The Imperatives & Trajectory of Writing

A Muse by Scientist and Philosopher 

Jim Schofield

Having been a full-time writer, initially, of directed academic papers, and, thereafter, individual essays, for a developing period of almost nine years now, I am, in retrospect, interested in the unplanned trajectory that I have been directed upon by that experience.

Initially, my topics were extremely varied, not only coming from my later career in Further and Higher Education - as a Lecturer and Researcher in Computing, but also from many, much earlier phases, when I was involved in teaching Physics, Mathematics, Biology, Music and even Revolutionary Politics.

Though, I occasionally also wrote upon Art, it was as a practicing Sculptor that I put in the hours there, and though I did write extensively for a time, on Music, it was as a rather incompetent performer, and perhaps a somewhat better analyst, that I spent my time in that area.

Writing was an intellectual activity, and initially, was limited by my own current inadequate knowledge, though I always found that I had something to say upon the latest News, and upon articles in Scientific Magazines, the results initially were invariably just critical one-offs.

But, being aware of those inadequacies, I resolved to attempt to overcome them, and read a great deal to that end. And, crucially, as a life-long teacher, what gains I made for myself, I wrote up as if I was teaching a class - so my style was never very literary - with the none of the usual abundance of quotes, references and examples of relevant experience.

I saw writing as teaching, and delivered accordingly, as if I was there in front of a class (though I had to imagine for myself any puzzled expressions and probable consequent questions).

I invariably got an inordinate number of criticisms from "professionals", who felt it necessary to dismiss my "style", punctuation and incorrect language, as betraying clear unprofessional inadequacies. But, as a highly successful teacher for over 40 years, I felt that I knew better.

I was never attempting to earn a place in Academia, but merely to teach what I had learned.

Now, as a qualified computer expert, I had managed to land my perfect job - helping Higher Education researchers (across the whole range of disciplines), by both devising and delivering computer programs to help them with their work.

I wrote tailor-made and usually completely original software aids for research in disciplines as widely different as Engineering, Taxonomy, Control of complex testing and analysis machines, Nursing Care Plans, Mathematical Chaos, and I finally won a British Interactive Video Award, for The Dance Disc - a multimedia aid for the teaching of Dance Performance (all of these were, of course, only achieved along with top experts in the discipline-field involved).

The language I used, when talking with my co-workers, was exactly how I wrote, and, it always seemed to work very well.

What I am keen to communicate here, is how my writing changed over the years.

From the outset of the current, writing-only phase, I worked 7 days-a-week, 12 months-a-year for a minimum of 4 hours a day ( and often a lot more), and quickly reached the level of output of a "Paper-a-Day". I began to fill 80 page display books with printed versions of my work, which rapidly grew to over 150 volumes, at which point, I switched to much more capacious A4-size polythene boxes.

A current estimate of my writing is around 6 million words, and after only a couple of years into this phase, I (with the help of my son, Michael Schofield) had set up three dedicated websites, where my work was published.

The most important site was SHAPE Journal, which, by October 2016, had published 91 Issues, each containing around 6-10 original papers. It didn't take long for us to, in addition, publish what we called Specials, which were originally conceived as SHAPE Issues dedicated to a single theme.

Now, from the very beginning of this endeavour, I had been losing my sight: so changes to my writing facilities were regularly necessary.

Initially, I wrote on paper with a pen, but soon had to switch to a more readable fibre-tip marker, and enlarge my manuscripts. The second stage was always to type from the MSS into my computer, but, then, the text on screen became too small to see, so a bigger screen became a regular update. And latterly, I couldn't even read my own manuscripts, so I switched to direct-typing-in, using a truly mammoth screen.

Another development in method was also derived from teaching, for I frequently changed course within a lesson, as a response to evident problems and questions - and, following an unresolved question, I even made sure I had cracked it by the next lesson.

So, when writing, I had to be my own sternest critic, particularly during a reading of what I had just produced, so necessary additions were then carried out, and inserted within the prior text. Many times, it was incomplete premises, assumptions, or prior ideas that were mistaken or even missing, so resolving these, produced Prefaces and Introductions, and topics often stretched into series of related papers. 

Perhaps the most important development was the Necessary-Interruption-Technique - where I realised the need for a necessary area of work. So, I immediately suspended the current writing, and diverted to researching the as yet unresolved question that was required, before I could complete the prior paper. But, most directly-available information was rarely an Explanation, so I regularly had to sit down and think it through for myself.

Brief notes helped guide my later writing, but clearly the Thinking Sessions were becoming more and more vital. The gathering of mere Knowledge was clearly insufficient!

In the present World Knowledge has, indeed, become the main objective, but that is surely NOT the main purpose of Education: that is now, and always has been, the Understanding of phenomena.

In addition to "How?", we have also know "Why?"

Instead of the mere dissemination of prior Knowledge, the emphasis changed markedly to explaining why things behaved as they did, and my writing became Original Theoretical Research.

As a qualified physicist, I tackled the infamous Double Slit Experiments, in Sub Atomic Physics, and managed to arrive at a comprehensive Explanatory Theory, at variance with the now consensus Copenhagen Interpretation.

In research into the work of the philosopher GWF Hegel, and his famous student Karl Marx, I finally arrived at an original Theory of Emergences.

And, elsewhere, also managed enhancements to Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, as well as significant improvements in Stanley Miller's famous Primeval Atmosphere Emulation Experiment, which had naturally generated the absolutely vital amino acids in less than a week.

Having had a very wide experience over a long career, I was able to not only write, but also make original contributions across a range of disciplines, and despite my increasing blindness (I have advanced Macular Degeneration), I have accelerated my rate of production considerably.

In the coming Summer (2017) we will celebrate with the 100th Issue of the SHAPE Journal online, which will be a Special - composed entirely of the Illustrations, Montages, Diagrams, Graphic Art and even YouTube videos - all selected or created by my son and colleague, Michael Schofield, who is currently studying for his Ph.D. in Photography at Leeds University, England.

It will be quite an issue!

Becoming a Professional in a Specialist Discipline

Prof. Richard Wolff - professional Marxist?

What is necessary to claim expert status?

When do you actually become a professional physicist, or even a professional Marxist?

It certainly isn't when you first commit to your chosen area-of-study or set of supported-premises: for such disciplines cannot be simply taken-on by an individual's immediate decision to follow that career or stance. Indeed, to do so requires both a significant investment in a comprehensive set of studies, and appropriate assessments at various levels, up to such a standard as to be employed in that field, and capable of delivering what the post entails.

For example, this writer is a professional physicist, having gone through successfully all the levels, up to and including a University degree with Honours, and usually beyond even that in what is considered Postgraduate, studies and achievements.

They don't have the same formal structures available in Educational Institutions for becoming qualified as a Marxist, it being essentially anti-establishment, and certainly also no ivory-tower occupation - necessitating sincere and total involvement in political activism, towards a prior, decided-upon objective, as well as both extensive studies, published contributions, and, most importantly appropriate, productive political analysis, and even acute and penetrating policy-making and leadership in political activities.

Anyone can claim that they have become a Marxist after agreeing with a particular speech, or being convinced by a brilliant Marxist book, but it isn't true! They will, in fact, have only become some sort of follower-of, or maybe an arguer-for, a Marxist position.

I'm afraid that is not nearly enough. For, it is, surely, only equivalent to someone claiming to be a scientist having agreed to a single brilliant lecture, or being convinced by a remarkable scientific work.

To make such a claim would be laughable, and hence, so it is when individuals claim to have become Marxists. And, with many "professed Marxists" or even "professed physicists", such things have not been, and never will be, remotely achieved!

There is, particularly in my own subject, Physics, a widespread self-delusion involving the manipulation, interpretation and use of Formal Equations only, which, because of an undoubted measure of original speculation, can give the appearance that some wholly new Physics has been produced.

But, it is an illusion!

You cannot do Physics, merely by doing Mathematics. And, even the effective use of such formulae does not validate you as a scientist - only as a competent technologist. Of course, these distinctly differently defined disciplines are frequently confused, especially in the last century, when things took a remarkable turn, which effectively banned Explanation (most particularly in Sub Atomic Physics).

NOTE: As I was, personally, and for many years, particularly good at such things, I can say that they are not Physics, without any claims that my criticism is mere "Sour Grapes". For, it took a great deal more to finally become a physicist!

And, of course, the philosophical discipline we term Marxism, even having read all the masters' works, will never suffice, for to be a Marxist, you have to understand and successfully employ the entirely new methods involved. It is essentially Hegel's method of Dialectics, which seeks out what are termed Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts, both of which are surprisingly derived from the very same assumptions, but which always, in the end, result in an undoubted rational impasse, which can only be transcended via a in-depth study of the producing premises involved, and their necessary revision to dissolve the impasse and replace it with a rational pair of options.

Marx's version, was to transfer Hegel's method, wholesale, from the idealist sphere of Thinking, to Reality in general, and its development.

Now, to merely talk of correcting the underlying premises to achieve such breakthroughs, actually tells us Nothing! For, Hegel also rejected our then universally applied Formal Logic as the only means of reasoning. He showed, clearly, that such was solely limited to only stable situations - those in which all change was merely quantitative - which is why its means of expression was Mathematics, which is also limited to the very same constraints.

Formal Logic only applied to Stability!

Hegel knew, from his profound and original researches into Thinking about Thought, that Qualitative Changes were never addressed in development (which for Hegel was exactly what was happening in Thinking), and his work was immensely extended by Marx to include all of Concrete Reality too!

The actual development of material things, the Origin of Life, and its subsequent Evolution, as well as the trajectory of qualitative changes and even Revolutions in Human Societies, were ALL subject to such crucial changes.

So, to be a Marxist (continuing and extending this development), you have to employ that kind of Analysis to equip both you and your comrades in action to make real progress in understanding what is going on, not only in the present struggle within Capitalism for the hearts and minds of the People, but vitally in understanding its inevitable major Crises and Revolutionary opportunities.

Now judging political activists by such criteria, the last real professional revolutionary Marxists were those in the Russian Bolshevik Party at the beginning of the 20th century.

For example, this professed "Marxist" felt that he was a "recruit" to the cause, aged 19, and joined the Communist Party in the UK, but in spite of a lifetime as an activist, and, within a series of supposedly "Revolutionary Marxist" parties, he has only, finally, become a Marxist in the last few years.

In his case, he only arrived at a sound and productive philosophical stance via a surprising and circuitous route (and it wasn't achieved within and due to any of the professed "Marxist" organisations, he had belonged to for many decades).

For, he was also a serious professional scientist, and a dedicated teacher: but even there, in how he daily earned his living, and passed on his understanding to his students, he wasn't where he knew he had to be. And, this didn't even begin to happen, until he became involved, as a computer software expert, in a wide range of other people's advanced, postgraduate researches.

His contributions were clearly defined: he had to produce software to facilitate his colleagues researches, and his technical abilities were nowhere near as important, as were their professional objectives. He had to understand what they were doing, and invent wholly new computer programs to give them exactly what they wanted.

Surprisingly, the latter course in this series of developments took things into an unusual area - the teaching of professional Dance Performance and Choreography, with a brilliant expert in that field, who required immaculate access and control of recorded footage taken exemplar Dance works by world-class performers, delivering brilliant and innovative pieces.

The mere passive watching would not suffice. Jacqueline Smith-Autard, who was a world leader in her field, required a so-far-impossible control over captured movements, in order to get students to not only reproduce them correctly, but also to understand what sequences and articulations were possible in original choreography. So, our scientist/programmer was presented with something very different. The key features had to be precision Access to particular moves, and immaculate Control of those moves, with full-speed, slow-motion, backwards or forwards motion, looping around a chosen movement, with "multi-screen" simultaneous comparisons of similar moves (not as stills, but as controlled and manipulate-able movies). These tasks proved entirely beyond what was currently available technologically: AND not available anywhere in methodology.

He was forced to use the-then-revolutionary Laser-disc technology, and undertake considerable research into the properties of both video and film, as particularly the increasingly dominant Digital versions of such means. It was in this work that what he had never been able to talk about previously, suddenly gelled into a method.

The solution of many, long-standing problems ensued, not only in Dance, but in movement generally, and, thereafter, into the solutions of major impasses in both Physics and Philosophy.

Of course, what had been lacking in both Science and what was usually considered to be "Marxism" was a sound philosophic stance, when it came to motion, and hence, consequent methods for dealing with the essence of all movement - Qualitative Change!

NOTE: For those who reject this point, may I refer them to Zeno's Paradoxes, and also Hegel's investigations into Dichotomous Pairs and rational impasses.

In Science, the positions taken had been historically-determined by the amalgam of Materialism, Plurality, Formalism and Pragmatism - a surprising mix that only worked by a pragmatic switching between concepts whenever difficulties occurred, and hence was bound to end up with terminal crises, and retreat, marked finally by the changes set-in-stone by the Solvay Conference of 1927.

Solvay Conference

In Marxism, however, the mix was of activism allied with a crude Trade Union consciousness, which simply never addressed the necessity of Revolution, and frankly never understood what it was that both Hegel and Marx had achieved philosophically!

That stance was subsequently totally lost in the fight against interlopers from the enemy class - termed Revisionism - and, crucially, the refusal to view Marxism as a generally applicable Philosophy and method!

Indeed, the major intellectual problems of the 20th century, particularly in Science, were after Lenin's intervention, totally ignored.

But, it was in addressing these areas that Marxism could attain a wholly new and higher level, and re-equip itself politically too.

Remember what Marx had said, "Philosophy thus far had been to interpret the world: the point now was to change it!"

And, in spite of Marx's revolutionary contributions, human reasoning, with the old objectives, still fell far short of what was both possible and necessary, in the new Stance, to achieve the new objectives!

Christopher Caudwell, mightily took up the task on in the 1930s, but was killed in fighting fascism in Spain, long before he had achieved what he was seeking in Physics (see his book The Crisis in Physics).

Elsewhere, professed Marxists refused to concern themselves with such problems, and hence, looked only backwards at the Marxist Canon, without extracting the absolutely vital Marxist Methods involved there. So, instead of actually extending the ground that Hegel and Marx had uncovered, and thus both strengthening and deepening it, they actually returned to the old Formal Rationalism, with a overlaid reformist political agenda only!

The more profound aspects of Marxism, which Marx had got from Hegel, were simply not understood, and hence never used in analysing situations. The famed Dialectic was reduced into a series of tricks, rather than a profound, if difficult, method.

Hegel had realised that all human understanding, at every stage, was always based upon an inadequate set of premises, though each succeeding set was able to reveal more Objective Content (parts or aspects of the truth), and hence allow significant, if limited, progress in our understanding.

Nevertheless, every single new set of premises would inevitably reach its own denouement in yet another major impasse. And, these would always be indicated by what came to be called Dichotomous Pairs of contradictory concepts - both of which were direct consequences of errors or omissions, in the same set of premises. He, and later Marx, realised that the usual solution of switching between these two, entirely pragmatically, could only be taken so far.

What was necessary, instead, to transcend the impasse, presented by the Dichotomous Pair, by the revealing of the premises involved, and a thorough-going critique of these with consequent inclusion of missing premises, or the replacement of proved-to-be-incorrect assumptions, so that a more true overall set was delivered. Marx had taken Hegel's remarkable achievement in Human Thought, and delivered it in its entirety into the Materialist Stance, thus producing something very different from the aforementioned amalgam of disparate and contradictory stances that made up the position of the then scientists.

What he termed Dialectical Materialism, was very different to the mechanical materialism of the scientists, and was consistent, which couldn't be said for their flexible amalgam of alternative bases.

It, certainly, wasn't merely the inclusion of Hegel's idealist conceptions, which applied only to Human Thinking: it was, according to Marx, intrinsic to material Reality generally, and its capacity to qualitatively change and even evolve!

Now, this was continued to be talked about following Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky, but, frankly, never really understood. Indeed, the next sphere of study after the October Revolution in Russia, surely had to be to extend Marxism to Science, and to win the best intellectuals to the revolutionary cause, for its profound philosophical stance, as well as its political objectives.

It didn't happen!

This particular physicist was in so-called revolutionary parties for 50 years, but never came across what was needed. He was a competent physicist, disagreeing with the consensus Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory, but, literally, condemned for being "diverted" by such concerns from the "real tasks".

But, they were wrong!

It was by his sole efforts, "pulled up by my own bootlaces" that the necessary task was undertaken, and, after a long gestation period, finally began to deliver results.

For those not well informed of the content and ideas in Modern Physics, a series of major problems had arisen, which the old methods were totally incapable of dealing with. The primary one was certainly the Quantum - a descrete gobbet of pure energy, and, without any material association or receptacle, with the consequent, Dichotomous Pair of simultaneous conceptions embraced in Wave/Particle Duality. The claimed to be determining experiments were the famed Double Slit series, which, to this day, are trotted out as interpretable only by the Copenhagen stance.

But, this Marxist/physicist has solved the whole set without leaving a single anomaly still standing.

He has also extended Darwin's Natural Selection to Non-Living Developments, and developed The Theory of Emergences to be directly applicable across the whole range of possible developments currently known.

Comrades, the tackling and defeat of Copenhagen is being successfully addressed only by this Dialectical Materialist, and in doing so, re-vitalises Marxism across the board, and helps prepare us for the coming major task - the Final Overthrow of Capitalism!

Shouldn't YOU be involved?

Marxism & Physics

This paper was written for a new series of publications, here and on Shape Journal, exploring how Marxist theory can solve the problems in modern physics. 

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.

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

"Words, terms, phrases can be separated from the creature of their language and used as mere labels. They then become inert and empty. The repetitive use of acronyms is a simple example of this. Most mainstream political discourse today is composed of words that, separated from any creature of language, are inert. And such dead “word-mongering” wipes out memory and breeds a ruthless complacency." JB

Very interesting piece by Berger for the Guardian newspaper on language and writing as a process of understanding - he always was a hero of mine!

Link to article

Building with Other People’s Bricks

Or References, References, References!

Though an academic, I am not a great fan of references.

Indeed, readers of my writings will notice an almost complete absence of these links to other people’s prior work, which may be surprising as such are always considered absolutely essential in the academic world. And, the arguments for these seem to be totally sound: credit where credit is due, a useful path to detailed relevant prior works, and many others.

But, I still wont do it, and the question has to be, “Why?” It is certainly not because I don’t gain from the contributions of others, so why should I be so adamant about it?

It is to do with one's purposes in doing research and publishing the results. In a perfect world where the philosophical ground was totally sound, and, therefore, needed no correcting, such a method would be absolutely correct. But, that isn’t our world, and never has been.

The main problem we face is in our unavoidable, intellectual inheritance – the paradigms and the principles, and even the “banker” facts, entities and methods that are considered to be both necessary and available, are actually never of that assumed, ideal kind. Indeed, clear problems could be, and indeed have been, unaddressed for centuries in the modern world, and for tens of millennia at earlier times in Mankind’s short history. We are, at the same time, informed, and yet also manacled, by our previous understandings.

Now, if all this is true, think what it will mean if we accept the status quo generally, and are only rearranging, or updating, a few of these "bricks". We are very unlikely to come upon the major anomalies in our current position and then attempt a complete overhaul of our assumed bases.

In such head-down work, we are unlikely to be challenging anything crucial: we will have accepted the general stance of our colleagues and be arguing over fairly trivial additions, changes or extensions to that view. But, in saying that I don’t mean they are a waste of time, just that they will never challenge the major cracks in the foundations of our understanding.

I have, in several different disciplines chased the more accepting tasks, but they are always about “small ponds”, and it is the vast oceans that must, in the end, be tackled.

So, what delivers with new knowledge or discoveries in fundamentals?

The primary task must, first, be to always relate new things to the prevailing consensus, in an attempt to integrate it meaningfully. And, in so doing, the purpose was surely to integrate them intrinsically into that foundation to extend and strengthen it in both overall coherence and comprehensiveness.

Yet, is that always a part of most published contributions?

No, it isn’t! Indeed, I was often perplexed by the abysmal standard of so may introductions and conclusions bracketing the books of quite famous scientists (Werner Heisenberg comes immediately to mind, but it is, to be honest, a truly endemic fault).

But, surely that aspect must be imperative? For new contributions to fit together to deliver more than the sum of the individual parts, must be the objective? And, I consider that in what I publish, that has to be my major objective.

Now, trawling through many different sequences of prior contributions, none of which are addressing such imperatives, will certainly not help in that endeavour. Not knowing where each contribution is situated in a clear and overt standpoint, will only deal in un-positioned bits-and-pieces, without overt ground. I used to do this and frankly got nowhere in establishing where all the diverse contributions were grounded. In the end, it became clear that they were grounded in each other, but without the implicit, common ground being revealed. Confronted with anomalies a researcher would NOT be able to find the causes in such contributions: as their sources would always be too particular and head-down to reveal their bases.

So, with such intentions, I have to have my own systems for dealing with new contributions. What I read about only survives if it fits with what has already been turned into a coherent and comprehensive stance, which I or others have been able to muster and reveal.

But, there is also a second and equally important method.

It is one, which is aware of the anomalies present in current theories, and is constantly on the lookout for discoveries that may be appropriate to address these failures. With such a pair of criteria, you could never accuse this scientist of being head-down; he is decidedly head-up!

In saying all this, I must emphasize that this approach is not an example of old theories rejecting all that is new. In a sense that is closer to the truth about the usually employed methods, where defence of your own past contributions can swamp all other considerations. No, this alternative approach is very open to the “New”, because it has a constantly referred to agenda of problems-to-be-solved being applied to all new contributions.

Science, at its best, celebrates new features, which advance the overall understandings of Reality. So, coming across something new the two sets of criteria outlined above, must be applied.

First, does it fill a prior “gaping hole” in our current understanding, and second, does it fit into the already coherent system of ideas.

So, when reading the accounts of new contributions, it is in addressing these two aspects, and hence is never trivial. This is because Mankind simply cannot alight directly upon Absolute Truth. Indeed, the very imperative of fitting in with other prior ideas that inevitably imposes a kind of “fitting approach”.

We simplify and idealise the knowledge we gain from Reality to “make-it-fit” and hence we cannot use past knowledge as the supreme authority in assessing the new ideas. As well as demanding coherence, we must also check both the new and the old against the only final arbiter for a scientist – and that has to be Reality-as-is!

So, two very different sets of criteria are involved in assessing and interpreting new discoveries, and they can pull in opposite directions. Indeed, more often than not they do precisely that, and for very good reasons too.

Hegel in his Thinking about Thought studies realised that our quite understandable urge to fit things together, always necessitated a “bit of tailoring”, and what we achieved in that process not only delivered at least partly useable results, but also inevitably distorted things in some way. In other words, all abstractions are necessarily flawed, and the errors will come out further along the paths of attempted explanations.

It is why we must never be satisfied with merely formal equations, and always go on to explaining things too.

Indeed, he predicted that the mistakes would reveal themselves in a remarkable way.

What would emerge from any agreed set of assumptions and principles would, at some stage, be a pair of seemingly totally contradictory concepts – and, surprisingly, they would both be based upon the very same premises.

Hegel called these Dichotomous Pairs. And, there were two very different ways to handle them; the thinker could simply be a pragmatist, and use each where it fitted best, is one of them.

This eventually split Reality into two subsequent paths of explanation, and if not tackled to resolve the contradictory pair, would create new categories, or even, ultimately, separate Subjects of study – like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics etc. etc. Keeping studies within such coherent limits meant that explanations could proceed without ever transcending the contradictions.

So, if this is a mistake, what did Hegel offer as a more fruitful alternative?

Surprisingly, he did not suggest what most people attempt to do in such circumstances, which amounts to “finding out” which of the pair is irrefutable “true”, and which is, therefore, entirely false. Hegel realised that such a task was impossible and would not advance the situation one iota. For, in a sense, they were both false, so trying to give one or the other precedence would not suffice. He revealed that such Dichotomous Pairs gave us the chance to reassess the underlying bases for both. The task became to reveal exactly what the common bases for the Pair actually were. It would be hidden in the “taken-for-granted” premises on which the used lines of reasoning were based.

And, perhaps even more surprisingly, it was very often the most basic principles involved, which were the problem. To transcend such a dichotomy meant that those premises must be exposed, criticised and replaced.

Now, such a task would by no means be easy, and in spite of the discovery being, even in Hegel’s day, 2,300 years old from its first recognition (see Zeno of Elea’s Paradoxes), Mankind had not arrived at Hegel’s proffered solution. They had always taken the pragmatic routes described above, and managed to achieve a great deal without tackling this crucial problem. Even after Hegel, 200 years ago, only one group, in that extended period, not only carried on with his methodology, but also switched their overall stance from Idealism (Hegel’s position) to Materialism (which at that time was the stance of almost all scientists). But, that group, who were initially dedicated students of Hegel, were not accepted by the scientific community of that time, primarily because the new thinkers were extremely active in revolutionary circles, and because the Materialism the scientists based themselves on was very different from that of the new group.

The stance of literally all the then current scientists was embodied in the ideas expressed by the French scientist Laplace, which defined a particular form of Materialism – later to be entitled Mechanical Materialism. And, they were more than happy with their current Laplacian stance.

The constant re-appraisal of all premises certainly did not suit them! Once set upon a keen and stimulating ride, they did not want to be always analysing critically what they were doing. They wanted to get places, fast! And, even with their current stance, they still had a whole world of things to investigate by their, then well-established, methods.

So, though the obvious alliance should have been between the new Dialectical Materialists and the and the Mechanical Materialist scientists, that crucial cooperation never occurred. And, to this day, the task is still awaiting completion.

Now, that necessarily extended diversion above had to be made clear, to put the problems of the path towards Truth into some meaningful perspective.

Clearly, there are assumptions and principles (not to mention incorrectly devised and idealised entities) behind everything, and the problem of publishers of research papers becomes almost insurmountable! How can a wide variety of papers be published, which are certain, in some respects at least, to disagree with each other, without that being evident overtly in the individual contributions?

The publishers had to, on the one hand, judge whether the papers should be included or rejected, and on the other, had to, somehow, ensure that the readers of those contributions would be able to find these things, for themselves, by tracing back through the referenced influences of the writers involved. Clearly, sufficient references were the chosen method of ensuring that such a search would be possible – or so the publishers believed!

Nevertheless, that imposed provision wasn’t sufficient! And, the number of academic journals increased to limit the common premises to particular areas, so then, with some sort of consensus within the potential contributors to a given Journal, such worries could be shelved (to an extent!)

Indeed, in research, some years ago, into these references in Journals, it became clear that defined groups arose, which formed “common reference sets”, and, in fact, limited the possibilities of finding new paths via the absolute necessity of agreeing to their group consensus. Indeed, a phenomenon arose of building the new entirely with “other people’s flawed bricks”

And, this meant that, in these already existing groups of researchers, the underlying premises would not be evident, not only in the initially encountered paper, but also in the majority, if not the complete set, of the references quoted.

The new findings of a researcher, which did not conform to these common set of premises, would not be likely to be included, and if it was, the stance would have to be discerned by a study of the references, or alternatively, be included by the writer in his paper.


It is, of course, the latter policy, which the writer of this paper always follows. It is the writer’s job, not only to proffer new evidence, but also to establish the ground for it, if it in any significant way, differs from the usual consensus.

It is what this writer is doing now!

Postscript:

In this saga of academic references, some mention has to be made of the so-called “Scientific Reporters”, who regularly inhabit scientific magazines.

These people do not seem to do any science themselves, but instead (somewhat like theatre critics) trawl around the current offerings in academic journals, to reveal the alternatives being proposed to current problems. And, with such “commentators”, the whole thing is put together entirely with “other peoples bricks”. And, therefore, like Lego, various different “possible” structures are (very briefly) defined.

No real conclusions are ever made, and they are usually terminated by leaving any final judgements to be delivered by future, well-defined experiments for posterity to construct.

It’s a nice job, if you can get it, but it doesn’t usually solve much, does it?

Current Marxist Works

Some idea of what a modern day Marxist Philosopher does can be illustrated by the following lists of papers, produced by Jim Schofield during the month of August 2014. It isn’t representative of the full range of topics addressed, reflecting not only his scientific specialisms and current political priorities, nor his contributions in Sculpture and Music, but it does show what an active Marxist philosopher is doing in daily producing original work.

Indeed, the simplest description of this writer’s activities would be “One paper, 1,500 words, a day, seven days a week”. Though, of course, they don’t all end in publication, at least, not immediately. For, many pieces are seen as possible contributions to later, more comprehensive works, which will require research in various areas before they are ready for publication.

So, the first list concentrates upon current contributions produced in a single month that have already been, or will in the near future be, integrated into published works.

The second list, covering a period of about one year is of final publications in the form of contributions to General Issues or complete Special Issues of the SHAPE Journal, which is now in its sixth year, and has amounted to 61 Issues since its launch in 2009.

It is a unique publication, for it, as its name suggests, includes:-

Science, Holism, Abstraction, Philosophy & Emergence (or S.H.A.P.E.) as its contents.

This is a wholly free, Web-based Journal, and is supported by the SHAPE Blog for the usual kind of posts, and a Youtube SHAPE Channel for animations and videos. SHAPE Journal is unusual in the almost half of its Issues are Specials, in which several related papers upon a single topic are presented together, and these are useful as introductions to areas not normally evident in political Marxist publications. While others take the issues involved to much greater lengths and depth. Some idea will be demonstrated by the Special entitled The Theory of Emergences, which takes Revolutions to all aspects of Reality. And The Theory of the Double Slit, which is about the Crisis in Sub Atomic Physics and the confusing anomalies evident in the famed Double Slit Experiments. Other areas are covered from Mathematical Chaos to the Origin of Life, and even an extrapolation of Darwin’s Natural Selection to non-living developments.

Jim Schofield – August 2014

J. Schofield: Current Marxist Papers: August 2014

1 01/08/14 The Emergence of “Policeman Processes” 585

2 02/08/14 Resonances & Recursion in Pendulums 785

3 03/08/14 The Myth of Equation-Based Theories 3290

4 05/08/14 Abstracted Forms I: Quantitative 2083

5 10/08/14 Dialectics (possiblePANEL) 858

6. 11/08/14 Abstracted Forms II: Qualitative 1259

7. 13/08/14 Defeat the Tory Onslaught 641

8. 18/08/14 The Phoenix (from yjr flames) 3840

9 18/08/14 The Tasks of Marxism Today 2358

10. 18//08/14 Ecce Habilis (A sculptural symbol of Early Man) 400

11. 25./08/14 Following a Supernovae 402

12. 25/08/14 Synchronised Resonances & Recursions 910

13. 25/08/14 Zeno’s Paradoxes (possible PANEL) 387

14. 25/08/14 The Contradictory Bases in Science 1487

15. 26/08/14 Clean Hands Profit? 550

16. 28/08/14 To Be, or Not To Be? 1025

17. 30/08/14 Reality and Mind 975

TOTAL 21385

These were current efforts, and only rarely final works, ready for publication. Most are also notes, paragraphs or chapters intended for later, larger works. Also many concurrent corrections and additions to prior papers are not included here, and these probably compose around a third of the total output in any period.

To access the bulk of this author’s published writings, the easiest place is on the Web at the following sites:-

SHAPE Journal (61 issues) SHAPE Blog (250 posts)+ SHAPE Channel on Youtube (6 videos)

Or alternatively direct contact can be made with Jim Schofield - jim@bild-art.co.uk

Recent Issues of SHAPE Journal

June 2013 Wave/Particle Integration Special 20

June 2013 The Loka Sutta Spedial 21

July 2013 Marxism III Special 22

July 2013 Programming Today Issue 31

Aug 2013 The Evolution of Matter Special 23

Sept 2013 Rethinking Physics Issue 32

Dec 2013 The Holist Revolution Special 24

Jan 2014 The Logic of Change Issue 33

March 2014 Yves Couder’s Experiments Special 25

April 2014 Mathematical Chaos I Special 26

June 2014 Myths of Tegmark I Issue 34

July 2014 Analogistic Models I Special 27

Key Early Issues of SHAPE Journal

July 2010 The Theory of Emergences Special 1

Fec 2011 The Theory of the Double Slit Special 3

This paper was taken from the latest Special Issue of SHAPE (29, Work in Progress)

A Peak in Darien?

This long series of papers, in both Science and Philosophy, may seem like an intellectual self-indulgence, but that certainly is not the case! For, such flights of brilliance can only be indulged in by the very clever, who can always make silk purses out of sow’s ears with relative ease, and have the requisite vested interests to pass off such frauds as the real thing.

No! These particular efforts are the culmination of a very difficult 55 years of effort in the attempted resolution of difficulties within my chosen specialism of Physics.

And these studies were both made harder, and yet were also remarkably revealed, by a much wider set of experiences (to a serious level) in many other equally demanding disciplines from Politics to Teaching, to Geology and Evolution, and even to Sculpture to Ballet.

But, unlike the Hegelian Emergences (in Thinking alone), this realisation has had a truly enormous gestation period, along with other major threats to health and even life, which made the effort to find a solution both increasingly conceivable and also extremely urgent too.

The real problem has been the major crises, which beset Mankind in its attempts to understand Reality. For, each and every major gain has also, and inevitably, always then been an ever more debilitating restraint on taking things further, and the Emergences necessary to transcend each consequent impasse have become all the more difficult to arrive at.

Conceptions of “Truth” are always over-rated, and get in the way of taking things further, in the form of ideas of “progress” and “correct method”. For, such realisations, when they occur, are indeed miracles of an amazing order. For, here is a remarkable product of the evolution of Reality – namely Life, which, in its further development in Mankind, has produced the first product of this evolutionary process to be in a position to attempt to understand it! Yet, in no way was Man endowed with the readymade tools for the job.

For, as with the early hominin Homo Habilis, he had to learn to actually make the tools necessary for effectively tackling such questions. And also, in the same way as Homo Habilis’s flint tools, they would not only open up entirely new vistas, but even brand-new ways of thinking too, while, at the same time, be strongly-limiting fetters, incapable of going beyond a certain level.

In modern Sub Atomic Physics, the gathered masters of that area of study finally insisted that Mankind could never understand this crucial area, as it was totally outside our experience, and hence our ability to make sense of what was occurring there. You simply had to give up trying to actually understand, and instead use pragmatic rules and laws to get the required results.

But, of course, they were entirely wrong!

The whole history of Mankind has been one of self-construction! Man may not have been genetically equipped with all the necessary tools, BUT he was genetically developed enough to actually find wholly new methods. There is NO congenital limit to Homo Sapiens - ourselves. Its adaptions for success have been primarily in the development of its brain and thinking. It doesn’t come with anything but the most basic congenital skills: most of what Mankind needs and uses has had to be both found and learned, and in that no other known organism in the Universe gets anywhere near Man’s abilities in this area.

Yet, periods of transcending the old and established, and constructing the new, don’t just fall into our laps. Many Dark Ages can last for millennia, and some of the restraints upon Mankind’s current thinking have been unchallenged for several hundreds of years.

The Solvay Conference, at which the physicists gave up the imperative to understand Reality, was in 1927 – 87 years ago, and until now (2014) no one has been able to demolish that disastrous Copenhagan Retreat, and construct an alternative. Until now, that is!

As a famous revolutionary once said, “The situation for a revolution isn’t just ready for occurring, it is now well over-ripe”. And so, it is vested intellectual and financial interests that are now so well entrenched that wars are more likely than revolutions. And, to overturn the current establishment is now a great deal bigger than a national revolution: it has become a global task!

But, that is what, in Physics, is beginning to happen.

At first, slowly and spasmodically, individual scientists attempt to transcend the limitations imposed by past gains, and consequent vested interests. Ever since Charles Darwin, and (much later) Stanley Miller, individuals (like Yves Couder) have continued to make new kinds of attempts to tackle the seemingly impossible problems inevitable from the working through of past banker positions.

In the last decade Yves Couder has developed a wholly new method of experimentation, which involved the deliberate construction of a tailor-made analogue set up, to help to solve the seeming impasses in Sub Atomic Physics, by moving the action wholesale into the much easier macro areas.

All such trail-blazers were, and still are, Holistic in their approach to Science, rather than pluralistic, and in their work and methods are the key pointers to a new and essential approach, which, for the first time, can tackle Reality-as-is, rather than the usual artificially set up and maintained experimental Domains.

Before us lies a new Ocean, of colossal extent and a new richness, and to glimpse its possibilities must be like the very first view of the Pacific, from a Peak in Darien many centuries ago.

Slavoj Žižek - The Safe and Useful Rebel?

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

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

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

Is it the man in the street? Definitely not!

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

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

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

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

Slavoj ŽiŽek seems to be the perfect example of this!

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

Isn’t that stimulating?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So ŽiŽek’s introduction establishes an amazing position!

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

WHAT?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum

Once more into the breech, dear friends!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, whom were they used against?

Any Marxist would know that immediately!

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