{"id":1712,"date":"2012-01-30T19:56:24","date_gmt":"2012-01-31T03:56:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/?p=1712"},"modified":"2012-01-30T21:01:38","modified_gmt":"2012-01-31T05:01:38","slug":"resurrecting-reality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/resurrecting-reality\/","title":{"rendered":"Resurrecting Reality"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>

tranquil image of a continually transforming space; fixed operating theatre for human dynamics?<\/p><\/div>\n

All my philosophical investigations have led me back to \u2018the mathematics of belief\u2019; to the type of \u2018reason\u2019 and \u2018logic\u2019 we use to \u2018make sense\u2019 of our experiencing of the world, and in the case of Western civilization, to ‘bury reality’ beneath it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mathematics derives from symmetries and our sensory experience reveals to us two different types of symmetries that I will call the type 1. symmetry -\u2018fluid-conjugate-nonlocal\u2019 as in the spherical-radial symmetry of the bubble that forms when we exhale under water.\u00a0 The \u2018form\u2019 of the bubble arises from the conjugate relational between outside-inward force and inside-outward force as is evident from the expansion of the bubble as it rises towards the surface, a changing outside-inward force that we \u2018feel\u2019 by way of our sensory experience.\u00a0 In other words, the growing or shrinking \u2018form\u2019 is not the primary phenomena, the primary phenomena is the pervasive tendency in nature to seek balance between outside-inward and inside-outward forces.\u00a0 Convection cells are a kind of \u2018archetypeal\u2019 exemplar for this innate-in-nature balance-seeking.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, in the above description I used the word \u2018force\u2019 where I would normally use the word \u2018pressure\u2019 [force per unit area] to facilitate comparison with the type 2. symmetry -\u2018solid-oppositional-local\u2019 as in the bilateral symmetry in the human body or the cylindrical symmetry of a tree [the tree has \u2018radial symmetry\u2019 in a flat planar cross-section].\u00a0 While the \u2018forces\u2019 in operation in the development of plants and animals [e.g. humans] have been the topic of philosophical argument; e.g. Lamarck and Nietzsche contend that such development or \u2018evolution\u2019 arises from a \u2018fluid-process\u2019 where \u2018endosmosis\u2019 [outside-inward flow] and \u2018exosmosis\u2019 [inside-outward flow] are in conjugate relation.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 This is consistent with the view that the world dynamic is \u2018transformation\u2019 of what is \u2018in place\u2019 as seems to make sense with the fact that the biosphere persists in spherical shape and volume while the forms within it, including human forms are in a continual flow of genesis and degeneration.\u00a0 That is, genesis and degeneration are dual aspects of the one primary dynamic of transformation of spatial-relations.<\/span><\/p>\n

But my intention is to first recall the basic symmetries in nature that are foundational to reason and logic, so at this point the only thing we need note is that there is a type 2. symmetry which is \u2018local\u2019, where things extend in mirror image outward from a local central axis (bilateral or mirror symmetry).\u00a0 The cylindrical symmetry of the tree is kind of halfway between type 1. and type 2. but I have included it in type 2. because of the common sense that a tree develops outward from its centre, rather than being like the type 1. bubble, the forces underlying its growth\/development being \u2018nonlocal\u2019 as is the case for \u2018fluid dynamics\u2019 in general.\u00a0 That is to say, in the case of the development of the bubble-form, \u00a0the visual appearance is at odds with the actual development forces; it APPEARS as if \u2018the bubble is doing the growing\u2019 but the \u2018bubble-form\u2019 arises from the tendency in nature for outside-inward accommodating and inside-outward asserting forces to attain and sustain balance.<\/span><\/p>\n

From these two types of symmetries, two different forms of logic arise that are available to support our \u2018reasoning\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

Our sensory experience, which is the sole source that allows us to invent logical ways of conceptualizing \u2018reality\u2019, informs us of the outside-inward influence that resists or receptively accommodates our movements such as the expansion of our chest in breathing when we dive deep into the water.\u00a0\u00a0 We do not need to \u2018see\u2019 a bubble expand in order to \u2018feel\u2019 this simultaneous conjugate relation of outside-inward accommodating and inside-outward asserting influences.\u00a0 We can feel it as well in climbing a mountain.<\/span><\/p>\n

But if we start with our visual sensing experience rather than our experience of feeling inclusion in something, can start with imagery in which \u2018forms\u2019 in the plural, different forms that we can \u2018enumerate\u2019 are visible.\u00a0\u00a0 A \u2018form\u2019 is a \u2018local entity\u2019 and we can develop Aristotelian logic based on our sighting of it; i.e. it seems to make sense to say that the form is a material entity that \u2018exists\u2019 or \u2018does not exist\u2019, \u2018is\u2019 or \u2018is not\u2019.\u00a0 This imputing of \u2018logical existence\u2019 to a visible local material \u2018form\u2019 gives it a \u2018persisting identity\u2019 that we can attach a label to, such as \u2018Katrina\u2019 [as we do in the case of hurricanes].\u00a0 This logic of persisting identity [of \u2018is\u2019 versus \u2018is not\u2019 existence] is the popular choice of logic to undergird Western \u2018reasoning\u2019.\u00a0 If we let \u2018K\u2019 stand for Katrina, this logic says that it is impossible for K to equal not.K; i.e. there is no \u2018third thing\u2019, \u2018L\u2019 that is, at the same time, equal to \u2018K\u2019 and at the same time to \u2018not.K\u2019, hence Aristotelian logic is \u2018the logic of the excluded third\u2019.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

So, that\u2019s what our \u2018visual perception of persisting local forms\u2019 allows to do, to invent the logic of the excluded third, the logic that assigns persisting \u2018identity\u2019 to a visual form.<\/span><\/p>\n

Of course, in a fluid dynamical space such as the flow of the atmosphere, \u2018forms\u2019 are purely relative; i.e. they are continually transforming spatial relations as in type 1. symmetry.\u00a0 Their development and persistence is nonlocal and the sense of \u2018localness\u2019 or \u2018local existence\u2019 that we may associate with the visual imagery is something we impose on the visual image by its closed form symmetry; e.g. we can \u2018impute\u2019 a local centre to any \u2018closed form\u2019 symmetry.<\/span><\/p>\n

Does symmetry exist before we observe it?\u00a0 Is the symmetry \u2018out there\u2019 as a property of the object we are observing?\u00a0 Or is symmetry \u2018in here\u2019 in the psyche of the observer who then imposes it on what is \u2018out there\u2019?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

using 'idealization' to 'correct' the senses in constructing reality.<\/p><\/div>\n

Does the \u2018triangle\u2019 that intersects with the three circular black objects \u2018exist\u2019 \u2018out there\u2019 or does it exist firstly \u2018in here\u2019 in our minds and we impose it on \u2018out there\u2019?\u00a0\u00a0 Does the form of anything exist \u2018out there\u2019 since the lines and surfaces we use to \u2018give it form\u2019 seem to be a function of our \u2018macro-viewing\u2019 and if we use a microscope and then an electron microscope these \u2018apparently\u2019 continuous form-lines break up and become a kind of \u2018connect-the-atomic-dots\u2019 puzzle where the previously discrete distinction between the \u2018outside\u2019 and the \u2018inside\u2019 of the object becomes blurry and problematic.<\/span><\/p>\n

Maybe this question of mutual exclusion of \u2018inside\u2019 and \u2018outside\u2019 is a false dichotomy.<\/span><\/p>\n

That is, in the case of the \u2018symmetry of our feeling experience\u2019 when we dive into the water, the outside-inward accommodating that is in conjugate relation with our inside-outward asserting \u00a0is impossible to convey in a visual image.\u00a0 In our \u2018feeling experience\u2019, the question of \u2018is it in here\u2019 or \u2018is it out there\u2019 does not arise since such \u2018feeling\u2019 is inherently \u2018relative\u2019 or \u2018relational\u2019, arising from the conjugate spatial-relational dynamic<\/em> of \u2018in here\u2019 and \u2018out there\u2019.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This was Henri Poincar\u00e9\u2019s point in his public argument with Bertrand Russell; i.e. Poincar\u00e9 argued that one cannot use the word \u2018perception\u2019 as Russell did, as if we knew what it meant, because \u2018visual perception\u2019 and \u2018feeling experience\u2019 are different forms of perception.\u00a0\u00a0 As Poincar\u00e9 further observed, the \u2018objects\u2019 that come to us through our visual sensing, that we construe to be \u2018local material objects\u2019 of the \u2018is\u2019 rather than \u2018is not\u2019 persisting identity type, become possibilities thanks to the notion of absolute space, space that is fixed, empty and infinite [Euclidian space], a space that does not participate in the dynamic behaviour [development, motion, interaction] of \u2018local material objects\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

This \u2018absolute\u2019, non-participating space reference frame, is what makes it possible to speak of the development and activity of these \u2018local objects\/organisms\/systems\u2019 as if this development and activity belonged to these \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 But this absolute space is an arbitrary \u2018reference-space-framing-concept\u2019 we impose on the data of our sensory experiencing, and it is the simplest of such \u2018geometric spaces\u2019 in the manner that a polynomial of degree one is simpler than a polynomial of degree two [Poincar\u00e9].\u00a0 In a spherical space, there is no such concept as \u2018local\u2019 and everything is framed by everything else in that space, by the web of spatial-relations it is situationally included in.\u00a0 This is arguably like the space of the earth\u2019s biosphere, and in this space we cannot realistically speak in terms of \u2018things moving\u2019 or of \u2018things growing\/developing\u2019 because in a web of spatial relations there can only be \u2018transformation\u2019 of those spatial relations.<\/span><\/p>\n

In such a space, \u2018the genesis of things\u2019, the \u2018degeneration of things\u2019 are no longer possible, genesis and degeneration are dual aspects of the one dynamic of transformation.\u00a0 In such a space, there is similarly no \u2018growth\u2019 and no \u2018decline\u2019 just as there is no \u2018creation\u2019 and no \u2018elimination\u2019, nor is there \u2018movement\u2019 or \u2018stasis\u2019, since all these words depend upon the persisting existence of local objects, and in spherical space, dynamics can refer only to \u2018transformation of spatial relations\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nietzsche\u2019s world view was one which assumed we live in a transformational space and that we (our Western scientific culture) had confounded ourselves by letting ourselves, our understanding and our behaviour, be informed by our \u2018scientific reasoning\u2019 based on over-simplistic Aristotelian logic of the excluded third, the logic that supports the \u2018local existence of material objects\u2019, a logic that builds from the assumed \u2018reality\u2019 of visual sensing that separates \u2018in here\u2019 from\u2019 out there\u2019 and that we allow to over-ride our \u2018feeling experience\u2019 wherein \u2018in here\u2019 and \u2018out there\u2019 are in conjugate relation, making \u2018visible form\u2019 secondary, as in the bubbles from our exhalations following our dive into watery depths, that seem to \u2018grow\u2019 as they rise towards the surface rises.\u00a0 Meanwhile it is not that \u2018these local form grow\u2019, it is that the evolution of form is the conjugate relation between endosmosis [outside-inward accommodating flow-pressure] and exosmosis [inside-outward asserting flow-pressure].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

While the logic of the excluded third [Aristotelian logic] associates with the simplest of all geometries of space [Euclidian], the logic of transformation that associates with curved\/spherical space is the \u2018logic of the INCLUDED third\u2019 where self \u2018S\u2019 and other \u2018O\u2019 are two VISUALLY different \u2018inhabitants\u2019 that are both, at the same time, equal to a \u2018third\u2019 entity, namely, \u2018H\u2019 (habitat).\u00a0 This third \u2018H\u2019 entity, \u00a0\u2018habitat\u2019, is the \u2018not.S\u2019 and \u2018not.O\u2019 space that includes them both, in the manner that the flow of the atmosphere includes hurricanes \u2018S\u2019ally and \u2018O\u2019scar.<\/span><\/p>\n

As it turns out, physicists \u2018split\u2019 on whether to conceive of space as an energy-charged plenum in which local material objects should be conceived of as \u2018excitations\u2019 of the spatial-plenum or as \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 The physicists who favoured the former, Mach, Poincar\u00e9, Bohm, Schroedinger \u2018lost out\u2019 to those who favoured the latter [see https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/transformation-where-production-and-destruction-are-conjugates\/<\/span><\/a> ] so that \u2018science\u2019 and \u2018the scientific viewpoint\u2019, as it shapes our world view, continues to be grounded in the absolutes of local material existence.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nietzsche, who was greatly influenced by the works of his contemporary Ernst Mach, explained how scientific thinking based on Aristotelian logic and its idealizations of absolute non-participating space inhabited by absolute local materially existing objects\/organisms, was confounding our minds and actions so as to infuse dysfunction into our shared living space.\u00a0 Nietzsche made the following points;<\/span><\/p>\n

I. The world dynamic is transformational<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cAnd do you know what \u201cthe world\u201d is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income \u2026\u201d \u2013Nietzsche, \u2018The Will to Power\u2019, 1067<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

II. Our \u2018subjectifying\u2019 language facilitates the isolating of dynamic flow-forms as \u2018things-in-themselves\u2019 with \u2018their own in-their-own-right behaviours\u2019;<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cOur judgement has us conclude that every change must have an author\u201d;\u2013but this conclusion is already mythology: it separates that which effects from the effecting. If I say \u201clightning flashes,\u201d I have posited the flash once as an activity and a second time as a subject, and thus added to the event a being that is not one with the event but is rather fixed, \u201cis\u201d and does not \u201cbecome.\u201d\u2013To regard an event as an \u201ceffecting,\u201d and this as being, that is the double error, or interpretation, of which we are guilty.\u201d \u2013 Nietzsche, \u2018Will to Power\u2019, 531<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

III. \u2018Reason\u2019 based on the local existence of material objects is \u2018appearance\u2019 not \u2018truth\u2019.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cReason\u201d is the cause of our falsification of the testimony of the senses. Insofar as the senses show becoming, passing away, and change, they do not lie. But Heraclitus will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction. The \u201capparent\u201d world is the only one [available to our visual sensing]<\/span>: the \u201ctrue\u201d world is merely added by a lie.\u201d \u2013 Nietzsche, \u2018Twilight of the Idols\u2019<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

IV.\u00a0 Being unable to affirm and deny \u2018existence\u2019 is \u2018our inability\u2019, not a \u2018fact of life\u2019; i.e. our inability to say whether visible forms are \u2018out there\u2019 or \u2018in here\u2019.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWe are unable to affirm and to deny one and the same thing: this is a subjective empirical law, not the expression of any \u201cnecessity\u201d but only of an inability.<\/span><\/p>\n

If, according to Aristotle, the law of contradiction is the most certain of all principles, if it is the ultimate and most basic, upon which every demonstrative proof rests, if the principle of every axiom lies in it; then one should consider all the more rigorously what presuppositions already lie at the bottom of it. Either it asserts something about. actuality, about being, as if one already knew this from another source; that is, as if opposite attributes could not be ascribed to it. Or the proposition means: opposite attributes should not be ascribed to it. In that case, logic would be an imperative, not to know the true, but to posit and arrange a world that shall be called true by us.<\/span><\/p>\n

In short, the question remains open: are the axioms of logic adequate to reality or are they a means and measure for us to create reality, the concept \u201creality,\u201d for ourselves.?\u2013To affirm the former one would, as already said, have to have a previous knowledge of being\u2013which is certainly not the case. The proposition therefore contains no criterion of truth, but an imperative concerning that which should count as true.<\/span><\/p>\n

Supposing there were no self-identical \u201cA\u201d, such as is presupposed by every proposition of logic (and of mathematics), and the \u201cA\u201d were already mere appearance, then logic would have a merely apparent world as its condition. In fact, we believe in this proposition under the influence of ceaseless experience which seems continually to confirrn it. The \u201cthing\u201d\u2013that is the real substratum of \u201cA\u201d; our belief in things is the precondition of our belief in logic. The \u201cA\u201d of logic is, like the atom, a reconstruction of the thing\u2013If we do not grasp this, but make of logic a criterion of true being, we are on the way to positing as realities all those hypostases: substance, attribute, object, subject, action, etc.; that is, to conceiving a metaphysical world, that is, a \u201creal world\u201d (\u2013this, however, is the apparent world once more\u2013).<\/span><\/p>\n

The very first acts of thought, affirmation and denial, holding true and holding not true, are, in as much as they presuppose, not only the habit of holding things true and holding them not true, but a right to do this, already dominated by the belief that we can gain possession of knowledge, that judgments really can hit upon the truth;\u2013in short, logic does not doubt its ability to assert something about the true-in-itself (namely, that it cannot have opposite attributes).<\/span><\/p>\n

Here reigns the coarse sensualistic prejudice that sensations teach us truths about things\u2013that I cannot say at the same time of one and the same thing that it is hard and that it is soft. (The instinctive proof \u201cI cannot have two opposite sensations at the same time\u201d\u2013quite coarse and false.)<\/span><\/p>\n

The conceptual ban on contradiction proceeds from the belief that we are able to form concepts, that the concept not only designates the essence of a thing but comprehends it\u2013In fact, logic (like geometry and arithmetic) applies only to fictitious entities that we have created. Logic is the attempt to comprehend the actual world by means of a scheme of being posited by ourselves; more correctly, to make it formulatable and calculable for us\u2014\u201c \u2014Nietzsche, \u2018Will to Power\u2019, 516 (Spring-Fall 1887; rev. Spring-Fall 1888)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

V.\u00a0\u00a0 \u2018Transformation\u2019 is \u2018nonlocal\u2019 in origin as in field-effects [gravity is everywhere at the same time] and can be visualized by \u2018inference\u2019; i.e. as from a continually transforming web of spatial relations.\u00a0 Evolution thus seen is Lamarckian not Darwinian;<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cAnti-Darwinism.. \u2014 The utility of an organ does not explain its origin; on the contrary! For most of the time during which a property is forming it does not preserve the individual and it is of no use to him, least of all in the struggle with external circumstances and enemies.<\/span><\/p>\n

What, after all, is \u201cuseful\u201d? One must ask \u201cuseful in relation to what?\u201d E.g., that which is useful for the long life of the individual might be unfavorable to its strength and splendour; that which preserves the individual might at the same time arrest and halt its evolution. On the other hand, a \u2018deficiency\u2019, a \u2018degeneration\u2019, can be of the highest utility in so far as it acts as a stimulant to other organs. In the same way, a state of need can be a condition of existence, in so far as it reduces an individual to that measure of expenditure that holds it together but prevents it from squandering itself. \u2014The individual itself as a struggle between parts (for food, space etc.): its evolution tied to the victory or predominance of individual parts, to an atrophy, a \u2018becoming an organ\u2019 of other parts.<\/span><\/p>\n

The influence of \u201cexternal circumstances\u201d is overestimated by Darwin to a ridiculous extent: the essential thing in the life process is precisely the tremendous shaping, form-creating force working from within which \u2018utilizes\u2019 and \u2018exploits\u2019 \u201cexternal circumstances\u201d \u2014 The new forms molded from within are not formed with an end in view; but in the struggle of the parts a new form is not left long without being related to a partial usefulness and then, according to its use, develops itself more and more completely.\u201d \u2013 Nietzsche, \u2018The Will to Power\u2019, 647<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

~^~<\/span><\/p>\n

The above points made by Nietzsche are, in their main import, the same understandings that have emerged from my own philosophical investigations, and they put Nietzsche\/myself \u2018at odds\u2019 with the popular, globally dominating \u2018Western\u2019 world view which is grounded in the idealized \u2018existence\u2019 of local material objects and dynamics understood in terms of \u2018the doer-deed [cause-effect] actions\u2019 of these local material existences [material bodies, organisms, system].<\/span><\/p>\n

If our experience \u2018starts\u2019 from a dive in the ocean and this sense of inclusion in a spatial-medium so that our actions are not one-sidedly sourced from within us, but arise as a conjugate relation between outside-inward accommodating influence and inside-outward asserting influence, this informs us that the shaping of \u2018material forms\u2019 derives from the dynamics of the spatial medium [habitat-dynamic] as much as it derives from the inside-outward asserting tendencies of the \u2018inhabitants\u2019 of the spatial medium.\u00a0 Once we allow that dynamic forms are \u2018relative\u2019 rather than absolute, our understanding of \u2018dynamics\u2019 is in terms of the \u2018transformation\u2019 of spatial relations.<\/span><\/p>\n

But once we go beyond understanding \u2018visual forms\u2019 as \u2018appearances\u2019 and instead assume as \u2018reality\u2019, the absolute local existence of material objects\/organisms\/systems, then in one fell stroke, we impute the sourcing of dynamics to these inhabitants of the habitat, reducing the \u2018habitat\u2019 to a non-participating \u2018theatre of operations\u2019, an idealized x,y,z,t reference frame that allows us to \u2018measure\u2019 the shape of the material objects as local beings and to \u2018measure\u2019 their growth and decline; i.e. \u2018THEIR\u2019 evolution and \u2018THEIR\u2019 behavioural dynamics.<\/span><\/p>\n

Try these flip in understanding a few times, from transformational space where inhabitants are relational forms to absolute space inhabited by absolute locally existing material inhabitants.\u00a0 It can be likened to flipping from a curved space reference frame to a rectangular space reference frame.\u00a0\u00a0 The former relates to the latter in the manner that a polynomial of degree two relates to a polynomial of degree one [Poincar\u00e9].\u00a0 In other words, as tools to help us understand our self and the world we live in, if we start from the former, it includes as a special case, the latter, but if we start from the latter, it blinds us to any awareness of the former.\u00a0 If we started from the latter in the case of the forms known as \u2018hurricanes\u2019, by imputing to them their own source of local development and behaviour, we would blinder ourselves to the reality of the nonlocal, non-visible, non-material [energy-charged spatial-plenum based] sourcing, not only of the development and dynamical behaviour of the material forms, but of the emergence of the material forms.<\/span><\/p>\n

Given that our Western culture opted to equate visual appearances, as in \u2018local material objects\u2019 to \u2018reality\u2019, it followed as a \u2018logical necessity\u2019 [to sustain logical consistency or non-contradiction] to explain \u2018dynamics\u2019 not as emerging from the transformation of an energy-charged spatial plenum, but, since absolute local material \u2018parts\u2019 imply absolute non-part-icipating space, as associating with the dynamical behaviour of the local material objects\/organisms\/systems [corporations, sovereign states etc.].\u00a0 That is, once absolute local material beings are assumed, it follows as a logical necessity to explain dynamic phenomena in terms of the \u2018behaviours of things-in-themselves\u2019, and to \u2018pull this off\u2019, it was necessary to invent the concept of \u2018force\u2019 as an answer to the question \u2018what is the source of change?\u2019, or \u2018why does the world unfold the way it does?<\/span><\/p>\n

When we invent \u2018force\u2019 as an answer to this question, in the case where we assume that space is a non-participant and all dynamical behaviour derives from the actions\/interactions of local material objects\/organisms\/systems, \u2018force\u2019 is also an \u2018absolute\u2019 concept in the sense that it \u2018originates locally out of nowhere\u2019 as an assertive directional \u2018push\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 This contradicts our sensory experience of diving into the water and feeling \u2018force\u2019 as a relative outside-inward — inside-outward conjugate relation.\u00a0 This agrees with Newton\u2019s third law wherein \u2018every asserting force encounters an equal and opposite resisting force\u2019; i.e. \u2018forces\u2019 seem to come in \u2018conjugate pairs\u2019.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In the relational space of our experience it is impossible to split apart the assertive and accommodating aspects of force.\u00a0 In logic and mathematics, it is perfectly possible to do so.\u00a0 Mathematical physics does it by inventing two types of energy; \u2018potential energy\u2019 [the \u2018energy of position\u2019 within an everywhere-at-the-same-time force-field] and \u2018kinetic energy\u2019 [the \u2018energy of motion of material objects\u2019].\u00a0 \u00a0The principle of \u2018conservation of energy\u2019 decrees that while energy can transform into many different forms, heat, light, loading of springs [compression and expansion], the sum of potential and kinetic energy is always a constant.\u00a0 This principle is recognized in modern as well as classical physics.<\/span><\/p>\n

The force that breaks the body of the mouse that nibbles on the peanut butter on the mousetrap trigger appears to be \u2018locally sourced\u2019 in the trap machine, but in fact, it derives from the unloading of potential energy that accrued from activity in the remote past.\u00a0 Mathematical physics is not concerned with influences deriving from the \u2018remote past\u2019.\u00a0 Mathematical physics assumes that the present depends only on the immediate past; i.e. we look for the cause of the death of the mouse in the immediate past and that force of the blow from the metal bar striking the mouse is deemed to be \u2018the cause of the mouse\u2019s death\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 The person who \u2018charged the spring\u2019 in the trap months before is in the clear, as far as the \u2018cause\u2019 of the \u2018result\u2019 is concerned in \u2018scientific reasoning\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cOrigin of Mathematical Physics.\u00a0 Let us go further and study more closely the conditions which have assisted the development of mathematical physics.\u00a0 We recognise at the outset that the efforts of scientists have always tended to resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by our experience into a large number of elementary phenomena. And to do this in three different ways : first, with respect to time. Instead of taking into account the progressive development of a phenomenon as a whole, we simply seek to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. We assert that the present state of the world depends only on the immediate past, without being directly influenced, so to speak, by the memory of a more distant past. Thanks to this postulate, instead of studying directly the whole succession of phenomena, we may confine ourselves to writing down \u201cits differential equation\u201d<\/em> ; for the laws of Kepler, we substitute the laws of Newton.\u201d\u00a0 \u2014 \u00a0Henri Poincar\u00e9, \u2018Science and Hypothesis\u2019, Ch. \u2018Hypotheses in Physics\u2019, subsection \u201cOrigin of Mathematical Physics\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The stored energy of space is thus an invisible source of influence that is ignored in scientific thinking of the mathematical physics type that is in common use since scientific reasoning concerns itself with \u2018what things do\u2019 from moment to moment, where things are those visible forms that we impute absolute local material existence to.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus \u2018force\u2019 is a concept that answers the question \u2018what is the sourcing influence of the changes we see in terms of the developing of forms and THEIR behaviour dynamics? [actions of things and interactions between\/amongst things].\u00a0\u00a0 This visualizing of change is in terms of \u2018time\u2019; i.e. the difference between the present state of the world and the state that \u2018existed\u2019 in the immediate past.\u00a0\u00a0 This is the definition of the mathematical operation of \u2018differentiation\u2019 [ds\/dt] which is fundamental to mathematical physics and scientific thinking.\u00a0 This concept depends upon the notion of \u2018absolutes states of existence\u2019 and sees the world dynamic in terms of a time-based \u2018PROGRESSION\u2019 from one \u2018state of existence\u2019 to the next \u2018state of existence\u2019.\u00a0 Underlying this notion of the world dynamic is the assumption that \u2018the present depends only on the immediate past\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

Consider the case of the surface temperature [temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of molecules] on the surface of the earth.\u00a0\u00a0 We know from experience that air temperature is moderated by melting lumps of ice since melting absorbs thermal energy from \u2018the surroundings\u2019.\u00a0 Glaciers and permafrost melting due to ambient air temperature lower the temperature of the air relative to what it would otherwise be (due to thermal energy infusions from direct and indirect solar irradiance and retarded releases from thermal energy stored in ocean waters etc.).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Glaciers and permafrost have generally been \u2018deposited\u2019 in the remote (very remote) past, but so long as they persist and melt, like the block of ice in our ice-box, they continue to moderate air temperature, less so as the surface area of ice diminishes.\u00a0 Thus the air temperature and surface temperatures we measure in the present are moderated directly out of the remote past.\u00a0 Therefore, a theory of \u2018climate change\u2019 based on the present proportions of different gases that make up the atmosphere, which claims that changes in these proportions will immediately translate into changes in surface temperature, assume that the present temperature depends only on the immediate past.\u00a0 But as just stated, the temperature is being directly influenced from out of the remote past [the deposition of glaciers and permafrost] so that if the contents of the atmosphere remained exactly the same, the graph of surface temperature would still be rising and falling due to events coming from the remote past, which are in fact, contributing to the varying content of the atmosphere; e.g. warming ocean waters release more CO2, while cooling ocean waters precipitate more \u2018carbonates\u2019 [limestone etc].<\/span><\/p>\n

The linear model predictions of \u2018anthropogenic global warming\u2019 (AGW) are an example of this simplifying assumption that the present depends only on the immediate past, and gives rise to the usual split between those that acknowledge that physical phenomena are more complex in \u2018reality\u2019 than models based on \u2018what things do\u2019 that are founded on the assumption that the present state of the world depends only on the immediate past, an assumption that allows predictive modeling by way of differential equations.<\/span><\/p>\n

The point is that the world dynamic seen in terms of \u2018what things do\u2019 is focused solely, one-sidedly, on the realm of \u2018material kinetics\u2019 or \u2018kinetic energy\u2019 based phenomena, and this ignores the role of potential energy [energy-stored-in-space] and conversions between the two.\u00a0 Imagine if an inuit grandmother had cached supplies including food, water, snowshoes, rifles and ammunition in a number of shelters\/caches across the Yukon as she and her husband migrated across it, and many years later, the grandson \u2018crossed the Yukon\u2019, his \u2018assertive action\u2019 [kinetics] being nurtured and even orchestrated by the caches, whose locations he had been informed of.\u00a0 In the end, we say that \u2018he crossed the Yukon\u2019 because our description of dynamics is in one-sided terms of \u2018what things do\u2019.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The colonizing settlers could never have crossed the North American continent without nurturance from \u2018caches\u2019 in the form of aboriginal communities, stashed in various locations since the remote past, but in the end we speak in terms of \u2018what people do\u2019 as if their behaviour were locally originating in themselves, driven and directed from out of their own internal processes.\u00a0 We speak of the son\u2019s assertive achievements but the energy expended by the mother in terms of loading the space with potentials nurtures and amplifies the assertive kinetics of the son, bringing him rewards and recognition for his \u2018assertive achievements\u2019 (kinetic cause-effect results).\u00a0 It is impossible, in reality, to speak of the \u2018actions of the son\u2019 out of the context of the accommodating quality of the space his actions transpired in since the two are dual aspects of a single dynamic called \u2018transformation\u2019.\u00a0 As Mach\u2019s principle says; \u201cThe dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat.\u201d\u00a0 The mother is conditioning the dynamics of the habitat, charging it with potentials [feathering the nest] to make it more nurturing for the emergence and development of assertive potentialities of her offspring or the cuckoo egg chicks, neighbour kids or etc.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclusion:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The above discussion describes how we use visual sensing [images] and language and logic, together, to synthetically split out and \u2018subjectize\u2019 dynamic forms-in-the-flow [excitations in the energy-charged spatial-plenum] such as a \u2018hurricane\u2019 and\/or a \u2018human form\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

Our sensory \u2018feeling\u2019 experience, which informs us of our inclusion in a transforming spatial-relational dynamic, we allow to be over-ridden [as informant to our behaviour] by a Fiktional reality based on visual \u2018appearances\u2019 wherein we mentally re-render the world dynamic in terms of the actions\/interactions of apparently \u2018locally-existing-in-themselves material objects\/organisms\/systems\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

One we have assumed a \u2018foundation\u2019 of absolute existence of material objects within an absolute-space-operating-theatre, logical consistency requires us to come up with a schema for locally sourcing dynamic behaviour (developing of form and movement of forms) of local material objects\/organisms\/systems.\u00a0 \u00a0This has been achieved by way of the concept of \u2018force\u2019 as a locally arising answer to the ‘loaded’ questions; \u2018what is causing this form to undergo change\u2019 and \u2018what is making this form move and\/or interacting with other forms\u2019. \u00a0 The questions are ‘loaded’ because they already assume that ‘things move’ rather than ‘space transforms’. \u00a0 This idealized \u2018force\u2019 is the enabler of formulating dynamics in terms of Newton\u2019s laws and is also the enabler of Darwinian theory [in the form of a notional internally arising \u2018will-force\u2019 or \u2018purpose-force\u2019 to notionally drive behaviour from the inside-outward and to provide the motive force for notional internal \u2018genes\u2019 to drive \u2018growth\u2019 and \u2018development\u2019 from the inside-outward].\u00a0 Together with the subjectifying powers of language and the discretizing powers of Aristotelian logic, this amounts to the anointing of ‘appearances’ as ‘truth’, and casting out, in the process the ‘greater reality’ of a ‘transformational space’, the all-connecting medium of energy-charged spatial-plenum, the source of not only of the development and movement of dynamic forms but of their excitation\/gathering and re-gathering within the transforming spatial flow-plenum.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

The prior essay<\/span><\/a> in this series shows how, in all areas of our Western civilization (Economics, History, Justice, Biology, Physics, Medicine and Reason\/Logic are given as exemplars) we are experiencing \u2018collapse\u2019 or \u2018breakdown\u2019 due to the incompetence of foundational assumptions (i.e. in the foundational assumption that the world dynamic can be understood in terms of \u2018what things do\u2019, rather than in terms of \u2018transformation\u2019).<\/span><\/p>\n

Since I believe in the ‘reality’ I am presenting in these essays, I have been asked on numerous occasions what \u2018I\u2019 am doing about this impending collapse of Western civilization, and what I \u2018propose\u2019 that we all should do about it, and I would say; \u2018welcome it\u2019, ‘celebrate it’, \u2018help it arrive gracefully\u2019, \u2018be a mitigator of panic’, share a view of dynamics as transformation wherein all opposites are imposters; e.g. \u2018destruction\/production\u2019, \u2018degeneration\/genesis\u2019, \u2018growth\/decline\u2019, \u2018up\/down\u2019, \u2018left\/right\u2019, \u2018good\/evil\u2019 since \u2018transformation\u2019 within a relational space is the \u2018real\u2019 world dynamic that transcends the ‘apparent’ dynamics that jumpstart from language-and-logic-subjectified ‘visible forms’.<\/span><\/p>\n

Such understanding constitutes a resurrecting into public awareness of ‘reality’ that we have buried beneath subjectified materialist ‘appearances’ [in the Western culture] for two-and-a-half millennia.\u00a0 Reality has lain buried beneath a superficial understanding of the world dynamic in terms of \u2018what things do\u2019 [\u2018cause-and-effect\u2019] and this ‘confusing of idealization for reality’ has spawned a Western civilization dynamic that has oriented one-sidedly to \u2018making things happen\u2019, assertively achieving as if the material results attained were \u2018real\u2019 rather than \u2018appearances\u2019. \u00a0\u00a0As McLuhan pointed out, the material production of our machines [whether they produce Cadillacs or Cornflakes] matters little; what matters is the transforming of our relations with one another and with our living space.<\/span><\/p>\n

A great self-imposed weight that some philosophers have called \u2018the burden of concreteness\u2019 [from the subjectifying powers of language and the discretizing powers of logic] is being \u2018let go\u2019 and we all stand to benefit from \u2018letting it go\u2019, both as individuals and as a collective [that includes the fourlegged, winged, finned and rooted ones, rivers and sky etc.]. \u00a0\u00a0I would compare it to driving in the flow of the freeway and struggling to get through the maze in order to attain our personal destination, … and then re-visualizing ourselves as being participants in the evolving of a web of spatial relations, understanding our actions as transforming the spatial-relational web so as to open up spatial-possibility corridors to accommodate our assertive movements.\u00a0 This has a certain \u2018feel\u2019 to it that is naturally pleasing, this feeling of \u2018co-cultivating and sustaining harmonious flow in the continuing present’. \u00a0The anxieties over time-based assertive achievement aka ‘progress’ become secondary in this collective consciousness mode.\u00a0 It is a natural mode of behaving within a transforming relational space as described in Mach\u2019s principle; \u201cThe dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants at the same time as the dynamics of the inhabitants are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat.\u201d \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But what will happen to our banks that keep currency flowing in the arteries that feed our organs [organizations] and what will happen to the sovereigntist government control centres through which we sustain order by central direction and control, and what will happen to our corporations that are the primary causal agents of material production?<\/span><\/p>\n

Who knows and what does it matter anyway?\u00a0 These are the artefacts of our Western \u2018belief system\u2019 that has been confusing \u2018appearances\u2019 that we have \u2018idealized\u2019 with language and logic [into notional local material systems notionally equipped with ‘their own’ assertive\/productive dynamics] and are \u2018mistaking for reality\u2019.\u00a0 \u00a0The \u2018reality\u2019 of our natural [fullblown, not just visual] sensory experience is a \u2018reality\u2019 that is in no way a materialist \u2018doer-deed reality\u2019 but is instead a spatial-relationally transforming dynamic in which we are included participants, —\u2018ripples\/excitations in the energy-charged spatial-plenum\u2019 in Bohm and Schroedinger\u2019s terms. <\/span><\/p>\n

The materialist-illusion-born-of-confusion is in collapse.\u00a0 Vive la r\u00e9surrection! [de la r\u00e9alit\u00e9]<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0* * *<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

All my philosophical investigations have led me back to \u2018the mathematics of belief\u2019; to the type of \u2018reason\u2019 and \u2018logic\u2019 we use to \u2018make sense\u2019 of our experiencing of the world, and in the case of Western civilization, to ‘bury reality’ beneath it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1712","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-apn","count-0","even alt","author-emile","last"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1712"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1712"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1712\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1716,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1712\/revisions\/1716"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1712"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1712"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1712"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}