but it no longer fitted in with the ambitions of his superiors.

The only way he was able to continue to make progress was by using his achievements to get a new job in another institution. It wasn’t that easy, for competition would always be with known locals, but in the end he usually made a good move, and the “blue-eyed boy”/”enemy of the people” oscillation would begin again. The policy adopted did in fact work, and he ended up as a professor in London University.

But, such a tumultuous journey was never plain sailing!

He, only rarely, found colleagues who had a similar approach, though when he did, he would remain (without promotion) at that particular post for a long time. In his most fruitful post, he stayed for ten years, and completed work, which finally allowed him to move into Higher Education.

The general state of his scientific colleagues in literally all of his posts was determined by the social imperatives of those in charge, so most employees subordinated themselves to that in order to slowly ascend the promotional ladder.

Now, though I am now a writer myself, I am not a creator of novels, and it is the best in that field, with which I feel the strongest resonances. But, they couldn’t be more different to the usual scientist. Whereas, the latter seek equations and useable discoveries, the writers never deal in anything similar, for it is invariably the qualities, both good and bad, of living that they pursue and reveal.

The Origins and Development of the Solar System

If there was a substrate...

On watching a Horizon programme on BBC 2 recently (03/03/15), the imponderables about this “assumed-to-be-solved” area of Cosmology were increased considerably.

Instead of a “nice” Newton’s Laws explanation of the system (well within our observational range, and even with some voyages of discovery), that presumably commenced with a Cosmic Cloud of a range of particles produced by a preceding Supernova. Nevertheless, various problems seemed to be as yet unsolved literally everywhere.

Indeed, the pluralist stance, which assumes absolutely everything can be explained by an increasingly complex mix of fixed Natural Laws, has been under threat for centuries, and never seems to ever deliver the fruits of an assumed Reductionism, as it is supposed to do, but instead we are to take it on trust that such will be delivered, somehow “in the future”. But, the sort of things revealed in this programme, and from a stance situated at the very heart of the established scientific approach, should, therefore, have been fairly straightforward, but was clearly nothing of the kind.

Though the programme writers and makers didn’t highlight it at all, the resounding question had to be about that pluralist stance. And, it was incapable of delivering answers in the very area, in which Newton and his colleagues originally established the initial bases of Science, as we now know it, then it would be absolutely nowhere, when it came to considering the multiple Levels of Reality above this basic case – Life and Consciousness are way beyond such a stance.

So, if by some chance, you are not a pluralist – indeed, the very opposite – namely a holist, then you would not be surprised by these difficulties. You may not be able to explain an alternative Origin and Development, but you would know that such is definitely required.

Before we go any further, let us just make these alternative positions a little clearer.

The pluralist conception puts eternal Natural Laws as the active, producing factors, initially organising the Cosmic Cloud into an inevitable system.

But, of course, such a stance is idealism – for where do such laws come from? These Laws in their universally accepted way of encapsulating them – as formal Equations, cannot possibly be the primary sources of any process of development: they can only be the results of the interactions of physical entities with certain properties.

How can Laws possibly be primary?

Also as the organisation of the original pieces that went to make up ever bigger aggregates, and relations between them, the laws not only then came into existence, but would most surely change as things developed?

So this is the alternative holist position¬

Now, a basic scenario has been devised (by such holists) for such developments – knitted together from a study of many diverse developments occurring at many different Levels of Reality. And these ideas, paradoxically, occurred very late in Mankind’s own development, and came, originally, out of serious studies entitled “Thinking about Thought” by its initiator Frederick Hegel around 200 years ago, and thereafter by a study of the significant changes in History, first by Michelet and then by Marx.

And, what came out of those investigations was a trajectory, which seemed to be universal in all developments of every possible kind.

Perhaps surprisingly, this was never a matter of incessant, incremental changes – ultimately adding up to new forms, but, on the contrary, the seemingly strongly enforced maintenance of current forms over long periods of a seemingly permanent Stability, in which the overall structure did not change significantly. Yet these long and dominating periods were, nevertheless, interleaved with short interludes of major qualitative changes termed Revolutions, and then when considered in all possible contexts, as Emergences.

Clearly, once such a trajectory was looked at, for developments like that of the Solar System, it became clear that no simple, formal Law of Gravity would be sufficient.

For, such dramatic changes can only be as a result of competing factors – balanced in Stability, and finally overcoming their constraints and causing a collapse in the old set up, and the subsequent building of a new balance with in a new, different and higher Stability. 

Now, the pluralist Laws that would be the only factors, that, so far, Man had been able to call upon, were always, and inevitably, in the form of Abstractions - which were arrived at from data taken from Reality, but both simplified and idealised, so as to be representable into formal relations (Equations), and brought together according to Formal Logic, into merely consistent complexities.

Instead of being the assumed “primary drivers” of Reality in development, these were clean, man-modified versions taken from particular and conducively-designed contexts.

In addition, the ground for the usual cosmological considerations was originally totally Empty Space (which is, of course, also a mad-made construct).

Yet, to have totally Empty Space, as a universal ground required an origin too. And, when literally everything else is matter obeying its own Laws, then we have another series of Problems.

Where does the matter come from?

What initial form did it take?

Also, it becomes obvious that the concept of Empty Space itself is another of Mankind’s simplifications and idealisations. By making space devoid of all matter, it just became a stage upon which absolutely everything could happen – a static, inactive reference system, against which everything else could be measured.

But, the alternative, of a Space full of stuff, is just as likely – at least it gives us something to watch changing and developing in itself!

And, indeed, Man, when he began to study Reality, he soon filled Space with what he called a medium – a continuous, elastic and invisible substrate, which could effectively explain many things – such as the propagation of light and heat across the seeming void, which most definitely occurred.

Clearly, we cannot readily disentangle real, physical Reality from our always-inadequate conceptions of it.

For, Man didn’t arrive both ready-made and adequately equipped, to merely by thinking, arrive at the truth of any aspects of Reality. On the contrary, he too emerged from lesser beings. So all, yes ALL, of his conceptions about reality would be limited by his own current state of development. The Laws he found would, at the same time, as reflecting Reality-as-is, would also be limited by the current state of development of Man himself. How could it possibly be otherwise? 

Even our assumptions about the past will never be totally objective. Indeed, Man will always both simplify and idealise whatever he studies, to have any chance of even beginning to understand it.

And turning these abstractions into Natural Laws, entirely independent of Man, has to be erroneous.

Yet, at the same time, we cannot merely dismiss Man’s abstractions as simply wrong, for that also isn’t true. Clearly, there is Objective Content – aspects or parts of the truth, in his conceptions, and that is why they can be used both effectively and reliably in certain defined situations.

So, how do we characterise such conceptions, and plot a path in which these are brought, ever closer, to the Truth? The original answer to this question, by the ancient Greeks, was an example of the tail wagging the dog. For, Man established “Truth” by the consistency of his abstractions overall.

He was able to do it by assigning NO significant changes to things generally, and this allowed the formulation of the system termed Formal Logic to become established as the means of testing and even of developing conceptions.

Now, because of the ever-present Stability of Reality, the basic assumptions were approximately true, so the foundation stone of Formal Logic – A = A, the Identity Relation, could be assumed as the banker premise within the normal situations. Everyone now knows, and even knew then, that some things definitely changed, but they were seen as insignificant, at worst, and merely significant incrementally at best, and so, in most cases of productive use were basically a nuisance. So, a methodology was designed of “keeping things still” while studying them, so that the eternal Natural Laws would emerge, un-blurred by unimportant variabilities, to reveal what really mattered.

This approach became known as Science, and its use in carefully controlled Domains, by Man, became what we now think of as Technology.

Now, I must ask the reader to forgive this extremely cursory glimpse at Thought and Truth, but it had to be included here to begin to disentangle our unavoidable abstractions from our actual objective – Reality-as-is. And, hopefully, it would be the case too in the context that we would be in by attempting to work out the actual Origin and Development of the Solar System.

Let me indulge in one more essential diversion to reveal the dangers inherent in our lauded methods.

In Physics, with its original assumption of a medium filling Space (Aether theory), no trace of that medium could ever be found, so the concept of it, after much discussion, was finally, and supposedly irrevocably, dumped!

Space was back to being totally empty once again.

But, it didn’t help!

The problems began to proliferate, especially after the Discovery of the Quantum. For, this encapsulation of electromagnetic energy into disembodied gobbets, was clearly incompatible with a continuous medium of any kind.

But, it left a gaping hole in the required physical explanations of a whole raft of phenomena.

And, in addition, the, soon to become infamous, Double Slit Experiments also pushed the crisis to the limit! For, the results from these experiments seemed to simultaneously allot two totally contradictory properties to the key entities involved.

Sometimes, they acted as particles, while at other times like waves! Wave/Particle Duality was born, and surprisingly accepted as “The Truth”!

Yet, when this theorist included a certain kind of substrate, occupying all the spaces in this set up, ALL the anomalies just vanished!

Now, if the principle of an increase in Objective Content, is true, and a real measure of the closeness to Truth (as mentioned earlier), this meant that the new ideas must replace those of Wave/Particle Duality – the so-called Copenhagen conception, because it delivers more objective Content!

Now it was this researcher, who came up with the new theory for the Double Slit Experiments, and clearly, presented with the many imponderables in current ideas of the Solar System, it seemed worthwhile to reassess that conception, by bringing in the same universal substrate as had proved so effective in the Double Slit problem.

Now, all the advantages of a totally empty void would be gone, and a wholly new set of problems and solutions would be unavoidable.

The gulf between a totally Empty Void, and that filled completely with an active substrate is, of course, enormous.

For example, aggregations would have to occur within such a substrate, and any movement of the resultant bodies would also have to plough through this substrate like a ship through water. The effects of such disturbances upon propagation would have to be determined, and, thereafter, some means of the re-establishment of the normal conditions would also need to be explained.

The analogy with oceans may well be relevant, for they too propagate waves in spite of being seemingly messed up by the passage ships and whales.

The complex state of any substrate, and, in particular, the forces of re-establishment following disturbing passages through it, would have to be established and the involved phenomena explained.

It, as an assumed initial state, would certainly play some sort of role in aggregation – not least in propagating whatever causes such, for without a substrate, even Gravity becomes yet another case of the fabled Action-at-a-Distance once more.

To set up the required mindset for addressing all the usual problems of a universal substrate, we must commence by considering all the indisputable properties which will have to be delivered by such a filling of Space, in absolutely everything that we know occurs within it.

The analogy with ships in a sea gives us a starting point, but, certainly, cannot be taken too far, for though single entity transits may be similar, whole avalanches of particles would certainly not be the same.

For, as was assumed in the approach to the Double Slit phenomena, a single, moving particle (like an electron for example) would continually be disturbing the substrate – causing propagations of such continuously. So, with a veritable torrent of such particles, it would be both being repeatedly initiated, and also a roaring well ahead of its causes in a resulting stream of the disturbances within the substrate.

This would be caused by all disturbances moving forward of its cause (being at the Speed of light), while the causing particle would definitely be moving much more slowly.

Thus each and every particle, on interacting with the substrate, will project ahead of itself, a strong beam of disturbances, well ahead of what actually caused them.

And, perhaps, even more significant, absolutely all previously considered Actions-at-a-Distance, from Gravity to electrical and magnetic propagations and fields will also have to be fully explained in terms of this substrate too.

NOTE: At this point I must relate that several other independent researchers into the possibility of a substrate, but coming to the problem from very different specialist areas, have naturally each concentrated upon features that arise in their discipline, and have each come up with very different candidates as the units comprising such a substrate.

An electrical engineer was concerned with the subtending of magnetic fields within such a substrate, and defined his suggested unit accordingly. While another perplexed by quantization used a liquid as his model of the substrate, and concentrated in all his investigations on both Resonances of oscillations and Recursive effects to produce quantized orbits (which, by the way, he succeeded in doing). And, also an American scientist who is preoccupied with Gravity, caused his units to be defined in such a way as to deliver exactly that gravitational effect.

And, of course, lastly we have the writer of this paper, who in tackling the Double slit Experiments, ended up with a joint particle as the basic unit, with its internal sub-particles mutually orbiting one another. His objectives were to produce units of what he calls “a Paving”, which would be undetectable due to the opposite properties of its component parts, and to produce such a structure as to be able to hold and pass on quanta of electromagnetic energy, via the promotion and demotion of those internal orbits.

Now, such diversity is unavoidable.

For, the problems each individual researcher is addressing are all undisputedly real. So all these lines of study are revealing Objective Content. The problem is how can they be integrated into a comprehensive, explaining-all theory?

The current conclusion of this researcher is that is that the substrate must be heterogeneous – that is it contains several different units.

After all, criterion-number-one is that they are all undetectable, and that means not only to the usual means of detection, but also to each other – they could indeed co-exist.

And, what inter-reactions they do have are considered to only occur in very close proximity to one another – being very local indeed.

Now, the original suggestion, of this theorist, was that it was composed of a single kind of entity, but evidence from other researchers and theorists makes that assertion unsustainable.

And this relative independence of one another will cause them to act as if they alone inhabit Space. Each type may well inter-react with others of the same kind via different overall structures. 

It would be a mistake to assume that all of these different units act in an identical way like different elements in a gas. Just as in Maxwell’s remarkable model of the ether, it seems likely that different structures will be involved.

Remember, it was his model that enabled Maxwell to develop his, still used equations of Electromagnetism, so something of his model must certainly have been a reasonable assumption.

I have included his diagram from Margaret Morrison’s paper on the subject.

Various features of this model are relevant to today’s concerns. Crucially, he has reciprocal effects between his two involved entities. Dropping Maxwell’s model entirely along with the concept of the Ether was a major error, and it stems from the pluralist conception of Reality driven by Natural Laws. The alternative holist view does not see the gains of Science as Absolute Truths, but as analogistic models with a measure of Objective Content, so that all gains are partial and temporary. The best we can do is to strive to increase the amount of Objective Content in our constructions.

So, in our current problem, concerning the Origin and Development of the Solar System, we will have to solve, on a cosmic scale, what is also currently being addressed upon a Sub Atomic scale.

And, though very far apart in scale, they will still be related, as the substrate involved is common to both realms, but with different priorities to be solved.

On the Cosmic scale, Gravity and the general problem of Actions-at-a-Distance will be the dominant considerations. While at the Sub Atomic scale, it has to be the problem of quantization.

But, in an important way, the universality of forms such as orbiting, occurring at both levels, though with very different causes, again proves that Forms are secondary, and can never be causes in themselves.

The dominance of equations has to be a failed diversion from the real causes of phenomena, whatever the level.

The Nature of Abstraction

...Or how we internalise the real world

We have, on one hand, an Independent Reality, and on the other our Abstractions from that Reality, converted into forms that can exist in a Mind - as some analogue of those things extracted from that complex world.

And, if we define Abstractions NOT as real features of concrete Reality, but instead, as simplified and idealised reflections in the Human Mind (by which we mean attempts to internalise and understand real phenomena), we have to be very clear what it is that we think about.

For, we definitely assume that we are thinking about the concrete phenomenon that we had observed, but of course, that isn’t entirely true! We can never pack into our mind the full contents of those phenomena, but only a reflection of them, determined by the mirroring implement we use, and manipulative processes based upon previous such extractions.

Now, there are many things to consider with such internalisations. Quite apart from the social verifications, that make final forms common to many minds, we still have to explain why such abstractions are so useful, as well as what they actually consist of, and what they constitute as a whole collection (or even some sort of “system”) within their current residences within our minds. Indeed, this has been realised, time and again over millennia, and has caused Humankind to oscillate regularly between the true basic standpoints of Idealism (there is only the mind) and Materialism (there is only matter). For the accurate communications of one into the other seem to be impossible! But if we stop at merely calling them invented constructions of thought, it would get us nowhere. We would inevitably end up in pure Solipsism, with no concrete gains with respect to the relations of these things to a most certainly existing concrete Reality.

There is undoubtedly, some form of relation between them, and the Reality from which they were extracted and then reconstructed. These objects of the mind will be imbued with two sets of determinators; first, the real world things that elicited them, and second the properties and stored experience of the mind itself. And, they are certainly NOT the same.

The problems arise from both the processes involved in that internalisation, and also in the capabilities of the mind in making relationships relevant to that outside world. There can be no doubt that there has to be some measure of Objective Content in an Abstraction. Something of the Real World must be capable of being both reflected in and stored in the Brain, with enough correct Objective Content to be at all useable.

Yet, this will have to, somehow, include features of that real world situation in forms suitable for processing in the mind, but they will always be guaranteed to be insufficient to completely reflect those real world situations. The fact that anything can actually cross that divide is something of a miracle!

However, the actual processes of simplification and idealisation are gradually becoming clear. The myth of internalising Absolute Truth is also demolished totally. Whatever we internalise will be at best the maximum Objective Content currently possible. That is entirely what we deal in.

Now, let us be clear - not only does the Human Mind perceive real world phenomena, but it also devises and directs real world actions too. So, whatever internal processes the Mind is capable of, they will have been generated by a long history of such interactions, not only by the individual concerned, but in what has been coded for in that person’s genetic material, and what has been settled on in discussion with others in the same social group.

It is just such a nexus of internally present capabilities that deal with perceptions, and determine the kind of abstractions that can be involved. But, they will all be purely cerebral concepts. So, how can they possibly contain any concrete objectivity at all?

Clearly, minds have a history of development, and are certainly NOT wholly internally determined. For, any animal to survive, and even prosper, this internal processing unit just had to reflect the outside World very well indeed. It was certainly a product of evolution, and in the case of Humankind, perhaps the most important. Well, there is a category common to both Thought and Reality - It is Form!

When we say that there are TWO objects – that is both meaningful in the real World, and in Thought. Formal relationships are quite capable of being conceived of in the case of “TWO” – because it is simplified – totally drained of everything other than its “twoness”. And, also for other formal extractions, because they too are always idealised – that is converted from real world determinators, with all their variability, development and depth, and turned instead into fixed, pure forms. These can, indeed, be elements of Thought!

Remarkably, there are rules, which pertain in the real world to do with form, though they are NOT eternal laws, but current relationships in a constantly varying World.

But, and this is crucial, Humankind has found ways of making them appear eternal, by holding a context as still as possible, after also removing as many affecting variables as possible. Humans have learned to tailor or farm Reality so that these formal relationships appeared eternal, and could be internalised in Thought, though stripped of all but a simplified and idealised remnant. Once internalised in Thought, they had to become totally ossified into static or “eternal” things that never changed.

However, this transformation isn’t a ruining tragedy, for as the farming of situations in the real world proved, even such idealised versions can be close to what actually occurs there, but will only remain appropriate there for a time, or alternatively, if the real world ideal context is maintained throughout any actual use.

So, what the mind does in making Abstractions, is it takes a kind of selective snapshot of an aspect of Reality, suitably simplified and idealised and made still, which can then be thought about and related to others, in a World which can exist in Thought – a World of Pure Form alone.

This philosopher, Jim Schofield, has given this category of Thought the name – Ideality, because it is not a mere collection of abstractions, but an actual idealised System of such formal relations, with its own rules and laws. But, they are NOT the same as the forming rules in unfettered Reality, which are never eternal, while those idealised in Thought certainly are!

The usefulness is like the use of a photograph in understanding a scene. It certainly does not lie. But, it is a restricted and ossified view of Reality, telling us something about that frozen moment: a perception. And, we must make an initial effort to decode what is actually going on in this process. This must be tackled before we move on to the next Phase; the Human Mind is not a fixed machine, but a part of Reality subject to evolutionary development and will change in it’s features, facilities and powers, as a result of it’s successful experience in the Real World.

Neanderthals: Sub or Rival Humans?

“Neanderthal Doodles hint at Abstract Thought!”, is the subtitle of a recent piece in New Scientist (2985). But, it is an amazingly uninformed quip!

Neanderthals were not apes but the closest relations to Homo Sapiens (ourselves) among the hominid group, who arose from the same crucially defining stock as we did, typified not only by a bipedal gait, but also significantly by a tool using and tool making ancestor, which became the major reason for the vast development in hominid brains, and their consequent mental abilities. Indeed, these abilities are millions of years old, originally emerging in the Homo Habilis ancestor of BOTH ourselves and the Neanderthals. So, to even ask such a question of these hominids is an example of debasing by “damning with faint praise”, and should not be the stance of serious investigators.

Perhaps indeed, such a definition moves the discussion away from whether it is our species that caused their demise. For, if they were a sub-human and evolutionary incapable species, they could well have become extinct due to their inadequate ability to cope with external changes to their environment, rather than being wiped out by the lauded “Homo sapiens”.

Of course, Neanderthals could think!

How could they make tools, if they didn’t use abstract thinking? The attempt to equate such superior mental abilities with “art” puts the cart before the horse. Before we arrived upon the European scene the Neanderthals had be there for hundreds of thousands of years, and were able hunter/gatherers – the SAME as we were when we arrived! To even conceive of a tool, then make it out of a shatter-able hard rock like flint, and to envisage what it would have to be like, would undoubtedly involve abstract thought. Bringing in Abstract Art is amazing! Could it be because we did that?

The insisted-upon step-change between pre-human species and ourselves is the usual way of considering development, and is homocentric! So, the finding of a definitely Neanderthal carving on rock of a simple “cross” design has re-invigorated the assessment of just how good they were at Thinking(?).

NOTE: It is an excellent example of how theories are always predicated upon the current level of Knowledge and understanding of those who put forward such ideas. They can NEVER be the Absolute Truth, but only, at best, the furthest that the thinker could go given his current assumptions and principles. What survives in a theory is due to an increased measure of Objective Content and NOT Absolute Truth!

Indeed, the usual set of clichés, such as Art, is frequently raised, based upon the belief that Homo sapiens is unique, and the epitome of all development!

“Were they advanced enough to make real Art?”, or alternatively, “Could they think abstractly as we certainly can?”, are the usual type of threshold-passing markers of Human superiority! And, the discussion, as is usual, gets stuck in the fabricated mire of homocentrism, with the conclusion, “These inadequate people died out due to Natural Selection! They just couldn’t cope with the changes that were happening in their World!”

Absolute nonsense!

This strain of hominid had the same roots as we did.

Early hominids such as Homo habilis were their ancestors too. They had the important crucial changes, while they were the very same species as we were. They even left Africa long before we did and successfully moved into Europe a hundred thousand years before we managed to get there, and survived many significant changes in climate successfully.

They were indeed our closest cousins, and DNA evidence proves conclusively that they interbred with Homo sapiens successfully with offspring that were viable. What more proof is necessary, that they were NOT fatally inferior to us?

So, are the usual legends true?

The Novel The Inheritors by William Golding didn’t see it that way. Two species found themselves in the same areas – both as hunter/gatherers – needing enormous areas to support such a lifestyle. They would inevitably be competitors!

And the historical record of Homo sapiens, when they have come across other branches of the homo group is not good! In Asia (Indonesia) a small-statured branch was most certainly wiped out by members of our species, and even very much later in America, the English colonists in the East wiped out several native American tribes, who grew crops, and were genetically identical as ourselves.

They did it to get their land.

So, all this homocentric discussion avoids the real questions.

Did we wipe out the Neanderthals? In spite of proved inter-breeding, the newcomers could only relax when they were gone! So, those scratches made by Neanderthals, and found in Gibraltar have been dated at 39,000 years ago, and Neanderthals lived for many millennia after that date.

And, here is another relevant question, “If homo sapiens did wipe them out, what were they be likely to do with any found remains and signs of the people they had removed? What would they have done with their artefacts and remains?

Would they have kept them and cherished them?

And, we know what allowed the development of Art in humans, even while they were still hunter/gatherers. It was only possible in highly conducive conditions of life. The Lascaux Cave Paintings were at a place where the migrating herds of wild animals could be counted upon to pass that way, and Men could remain in one place, and not only survive, but actually flourish.

And later, after the Neolithic Revolution, which caused a mammoth change in lifestyles with farming and animal husbandry, which had a very similar effect upon those humans involved – staying in one place and having time to do other things apart from just surviving.

If you wanted to really to really address this question, there would have to be a looking for those enabling conditions in undisturbed Neanderthal remains and sites.

The present-day investigators using today’s morality and prohibitions, will unavoidably mis-interpret how “God’s People” reacted to an alternative and competing species.

Issue 30 of Shape

Entitled Changing Tracks, this collection of short papers links Philosophy and Science under the banner originally erected in the 19th century by Hegel, and then, even more radically, by Marx and his followers.

But it is not a eulogy to Marxism. Indeed, it is highly critical of the stance of most modern professed Marxists, particularly in their failure to develop Philosophy, and significantly in their cowering attitude in the face of the most idealistic retreats by Modern Physics.

This series has been produced by a professional scientist, philosopher and Marxist, who is totally convinced that the crucial path forward into all these areas has been lost, and progress no longer occurs in any of them.

Such a small collection as this cannot possibly deliver chapter and verse to the standpoint taken, for this is merely a brief introduction. But such a comprehensive treatment does exist and is regularly being added to within the Issues of SHAPE Journal (now rapidly approaching its 50th Issue (including Specials).

This set of papers address what are considered to be the crucial questions fundamental to this standpoint. They are:- 1. Is Form Essence? 2. Plan or Process? 3. Reductionism 4. What is Objective Content? 5. An Animation to Illustrate Objective Content 6. Holist Science: The Path Forward?

Read here

This video on Objective Content was created to accompany an article in this issue.

Figure and Ground

The Dangers of Simplification

 

This seemingly interminable series of papers on Fields is a product of the way we always attempt to deal with such phenomena.

We have learned that the most productive approach is to avoid confusing complexity, and, instead, work to simplify situations as far as we possibly can. So, we select & isolate situations, attempting to leave only what we are seeking: we simplify first conceptually, and then concretely until we have both a revealing and amenable Domain - ideally conducive to our further studies.

By now, we are, without doubt, the masters of such isolating and constraining of phenomena in such a way as to “completely reveal” their supposedly “Key Relations”.

It has, indeed, become the fundamental approach for all our experimental set-ups, and, therefore, produces not what we think we have revealed – Fundamental and Universal Laws, but, on the contrary, specific and limited relations locked fast into the specially arranged, conducive situations we have erected.

Thus, our “Truths” are always fragments – particulars. And so, though we crave overarching and universal laws, we never actually get them.

We get a multiplicity of particular laws-plus-their-contexts.

So, with such a complex area as Fields, and indeed ALL actions-at-a-distance, this fragmentation is multiplied even more.

Yet, before this revelation gets too depressing, it has to be emphasized that we certainly know how to use what we currently extract. Our methods have been very successful, for we know precisely where to apply our “partial truths” – in the appropriately constrained situations! As long as these correct contexts are accurately constructed, we do indeed have places where our laws work: we can predict, and hence also produce!

Our methods equip us for production, but also inevitably disarm our ability to explain why things are the way that they are, and behave in the way that they do, when left to themselves!

We are very adept technologists, but not adept scientists (though we think that we are), and, most certainly, are nowhere near being even competent philosophers.

Now, the pragmatists will dismiss any such criticisms of both their method and standpoint, because their purposes are in no way compromised by the inadequacies of their approach.

Continuing “Progress” still appears to be continuously assured. But, of course, without the essential development of understanding as well as straightforward use, what we get can only be an aberrant growth.

It is really a maximal exploitation of a partial truth, rather than a step on the path to an ever wider and deeper understanding of our world. [Like the young man who built me a working Amplifier, but could not tell me why it worked, or what the various components were actually doing: neither could he use what he had to design something new].
Indeed, if the stream of scientific explanations ceased forthwith, technology (as with my young electrical constructor) would etiolate and die, like a pea shoot without sustenance.

Science is the source and lifeblood of technological progress, and even more important, it can also be the means to actually understand the world.

Now, returning to our problems with Fields, the difficulty is that our isolating and simplifying also walls us off from what we are trying to understand. For such things are not appropriate to such methods: for Fields are certainly NOT isolatable phenomena! Why can I say this?

It is because the “Figure” and the “Ground” in such situations are not only inseparable, but also actually mutually defining and determining! We simply cannot separate them without destroying what they are.

For example, is a Field actually erected by its “causing” charge, or is it actually a response of the Background to the presence of that charge?

For we usually assume that our Grounds are always totally inert – mere formal references, whereas the holist suggestions outlined above change all of that!

The two always have a reciprocal relationship, and perhaps an evolutionary one too.

Now, rather than halting the conclusions here, and arguing whether these assertions fit all cases or not, let us first concede something called Dominance.

Though the philosophical basis for the ideas being explained here constitute Holism, they are NOT the same as that early version espoused by The Buddha, though it is still much closer to his position, than it is to the sub atomic physicists of today.

It does, in contrast, admit that things are not all of equal weight, and in many situations, particular relations can dominate to such a major extent that they can be fairly easily isolated, extracted an then used in the pluralist sense described above as the usual scientific experimental practice.

But, “Exceptions always make Bad Law”, and Dominance is not triumphant either everywhere, or permanently.

It is a surface effect, upon a holistic World, where literally everything does indeed affect everything else, and in many crucial areas we have to deal with not only Systems of Processes, but also hierarchies of such Systems too.

A great deal is always going on simultaneously, and our Simplifying, Isolating and Constraining in order to extract any usable order does indeed change the overall situations that we are trying to understand.

The classic example is, of course, the Weather, but there are many cases where such situations also defy Analysis by our usual pluralistic means.

My favourite is Miller’s Experiment, wherein he attempted to make an emulation of the conditions upon the primitive Earth – before Life had emerged, in the hope that he could reveal something of the developments leading to that revolutionary Origin of Life.

Sealing “everything necessary” in a glass containing-system, and adding heat and electrical discharges (as lightning), he set the system in motion, which was as near as he could get to the actual primaeval Weather System, in order to see what might occur.

As we all know, after only one week, the water in his system had already turned a deep reddy-brown, and on dismantling of the system, he was able to show that amino acids had somehow been synthesized.

But as to how this had happened, there was no way that he could confirm the processes involved.

The absolutely essential isolation from any present-day contributions, also prohibited any time-based Analysis, and most certainly, many strands of changes must have been happening throughout that momentous week, both as parallel simultaneous processes, and as parts of crucial ongoing and changing sequences. So, without any possibility of intervention, NO further explanations were possible.

This is, and always gas been, the classic dilemma of investigating a Holist World using the only available methods - pluralist science could get nowhere in such investigations. They seemed to be Unknowable. And in spite of the undoubted success of Miller’s Experiment, it was also the “end-of-the-line” in most scientists’ eyes. Pluralist science offered a great deal more and it was there that ALL the research was concentrated.

So, these inevitable cul de sacs in attempts to develop a Holist Science did dissuade anyone else from embarking on such a seemingly doomed-to-failure route.

Yet, it would be wrong to consign this approach to the dustbin just yet. Darwin’s Origin of Species was a masterpiece of Holist Science, and other major holist contributions have also been made. But, the philosophical ground, and necessary methodology for a general holistic, yet scientific approach has still not yet been defined. It still awaits a generally applicable methodology!

Now, this author has attempted to apply such a method to the infamous Double Slit Experiments, beloved of the currently dominant Copenhagen School in Sub Atomic Physics, and he was finally able to explain all the anomalies involved, without any recourse to Wave/Particle Duality or the probabilistic formulae of the Copenhagenists.

So, with this demonstration the Copenhagen View was proved to be NOT the only possible approach, and he has since embarked upon a particular area of Physics, which has long annoyed him.

It is, of course, Action-at-a-Distance, the propagation of electromagnetic radiation through totally Empty Space, and, of course, the “daddy-of-them-all” FIELDS!

So, let us assume the very worst!

Let us say that our “Figure” is really composed of multifarious and mutually determining processes, while our “Ground” is not only very similar in its diverse content, but also both determines the behaviours of the contents of our supposed “Figure”, and is, in turn, modified by them.

Now, here is surely a suitably messy situation to attempt to make sense of.

How might we do it?

Well, we do have a vast set of pluralist techniques, that though compromised conceptually, do give us “something”; and what we get is never merely pure invention, it always contains some aspects or fragments of the Truth. So, as long as we don’t wander off down the usual road, we can use these gains in a different way.

Though all gains made by such methods are always predicated upon restricted and maintained Domains, they do include an important measure of what is called Objective Content.

So, rather than careering off down the pragmatic sweet, downhill road to Production, we should gather as many closely related sets of pluralist Results as possible, and attempt to make some sort of conceptual integration out of them instead.

And, with such a change of philosophy and of methodology things can change profoundly.

We now consider all the skewed, pluralistic evidence, knowing that it has been extensively processed, and hence treating much of what we have with a measure of scepticism, and instead, attempting to formulate a common explanation, that would, in each biased pluralist set up, produce what has been extracted, but would integrate all cases into a single explanation.

Now, at this point we must address the universally applied frig that is the traditional answer to their “sets of pluralistic results”

That frig is the belief that each pluralistically obtained relation (a Law) is in fact the actual Truth for those factors, and if we simply add all such obtained Truths together, totally unmodified, we will get True Reality.

It replaces the true inter-relating integrations with crude Complication. The various Laws are summed to reconstruct what really happens.

NO THEY DON’T! What has to be done is to attempt to merge the individual isolations into a functional and integrated whole. That is much more difficult, but is essential!

NOTE: The alternative to the Copenhagen explanations of the Double Slit Experiments that was my own holist alternatives were amazing different in every possible way. And though the Copenhagenists could immediately motor off with their probability equations, they also brought understanding to a dead halt. Whereas, the holistic explanation have opened up theoretical prospects not only in these areas, but generally!

The Meandering Path to Truth

Whatever happened to Theory?

Prediction requires absolutely NO theory, only the extraction of a pattern! So, to make prediction the touchstone for understanding is frankly nonsense. Indeed, what now passes for Theory is without doubt merely Form, and the supposed essences that we delight in, as equations are merely descriptions of recurring formal patterns. To make such equations the foundation of Reality, and of its investigation via Science, is an abandonment of its correct and empowering materialist standpoint.

It is put simply, Idealism!

“Form drives Reality!”, is the credo!

But what determines Form? Without real Theory – explanation in physical terms - we are worshiping totally disembodied Pattern, and The Place where such things can be so ably manipulated is surely in the Human Brain.

So, in looking for a source for these driving essences, we find that we have a “ghost” in the machine (or is it “an elephant in the room”?) - the Thing that thought these Forms? It is either US, in which case the whole standpoint collapses! Or it is GOD, in which case, “Goodbye to Science!”

The apologists for a purely Form-based Physics, struggle to find these ultimate essences, and even occasionally (as with Bohr and Heisenberg) totally reject any attempted physical explanations, and instead prefer to dwell in a World entirely determined by Pure Form alone. Of course, such a World is NOT Reality! It is the well-known World of Pure Form alone, which I insist on calling Ideality, for quite obvious reasons.

And these few words cannot, of course, completely define the philosophical stance of today’s physicists. For buried within their history over many centuries are a series of assumptions and principles, which were dreamt up and adhered to for the facilities and empowerment that they delivered. And they were not only unavoidable, but also necessary. Mankind can only do what is currently possible at their present stage of development.They are not Gods! We cannot look down upon Reality as something other, seeing all in evidently causal detail.

We are part of Reality: a particular type of Ape, that is in the process of evolving into something different, and that as part of this development has invented a series of paths towards understanding Reality – or Truth, as we like to call it.

Now, all of these, in retrospect, can be seen as being inadequate, but also, all of which were, in their time, both invaluable and distinctly progressive. We found ways of extracting fragments (or aspects) of truth from Reality, and employing them effectively to our advantage in many diverse areas.

We have never dealt (nor can we now deal) in Absolute Truth, but only in invaluable Objective Content.

It is stupid to condemn Mankind for supposedly “making mistakes” in the past. That was not what had happened at all! Mankind found ways to extract more and more Objective Content, by simplifying or redefining Reality in various useful ways. And the earliest and most useful of these was undoubtedly in recognising common Forms. It was not by accident the Euclidian Geometry was so early on the scene as an integrated system of dealing with extractable shapes. Yet, there were NO absolutely straight lines, or dots of zero extension, or absolutely flat and infinite planes: all of these didn’t exist anywhere! Yet, within that approach to Form in Reality, there was sufficient Objective Content to make it an extremely valuable tool. Yes, Mathematics IS only the superb Handmaiden, and certainly NOT The Queen!

But, in spite of this view of Mankind’s efforts in dealing with Reality, it is also true that actual major mistakes – real significant errors are made, which cause a major retreat from the usual march of Science, and which has brought Sub Atomic Physics to a significant and seemingly irresolvable crisis that has now persisted for about a century. The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory was such a major retreat!

But, to merely blame Bohr and colleagues would get us absolutely nowhere. For the seeds of that calamity had been sown millennia earlier, with our most basic (and useful) assumptions and principles. Indeed, the period around 2,500 years ago was crucial: for it was perhaps the most revolutionary epoch in ideas and lead to a truly magnificent period of development in ways of Human thinking.

Two basic standpoints were somehow extracted from Reality-in-General. First, there was Holism by The Buddha, and secondly there was Plurality by the Greeks. Both of these were magnificent inventions that advanced Objective Content, but in very different ways. Yet, though neither was sufficient in itself, they both survive to this day, because of the real gains they delivered.

Yet also at that time in Greece, a lone voice already demurred. It was Zeno of Elea, and his realisation of the invented nature of our most basic premises, meant that all the discussions and arguments taking place at his time in Greece were founded upon two mutually exclusive premises – Both of which could be clearly shown to be inadequate.

For him to get up and merely pronounce that would certainly NOT do the trick, so he devised a series of Paradoxes, which demonstrated hoe each of these alternatives led to inevitable contradictions.

They were the conceptions of Continuity and Descreteness.

But even deeper in their thinking was the universally accepted Principle of Plurality, which saw everything as analysable into its component Parts, and that these would be entirely separable: that is independent of their existing contexts entirely.

The holistic alternative of The Buddha took the exact opposite view, and saw everything as intimately linked and determined by everything else. You could NOT extract separable things out of integrated Reality, without transforming them.

Now, this being the case, such premises did, and still do, determine the trajectory of our conceptions, and as with Zeno lead inexorably to contradiction and inevitable impasse.

But pragmatic and intelligent as Mankind certainly was, ways were found to get around such barriers, NOT, it must be emphasized by transcending them, so such a tortuous path would certainly leave many things unresolved.