On The Scientific Import of Metaphor

June 17, 2015

 

 

Cusa's Four Onenesses

 

Think about it. No, really, think about “it”. What is the character of “it”? Can you describe any of it’s features? Can you tell your friends anything about “it”? Consider this for a moment.  

 

Perhaps the most readily identifiable thing about “it” is that “it” must be one. Any thing, any “it”, which you might conceive of as existing or as a subject, must be one. Since the concept of “one” is a bit more familiar to us as an object of consideration than “itness”, we can replace the word “it” or “itness” with “one” or “oneness”. Is there anything which we might discover about “oneness” itself which may be useful for our quest for knowledge? Lets start by asking some questions.

 

Is there anything that you can think of, any “it”, any one thing, which can exist without anything else? For example, pick any one of the objects in the room you are in right now. Is it possible for you to conceive of that object without also necessarily conceiving of anything else? Try it…..  You probably discovered that you are not able to think of any one thing all by itself since any one thing may require other different things to exist. Take a book for example. Try thinking about a book with no color. It’s kind of difficult isnt it? But, beyond even what might be called “perceptual elements”, you will notice that, in principle, any conceivable perceptible thing requires something other than it to exist. Try thinking of your pen without also thinking about that which is around your pen- that which is not your pen. It is not possible. Can you think of anything which does not require some other thing to exist? Anything which is not contracted in some way to another thing in order for it to be conceived of? While these examples might seem somewhat banal, they actually demonstrate a fundamental principle of existence, or at least any “thing” which you might consider to exist: That is, something other than any existing thing, any oneness, itself must also exist. We might say that everything requires an “otherness” in order to exist.

 

Here is another question: Do certain things or “onenesses” have different “otherness” requirements than other “onenesses”. That is, do certain onenesses need one kind of otherness while other onenesses need a different kind of otherness in order to exist? Are there different categories of things or onenesses which are distinguished by the difference in the way they need other things to be conceived of- distinguished from the other onenesses by the kind of “otherness” to which they are contracted? Cusa says yes. “On the basis of number mind investigates oneness as fourfold” DC.Bk.I.Ch.4.

 

Cusa elaborates a rigorous conception of the four different ways in which all things are capable of being understood, four ways in all positable things, or “onenesses”, are capable of being conceived of. The first and most simple and yet most high level, is Simple Oneness, to which nothing is opposed, and in which all thing are Absolutely unified, equal, and one. This is a oneness which actually needs no otherness to exist (and thus it is inconceivable, but intuitable only through special demonstrations). This Highest Oneness is God. The second "oneness" is the intellectual oneness. "Since whatever is not the First Oneness [God] but derives from this most absolute First cannot be understood as proceeding otherwise than towards otherness, this second oneness [Intelligence] will be most simple, as is the First, but will be an intellectual composite. But reason teaches that compositeness is from one thing and another- that is, from opposites....It originates together with opposites. Therefore, in this second oneness's root simplicity the opposites are conjoined undividedly and, yet, irreducibly." The third oneness is the rational oneness, which is a oneness who’s unifying power is still further contracted in otherness. Cusa attributes this oneness to the soul and it’s judgements: "Therefore, the soul's judgements are as two numbers, one of which is even, and the other of which is odd but which, together, are never both even or odd. Therefore, by means of reason the soul does not judge opposites to be compatible..." The fourth oneness is the perceptible, or the corporeal. The perceptible is considered as the unfolding of reason which "does not enfold anything in itself and thus does not proceed to a further number- even as the first Oneness, which enfolds all things, does not succeed number." Looking at it another way- the reason is that which is presupposed by perception, just as oneness is presupposed by all numbers. Similarly, intellect is presupposed by reason, and God is presupposed by the intellect, but there is nothing which could presuppose God.

 

Cusa makes the point that, since these levels of oneness are fundamental aspects of cognition and existence itself, there can never be a conceivable instance in which one level is completely absent. This considered, it may seem as though trying to answer the question "Can you indicate an example of what you consider to be Cusa's technique of intellectual oneness being applied to discover something?" is a little bit silly, since, according to Cusa, there is no conceivable thing, instance, or "example" within which all of these levels of oneness are not present, and thus, no conceivable discovery could have been made in the absence of the intellect's power (and we will get into this more later). However, this is is not entirely true, since in any given instance one aspect of our thinking -one of these levels of oneness- will be more prominent and recognizable/identifiable to us- a point which Cusa also makes. Thus, there must be examples of scientific discovery in which this power of intellectual thinking shines forth more clearly as a principle.

 

But before we look for specific examples, let’s quickly look at what we might consider as the levels of knowledge implied by Cusa's four level hierarchy.

 

Knowledge and Unification

 

I do not have the capability to define what knowledge is. It has been said before that something is only truthful if it tends towards the good. LaRouche has identified a similar constraint of that which might pass for knowledge, namely, that such knowledge increases the capability of mankind to exist in the universe. Mankind seeks knowledge, for without knowledge he could not possibly exist in the universe. Knowledge is a manifestation of human thinking however, and thus it must be subject to the same kinds of distinguishing factors and orderings as thought itself is subject to. In fact, it could be said that the search for knowledge presupposes our concept of oneness (for what else could you be seeking but knowledge of one subject). Cusa points this out:  "The entire power of our mind ought to focus on refining the concept of oneness, for the entire multitude of things knowable depends on the knowledge of oneness;and in all knowledge oneness is whatever is known. " Cusa- DC Bk.I.Ch10 ]  Thus, Cusa's four levels of oneness distinguish the kinds of knowledge we can have about the universe as well. It seems clear then that we should consider as a fundamental aspect of knowledge the process by which our variegated experiences and concepts are unified into a certain kind of knowable relationship, a certain kind of oneness. What then are the different kinds of unifications, corresponding to the four levels, which can be made in the search for truthful concepts, in the search for knowledge?

 

Let's examine the different kinds of conceptual unification which seem to be implied by Cusa's four level system. In science, for example, if we encounter two or more observed things (or two or more things which we arrive at through calculation based on observed things) we proceed with the attempt to form a concept of a principle which unifies them into a knowable relationship. Sometimes, this unifying concept is simply perceptual- on Cusa's fourth and lowest level. For example, we might not be able to find any relationship between two observed  things except that they have the same color. Other times, our unifying concept is simply formal/rational- Cusa’s third level. For example: we find a particular pattern of interaction or behavior which seems to relate multiple things and then use something like mathematics to describe this regularity- as in a geometrical/mathematical model of the solar system for example. Sometimes we find a unifying concept which is somewhere in between the rational and the intellectual- a conception which might be called "causal" but with the proviso that "cause" here indicates a factor of influence which is essentially rational in it's character- as an efficient cause, like “force” for example.[1] An example of this would be the cases of Kepler's dual-force physical theory in the New Astronomy, or Newton's theory of gravitation. So, in these kinds of cases, different elements are unified in the sense that they are thought of as under the influence of a common causal factor- like all the planets being unified under the common influence of the force of gravitation for example. But, in Cusa’s second level, in the intellect, our unifying concept, our oneness, is of the form which is encountered in great art. Poetry, Painting, Drama, Music- all great compositions in these domains enable the mind to be led towards a higher unifying conception which can occur even if the elements being unified seem to have no perceptual oneness, rational oneness, or even causal relationship or oneness[2]. This level of unifying conception is so powerful, that it can even unite things which are considered to be opposites into a knowable union or oneness, and thus it is sometimes called the “coincidence of opposites”. How does this intellectual quality of unifying conception occur in the domain of "science"?

 

In the art forms mentioned above, and also sometimes in other domains of human investigation, there is at least some of acceptance of this method of intellectual unification whether those who use it are fully conscious of it or not. But in studies which pertain to things other than human beings and their creations/activities, most people do not accept the idea that the intellectual concepts and unifying principles which are common to poetry, music etc. can in any way be applied. Today, the term "science" seems to refer to the study of anything but mankind. However, if we take Cusa's thesis to be correct, then we would necessarily admit that all things, the "objective world" included, must be capable of being understood in an intellectual way. (Else we would have no pathway to truth, to God, through the investigations of these things). This considered, lets look at some examples of the coincidence of opposites, or intellectual unification, in artistic domains. Doing so may give us some clues as to how such onenesses might be found in the domain of the objects of scientific investigation..

 

 

The Coincidence of Opposites

 

Here we have the first sonnet from William Shakespeare's collection. Let's read it.

 

From fairest creatures we desire increase,

That thereby beauty's rose might never die,

But as the riper should by time decease,

His tender heir might bear his memory:

But thou contracted to thine own bright eyes,

Feed'st thy light's flame with self-substantial fuel,

Making a famine where abundance lies,

Thy self thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel:

Thou that art now the world's fresh ornament,

And only herald to the gaudy spring,

Within thine own bud buriest thy content,

And, tender churl, mak'st waste in niggarding:

   Pity the world, or else this glutton be,

   To eat the world's due, by the grave and thee.

 

While the sonnet can be taken in it's entirety as unified by a single intention of the intellectual type, I will only use one or two lines (in the context of the whole) to illustrate the principle of the coincidence of opposites. You can find it!

 

Here we have the second sonnet from William Shakespeare’s collection.

 

When forty winters shall besiege thy brow,

And dig deep trenches in thy beauty's field,

Thy youth's proud livery so gazed on now,

Will be a totter'd weed of small worth held:

Then being asked, where all thy beauty lies,

Where all the treasure of thy lusty days;

To say, within thine own deep sunken eyes,

Were an all-eating shame, and thriftless praise.

How much more praise deserv'd thy beauty's use,

If thou couldst answer 'This fair child of mine

Shall sum my count, and make my old excuse,'

Proving his beauty by succession thine!

   This were to be new made when thou art old,

   And see thy blood warm when thou feel'st it cold.

 

Again, which line or lines displays most sharply the coincidence of opposites?

 

What incredible power this unification has! Two mutually exclusive things simultaneously co-existing and yet each true by virtue of this higher metaphorical/intellectual union. There is a concept, a principle which Shakespeare is here communicating. The communication of this concept cannot be done but by juxtaposing these opposites. (Try it, and you will surely fail!) So, here we have concepts, very truthful concepts, very knowledgeable concepts, which are the unification of two opposites.

 

Are "Opposites" Necessary?

 

Now in these examples of the coincidence of opposites, the opposite concepts being unified are quite opposite indeed- they are things which we know to be mutually exclusive: warm and cold, famine and abundance etc. This might lead us to conclude that this quality of unification, intellectual unification, requires that the elements being unified are absolute diametrical opposites. That would also seem to be implied in the name "coincidence of opposites". However, this is not the case. Cusa says "But reason teaches that compositeness is from one thing and another- that is, from opposites". Cusa thus indicates that what makes something opposite is that it is other than something else, and not solely mutually exclusive or diametrically opposed. The cases in which "diametrical opposites" are unified is only a special case of this intellectual unification- a special case which is quite illustrative of the principle we might add. It is a special case which is very illustrative of the quality of intellectual union.

 

Thus, the elements which are unified intellectually need not necessarily be mutually exclusive opposites in the common sense- they just need to be different from each other. Also, bearing on this, LaRouche says: "A strict meaning of the term “metaphor,” does not refer to a particular, explicitly direct object, or set of objects; it refers, to an implied simultaneity among a very special quality of several, indirectly related objects." So we see that the coincidence of opposites or intellectual unification or “metaphor”, can also unify things which are not necessarily diametrically opposed, just "indirectly related". Here is the important implication of this: this means that even things which could be unified in a formal/rational, or even causal way, are still capable of being unified in this intellectual, metaphorical way.

 

Musical harmony is a good example of this. Two different notes are not really diametrical opposites. The term "opposite" does not really seem to have any meaning with respect to a particular sound. Yet, when two notes are played together in harmonic proportion an intellectual union of the quality seen in the above examples of the coincidence of opposites does takes place. Here is a fitting description of this particular intellectual union from our dear friend Wilhelm Furtwangler: "The sound of a single concrete harmony transports us at once into the realm of art, far from the world of objective reality." It should also be noted that this is an example of two elements which could be considered as formally/rationally unified- namely that they exist in some sort of mathematical proportion to each other.[3]

 

Why is it an important point to make that even rationally/causally unifiable elements can be unified intellectually? Because it opens the gates through which metaphorical unification can enter into the domain of science. For if we admit that things which are rationally or causally unified can also be unified on a higher intellectual level, then we remove all apparent force from the argument which may be thrown out in opposition, crying: "But we have already explained all of this phenomena through our rational/causal scientific picture of the world! We don't need your hocus-pocus ‘intuitive concepts’ to help us unify or explain anything!" If only such complainers knew Kepler! Thus, we should consider metaphor's form in the coincidence of opposites to be a clear demonstration of the existence of a unifying power above that of the rational/causal, but also as a demonstration of the quality of conceptual unification which we would expect to find, one day, as subsuming things formerly thought of as being already "explained" by reason.[4]

 

In order to provide an example of such a case in which a rational/formal scientific unification of a given phenomena was superseded by an intellectual one, and to see what kind of significance this has for science generally, let us look at two figures of science, one of modern science (founded by Cusa), and one of ancient science.

 

Kepler and Newton

 

It seems that before Kepler not many people had proposed physical theories as to why the planets were seen to move across the heavens in the way that they do. Aristotle had proposed a physical theory which claimed that the planets were attached to giant spheres nested together, which were then turned around by a god called the “prime mover”. This theory didn't really match up well with the observations however, as it could not explain things like retrograde motion or the motion of comets. Kepler’s physical theory proposed that a force, originating in the sun, was able to move the planets over distances, similar to the way in which a magnetic force moves iron. However, Kepler needed to introduce a second force into his theory because of the discrepancies between the orbit implied by his hypothesized force and the actual orbit as determined through observation and calculation. Thus, Kepler proposed that the motion of the planets around the sun could be explained by the combined action of two forces- one moving the planets around the sun and the other moving them closer and further from the sun.

 

Later, Newton proposed that there was one force which existed between all bodies, and that the motions of the planets could be explained by the action of this one force. The strength of this force was then mathematically defined. It was demonstrated that Newton's force did imply the elliptical orbits which the planets had been found to occupy. Thus, the causal unification of the motions of the planets was made simpler and more universal than it had been made by Kepler's dual-force theory. Newton's theory was considered a great triumph, for now, not only was a more simple causal basis for the solar system set in place, but the basis was laid by which other things could be calculated and also by which other phenomena, like the tides, could be explained by a single causal factor. It would seem, because of this, that Newton was a superior scientist to Kepler. However, this is not quite true. Even though Newton's causal theory is arguably better than Kepler's, we must remember that causal unification is not the final objective of committed seekers of truth. Newton failed to reach the level of intellectual unification of the solar system. After he found his force, he stopped asking "why?". Kepler, despite the shortcomings of his causal theory, did not stop asking "why?" (he also knew when to start asking different kinds of “why”)- he did not stop seeking the truth after he had found a plausible causal basis for the unification of the planets’ motions. Thus he was able to ascend to the heights of intellectual, metaphorical unification of the solar system in the way demanded by Cusa’s conception of modern science.[5]

 

Kepler demonstrated that the physical characteristics of the solar system could be considered as derived from the combination of the harmonies of vision and hearing. Those who would attempt a dismissal of this incredible discovery through hand waves and shouts of "coincidence!" are made pale with horror when they learn that, not only are the harmonies present in motions of the same planet, but that they are present in the motions of different planets when compared with each other! That is to say, that the system as a whole is unified by a harmonic principle -a beautiful principle- of the kind described by Furtwangler. And, what's more, the proportions found are not precisely those typically defined as harmonic individually, and yet, their deviation from those precisely harmonic proportions never exceeds a Pythagorean comma- the very amount of variation which is available to resolve multiple simultaneous tones into harmonic proportion when such tones are arrived at in different musical ways. That is to say, that the the solar system is "tuned" or "tempered" quite literally in the same way as one would tune a piano in order to make all of the tonal relationships, when compared with each other, as harmonic, as beautiful, as intellectually unified, as possible. Thus, anyone who would try to dismiss Kepler's concept of a harmonically unified planetary system with statements like "Well its a close approximation, but sorry, no cigar." would be terribly wrong- It is actually much better that the proportions in the solar system do not correspond precisely to those mathematical intervals commonly defined as harmonic, for, in that case, the system as a whole could not be said to be intellectuality unified by a harmonic intention, whereas, in Kepler's tempered system, it actually is. There is something alive in Kepler’s system! This was Kepler’s discovery of the higher intellectual oneness of the solar system.

 

Thus, Kepler originally discovered the “solar system”, and no one else! "That's not true! Newton called the solar system "the solar system" too!"[6] may come the objection. Again, we are confronted with the need to distinguish between the levels of unification which we may conceive of in order to relate different things. For example, take the word "system". What does it mean? According to the dictionary a "system" is "a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces". So, essentially, any arbitrary collection of things can form a "system" as long as those things "interact" or affect each other in some way. For example, an arbitrary number of magnets on a fridge would be considered a "system" by this definition. Accordingly, Newton did propose a theory which could allow us to call the planets and the sun a "system", but the idea of this unified system is limited to the level of rational/causal unification. As a corollary of this, Newton's theory would actually include all matter in the universe in the same "system" as the planets and sun, thus rendering the idea of a "solar system" somewhat meaningless by eliminating the capability to identify any distinguishing characteristic, or principle, which might be specific to the planets and the sun considered as a group themselves. Again, these are the limitations implicit in the rational/causal mode of unification itself. That is the difference. The "solar system" of Newton is nothing but a collection of things which influence each other without any other principle or intention involved- its dead. Kepler's "solar system" represents a "system" in the sense that most people intuitively conceive of "system": a set of things which relate to each other in such a way as to fulfill a common purpose, to express a single intention- there is an intelligence behind it. What is that intention which defines the Kepler's solar system? It is a human principle of beauty, just as one would find such principles as underlying the reasons for the internal structure of great pieces of art. This is a union of the intellectual or metaphorical type elaborated by Cusa.

 

 

 

 

The Scientific Conflict

 

"No!' shriek the ancients- the ones who rejected Cusa's discovery of the coincidence of opposites. "No! You cannot say that a physical value for one planet has any connection to another value for the same planet, and definitely no connection to a value of any other planet. If you do happen to find some sort of mathematical proportion existing amongst these compared values which you call 'harmonic' or 'beautiful', then it is purely accidental. You are absolutely not allowed to say that there is some sort of principle or intention which brought these proportions into existence because they are beautiful! They are only accidental results of the causal mechanical forces at play which just so happened to lead to this effect. Your ideas of 'beauty', 'harmony', 'unification' and 'composition' have nothing to do with the way the world works!"

 

Because the kind of mentality exemplified by this shriek is so prevalent in science today, especially since the intervention of Bertrand Russell and David Hilbert in 1900, which was essentially a declaration that nothing in our experience could be conceptually unified except on the level of the merely formal (corresponding essentially to what Cusa described as that rational level which tends towards the perceptual level), it is not so easy to find other scientific examples of cases in which Cusa's concept of intellectual unification- or metaphorical unification- is explicitly utilized for the purpose of conceptually unifying different objects of scientific investigation. It could be said that, even today in the “modern” age, mankind has still not yet fully grasped, and implemented into his practice, the discovery of the coincidence of opposites made by Cusa, the man who founded modern science, hundreds of years ago.

 

Again, in the terms of Cusa, it would seem that the conflict in science today is whether or not we are allowed to utilize the second level -the intellectual, metaphorical- aspect of conceptual oneness in our attempt to unify the objects of scientific investigation.

 

Hilbert and Russell’s Failure

 

Did Russell and Hilbert really believe that all of mathematics and physics should be reduced and unified into a formal system? "To investigate the consistency of the Arithmetic axioms…[and] To axiomatize those physical sciences in which mathematics plays an important role." were indeed the stated goals of Hilbert. But what would this even mean?

 

The stated intention of Hilbert was to provide mathematics with a “rigorous” basis- that in the same sense in which Euclid was said to have provided a “rigorous” basis for geometry by establishing a few self evident axioms which would enable geometers to verify which propositions of geometry were true or false through deductive reasoning. By establishing self evident axioms for mathematics (which everyone decided to agree upon) the consistency of any mathematical proposition could similarly be verified. This was to be considered the standard for mathematical (and physical) truth- no intuitive concepts of “right” or “wrong” were allowed. Basically, all human thinking, (other than that kind which could be mimicked by robots) was disallowed. Russell’s statement “Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about nor whether what we are saying is true.” is exemplary.[7] Hilbert himself was so insane that it took him years to realize that his formal axiomatic systems actually needed to correspond to mathematical relationships and not just be self consistent. [8] 

 

The absurdity in all this (and actually there are too many absurdities to cover here) is that the there is no way to actually construct a rigorous proof of anything. That is, there is no way that anything can ever be proved as true simply on the basis of deduction from axioms without recourse to intuitive concepts. Why? Because, to the extent that an axiomatic system can be said to relate to anything we might consider real, meaningful, or conceivable, the axiomatic rules and/or elements of of that system must themselves be undefined but meaningful intuitive concepts. Otherwise, your system would be purely “formal”- a meaningless game.  Therefore, what meaning could possibly be ascribed to the purported intention to free a field of study from “unreliable” or “not rigorous”, sticky-icky, messy, intuitive “human concepts”?[9] The hypocrisy thus imbued in the ejaculation “You can't claim anything to be ‘true’ unless it derives from established axioms” is quite recognizable when this considered.[10]

 

Of course, none of this would have surprised Cusa. As quoted above, Cusa already knew, hundreds of years before, that all four levels of thought and existence are present in any instance of our thinking or experience. "All things are present in the first world [intellect]; all things are present in the second world [reason]; all things are present in the third world [perception]. In each world each thing is present in its own manner. And Absolute Oneness [God], is the being of each thing." Cusa DC Bk.I-Ch12. Cusa probably would have simply laughed at the contradiction inherent in the very idea of finding a complete formal/rational unification for one area of human knowledge, to say nothing of the attempt to do it for all conceivable things and phenomena.

 

The Ever Present Intellect

 

Finding instances in which the intellect’s power is identifiably present yet does not shine forth as prominently as the other unifying powers of the mind may help illustrate Cus’a point, as well as enable us to possibly distinguish the various kinds of scientific practice which are differentiated on the basis of the different roles which the unifying power of the intellect fulfils in them.

 

Even in looking at perception itself, we find instances of the intellects unifying power. The work of people like Wolfgang Kohler demonstrates that even in the most simple acts of perception there is an intellectual unification of the perceptual elements into a single concept imbued with its own inherent significance. (It might be said that this concept is itself significance) The term which Kohler uses for these unifications, these onenesses, is “gestalt”. In every case it is clear that the mere rational addition of the perceptual parts present can not explain the phenomenal existence of this gestalt. That is, the gestalt is “greater than the sum of its parts”, yet it does not exist - it does not occur in perception- without such parts.

 

Why don’t we notice this? When I look at my phone, or my cup, or my book I don’t notice any intellectual unification happening as I did when I read those Shakespeare sonnets. Why does it seem like whenever we look at something it simply appears “as it is” immediately and without any need for us to implement the power of the intellect to unify anything? I think that the answer to this question (and I would like to know what Kohler thinks) is that, through a process of habituation, after our minds have conceptually unified things and classes of things so many times in essentially the same way,  the process itself becomes almost “automatic”. Thus it may appear as though some aspects of our experience are simply “self-evident”, such as the experience of sense perceptual ‘objects’, when, in fact, the intellects unifying power is actually always present. Evidence attesting to this lies in the difficulty people encounter in their attempts to remove the “dogness” from their experience when they are actually looking at a dog. I leave more examples and demonstrations to Kohler et al.  But the point is that even in perception, the intellect is present in a certain degree.

 

In the rational activities of our thinking we have already shown how the intellect is present by virtue of the intellectual/intuitive concepts chosen to give meaning to the axioms/elements. However, the intellect is present there in more ways that that. For example:

 

In the course of scientific investigation, the scientist may come upon observations which he cannot account for with his current theory, that is, observations which contradict his theory. In this situation, what is the scientist to do? If the scientist wants to continue to fancy himself a rational thinker then he surely cannot continue to maintain his current theory/axiom-set as it is now, for it has been shown to be inconsistent with the observations. So, what is he to do? There are multiple things that this person can do in order to keep his badge of rationality. The first is to dispute the observational findings. This could be a legitimate way of maintaining the consistency of his system with reality. Another thing he could do would be to add another axiom or parameter to his theory in such a way that this addition corrects the implied phenomena of the theory to be in correspondence with the observations. Thirdly, he could abandon one or more of the axioms to see if this results in a theory which is consistent with the observations. Or he could try a combination of these three options (which is usually the case). But what is the principle, what is the reason, as to why he would choose one of these options/combinations over the other. There must necessarily be some other quality or principle, outside of rational thinking itself, which guides the formation of new rational concepts and systems which are more correspondent to truth. This is the intellectual level, which is as a guiding light for reason. “For how could reason... begin this inquiry without intelligence’s stimulating light illuminating it? Therefore, intelligence is to reason, as God is to intelligence.” Cusa- DC Bk.I-CH.6.Thus we find that many people who pass for scientists are not really very intelligent because, despite their vast array of rationally consistent knowledge, they lack the intelligence to determine when they should implement one of the three procedures listed above in order to maintain the correspondence of their ideas about the world with truth.[11]

 

…..

 

There is an important clarification needed as a result of our seeming enlargement of our concept of what the “intellectual level” is. Before, it may have appeared that an intellectual oneness was something similar to the kind of oneness which you would consider to be a static object, or a definite thing. In the examples from Shakespeare, it seemed as if the two opposites were united in one metaphor- one thing, one “oneness”. Yet, from our examples here and also in Cusa’s quote above, it seems that intellectual power is more of a process, more of a method, by which truthful things are found. In LaRouche’s pedagogy on creativity found in “In Defense of Common Sense” for example, the creative intellectual power of the mind is represented by the “->” symbol between the symbols “A” and “B” which in turn represent two fundamentally different axiom systems where B is the system which is in closer correspondence to truth. In LaRouche’s example, we see that creative intellect is that which brings into existence successively more truthful states of human knowledge, as represented by a different set of axioms. Thus it would seem that the intellectual power is merely the means by which we form new axioms which are more rationally consistent with scientific observation than the axioms which we had before. It seems that the intellect is only the tool which allows us to overcome the inconsistencies in our current axiom/theory by helping us find a new axiom system which does not contain such inconsistencies. This is not the full truth however.

 

In our effort to gain a knowledge of the universe -our effort to find the unity amongst the various phenomena which we encounter in that universe- we may use a rational/axiomatic framework representing a causal unification of the elements under investigation. As demonstrated by LaRouche, this theoretical framework is brought into existence by the creative intellect of the human mind. But, recall what we recognized earlier about intellectual unification- namely, that it has the power, beyond the rational, to unify those things which are not capable of being unified in a rational/causal way, but, that it also has the power to unify those things which can be conceptually unified in a causal/rational way. Thus, in the case of poetry, or great art, when no causal unification is sought, intellectual unification acts as the final goal of our thinking, while, in those situations in which we seek out better theoretical/rational scientific models, the intellect appears to act as the means by which our goals of our thinking is attained. But, in each case the same quality of “process” in human thought, the same power of intellectual unification, is operative. That is to say: A unifying intellectual concept, such as referenced from Shakespeare above, is itself reflective of the process by which the mind ascends from a lower concept to a more truthful one. When intellectual unification is the goal, it still reflects the same quality of process which the intellect is found to embody when it acts as the means to a goal. [12] Intellectual concepts are thus  inherently “passion-ridden” conceptions.[13]

 

…..

 

Even besides this however, we see the intellect playing a major role in what might usually be called “deductive reasoning” as well. Take the example of Albert Einstein’s discovery of the special theory of relativity (which is also a wonderful example of a scientist who, guided by the intellect, was able to balance those three options listed above in the best way). Einstein once described the special theory of relativity as simply a necessary consequence of maintaining the axiom that light is constant in all frames of reference. If so, why then did no one else discover what Einstein did if the theory was already implicit in the knowledge of the day? Was Einstein a better logician? No. Einstein once described his discoveries as guided by musical perception (sound familiar?), as opposed to being driven by the kind of fanatical obsession with “consistency” found in the likes of Hilbert. That is what actually generated the discovery.

 

Thus, even in pursuing an object which, after it’s discovery, can be considered as implied in something already known, we find the power of the intellect as primary. It was the case for all the geometers who made the discoveries which Euclid later showed as deducible from a set of axioms, whose discoveries did not actually occur in that way in which Euclid said that they deductively should have- those discoveries were probably made by all sorts of intellectual leaps and concepts outside of logic itself. So too can we view Einstein’s discovery, guided by an intellectual passion for the truth, yet, once attained, dismissed by the narrow-minded as merely a deduction. No one who only cared for deduction would ever have had the courage to travel the road Einstein did or make that discovery. Deductive procedures are somewhat like sidewalks: You can only walk on them to your destination after you have explored the frontier terrain with treks, excursions, and leaps over streams and chasms to find a worthwhile place to go, and, then, afterward, built a sidewalk to there.[14] (although, of course, there are also many places which  you cannot build a sidewalk to at all). Thus we find, even in cases where the rational level of thinking is prominent, the intellect is still present in significant ways.

 

The Scientific Problem Revisited

 

“We see this in the current period. The content of scientific work is, for the most part, not even reflected in the scientific picture of nature.” - Vladimir Vernadsky[15]

 

How true. For despite the fundamental role of intellectual thinking in all forms of what might be called scientific procedure, it itself has no representation or place in the picture of the universe provided to us by popular science. It seems somewhat silly that intellectual unification would be a method which was banned from science when scientists use it so much, not only in the process of modifying and expositing their rational/theoretical constructs, but also in the utilization of intuitive concepts in their theoretical systems.

 

What is the issue? Again, the issue is “oneness”. What are you allowed to consider as an ontologically real “thing”, “entity” or “oneness” in the universe? You must consider something as really existing, else you would not be practicing science since you would not be making any assertions about physical reality! So what are the things which are allowed into that assertion? Take Newton’s theory: The whole world is made of space, time, bodies, mass and gravity, and all things result as an interaction of these elements. Those are all the “things” or “entities” which are allowed into the scientific construct. Every other “thing” which you might consider as existing, like a chair, or a tiger, is really nothing but an illusory epiphenomena which has no correspondence to physical reality. Yes, you can utilize such concepts in your daily life as a matter of conceptual convenience, but do not think for a second that “they” are real aspects of the universe in any way.

 

 But is this what scientists actually do? Even Newton or LaPlace? No. Take this quote from Vernadsky: “It is not to be doubted that well over 9 out of 10 scientists work in domains of science which have no connection to [this Newtonian] picture of the cosmos… They are not at all interested in this picture, and do not encounter it in the course of their scientific activity” Despite the wide range of variation in the levels of diversion from the Newtonian universe which might be found in any one of the sciences which Vernadsky is referring to here, they all must be considered as differentiated from Newton’s construct for one essential reason- the difference in “onenesses” or “things” which they actually consider to be real aspects of the universe to be investigated. For example, Vernadsky says “This is demonstrated in a striking way in the history of the biological sciences of the 19th century for example.”. The difference in the case of biology lies in the admission of the real existence of animals (and other life forms)! How can you investigate evolution of animal species if you do not actually admit that animals exist in reality?[16] If you hold to the idea that those parts of the universe which you encounter in your experience as “animals” are really nothing but collections of particles in space, then seeking out some scientific logic in the way in which “animals” -an unreal concept- behave or develop, would be as insane as trying to find the scientific logic in the behavior of a rock which you mistook to be Santa Claus. Here is a quote from LaRouche on this subject: “So we do not have to go from inorganic physics to prove the possibility of life when we have a living, thinking person standing before us. We must accept the existence of thinking man, who is creative -unlike the animals-­ in its own terms, on the basis of the physical evidence before us.” Similarly, no one should fail to believe that tigers are real if they encounter one in the wild, and then proceed to carry out a mechanistic calculation of what this pile of atoms which “looks” like it’s running towards you will do.

 

So again, we see that there is a major difference in the kinds of sciences which exist due to the difference in the entities which they study (and thus implicitly admit to exist in reality). As in the case of logical systems, these admitted aspects of reality must be considered “elemental” and indefinable- they must be intuitive concepts which play the role of axioms.

 

So everyone in science appears to be utilizing the intellect in one way or another. Why then the shrieks which we encountered earlier? Don't all scientists use intellectual unifying concepts by which they judge phenomena and think about reality? I think that we have shown that they do. It seems quite arbitrary to declare that one set of intellectual concepts can be valid while another cannot. What criteria do they use to allow or not allow different concepts into “real” science? Some say susceptibility to mathematical analysis, but that raises a difficulty since quantum physics precludes the mathematical susceptibility of even simple objects. Some, since the “Copenhagen” quantum interpretation, say that you can't admit that any concepts you have correspond to reality at all. Some say that you should admit whatever concepts which make you feel the best into your picture of reality.[17] Kepler’s conception of the solar system is something which would have upset all these groups.

 

The Problem of Sense-Perception

 

This considered, it would seem that the underlying problem which would prevent someone from accepting Kepler's conception of the one solar system, or generally accepting the idea that seemingly separate entities in the universe could actually be considered as “one” on a scientific level of thinking, is the problem of sense-perception.

 

In the domain of perception (Cusa’s lowest domain) things are only considered as “one” if they are discrete and continuous in space or time. For example, in visual perception, a thing is only considered as “one” if there is a continuous occupation of space by the object, and if the boundaries of the object are clearly defined. Although it is true, as mentioned before in reference to the work of Kohler, that the mind can see things which do not perfectly meet this criteria as perceptually “one” through a sort of “gestalt” process by which the discrepancies in the visual experience are  “filled in” and “smoothed out”, generating what seem to be, quite positively, visual connections amongst separate elements through space when there “really” are none. Despite that, in these gestalt cases we would not admit that “in reality” there is one spatially continuous thing which we are looking at. That is only a “trick” of perception- we shouldn’t think that there is one thing in reality when there are actually multiple things.

 

It would seem then to be the contention of most people passing for scientists that you can only consider a thing, a “oneness”, to objectively exist in reality if it passes the test of purely perceptual oneness. That is, it only exists in reality if it is conceivable as “one” on the basis of sense-perceptually based thinking alone. For example, simple objects in your room can be considered as existing in reality because they appear to be one to perception and they pass physical tests validating this kind of discreet oneness. However, even if you want to go further, and declare all the things in your room to be only made of atoms, and that only those are the real things of nature, even though you can never actually see the atom you are still permitted to think about it as a thing - a “oneness”-  actually existing in reality if you think of it as existing as an object which occupies space continuously and with definite boundaries- much as you experience and conceive of the objects in the room around you right now as existing in reality. So, even if you cannot ever actually see (with your eyes, with sense-perception) the the thing which you hypothesize as existing, you still consider it to exist as something which is essentially identical to those things which you can directly see with sense-perception and consider as existing on the basis of their sense-perceptual oneness, i.e. objects. No causal connection can make two things in reality one, and neither can an intuitive concept- only perceptual discreetness makes a thing a thing, or a oneness.

 

This is essentially the root of the materialistic conception of the universe. It is the rationale which underlies the fanatical pursuit of smaller and ever smaller hypothesized objects by those who hope, one day, to find the most elementary building blocks of the universe, the finite set of physical elements which the pinnacle scientific ascent of mankind can declare to be the only truly existing entities in the universe, to which all other illusory phenomena are reduced.

 

Despite what we discussed respecting the seeming disagreement amongst scientists over the issue of what in the universe can actually be considered as real or “one”, this sense-perceptual constraint seems to be present in all the different entities of scientific investigation.  “Animals”, “plants”,  “liquids”, or “objects”- all share a reliance on sense-perceptual distinctness and oneness. For example, there is no animal studied in science which does not have a single body. Even in cases where two organisms have the same genetic makeup we do not consider the two separate bodies to actually belong to one animal. The concept of “animal” relies on sense-perceptual distinctness. So too for all the others.[18] 

 

This is a necessary result of being trapped in Newton’s cage of space and time within which all things must be said to exist, for, by admitting that all things must exist in absolute space or time, you necessarily admit that only discreteness in space and time can allow a thing to be defined as one, since you admit of no other domain within which a thing can exist discreetly even while seeming to exist indiscreetly to sense-perception.

 

All this considered, we might call the problem one of “sense-perception”, yes, but, we also could accurately name the problem “sense-conception”.

 

Kepler Supercedes Sense-Conception

 

“The result of Kepler's discovery to this effect, was to shift modern European science's concept of reality, once more, from the falsely assumed, "self-evident" reality of mere sense-perception, back to the higher domain of universal physical principles, the domain of actually efficient reality....the mere mathematical portrayal provided by sense-perception, is, at its best, the mere shadow cast by those true scientific principles which lie, ontologically, outside the domain of that which could be known through the formalities of mere mathematics.” - LaRouche[19][20]

 

Despite the fact that the planets appear to to be separate entities to sense perception, the mind is able to unify them into a single oneness existing in the intellectual level of the human mind. The shrieks may come claiming that “you cannot attribute such a conception to the real universe any more than you can claim that there the few watercolor marks which Kohler made on the page actually was a face! You cannot say that such mental activity in any way corresponds to an aspect of physical reality.”. In response to this, we would reply that, in one sense, we agree, but not in the sense this objector thinks, for we go even further than he would imagine we would go: This conceptual unity held within the mind is not an objective aspect of physical reality, because that would imply that the two were different. We say that, in fact, the domain in which the mind is able to conceive of this oneness is the domain in which that oneness ontologically exists. Physical reality does not exist in sense-perception or its cages of space and time.  

 

Another quote from LaRouche pertaining to this principle:

 

“Consider the case of such an apparent characteristic [metaphorical oneness] of such a shadow-like object cast as such a pair, or, more. In such cases we are able to conceptualize the specific effect which accounts for the generation of the shadow of such a pair-wise, or comparable shadow; but we do not “see” the relevant sort of linkage among those considerations which pertain to that which has been either a pair of shadows, or some larger set of such an array, as might be defined by named “characters.” Functionally, we do not “see” the actual object; the real character is actually performed, not on the stage (even if one were there); it lies in the idea implanted in the minds of the audience viewing the performing actor, or actors; this is to be recognized, not by vision, but as to be seen within the mind of the viewing audience, rather than a projection on a linear screen. It can not be seen with the mere eyes and ears of the audience, but only by means of the superior potentialities of that power of the human mind which creates the images of those personalities called to the mind of the audience by means of a higher power of the human mind, a power of an ontological order higher than any mere brain as such.” (Emphasis mine)[21]

 

Kepler’s solar system is a one. The parts may seem to exist separately and distinctly in the domain of the senses, but not in the domain of the human mind, on the level of intellectual unification- a domain which we judge to be the very domain within which the process we are investigating ontologically exists in its unity. That domain is the place in which the real universe lies, the plane in which Kepler’s solar system, and the mind which conceives of it, lies.

 

“Thus, there is no difference between the form, in the proper form of reason of knowledge, and the subject of knowledge, the object of knowledge. No difference in form whatsoever, except to the degree we have failed to perfect the quality of creative reason to know this latter.” -LaRouche

 

The human mind thus does not come to create concepts which are intended to mirror the objective world outside itself. Rather, it might be said, that the mind comes to embody the intentions of our Creator imbedded in the most real domain of our universe. Perhaps too of other human minds who have acted in that Creator’s image.  

 

The New Physics

 

Lyndon LaRouche declared decades ago that poetry must begin to supercede mathematics in science. Some people say that a new language must be developed for science to move forward. Of course, developing any new arbitrary language does not benefit anyone unless the new words you are using represent truthful concepts. The current concepts of physics and the correlated rational/mathematical language in which they are expressed has been shown to be inherently contradictory in its attempt to characterize reality[22]. This considered, the only recourse we seem to have in our quest for higher, more truthful concepts of the universe, and for the representative  language system which facilitates an efficient communication and implementation of such ideas, is the domain of intellectual oneness. Now, in the new physics, the associations shared between the concepts denoted by your language are of a different order, a different quality, than they had been in before. The quality of association now becomes that of metaphor- the kind we saw in Shakespeare’s use of the coincidence of opposites. A new language can be built around such conceptions.

 

Take this quote from LaRouche as an example:

 

“What is truly most important for science today in Kepler's discovery of universal gravitation (within our Solar System) on this account, is the implications of posing the discovery, to ourselves, of the notion of our ability to understand the organization of both inorganic and living processes, such as the non-digital principle of human hearing, as this experience is associated with the function of counterpoint, as discovered, uniquely, by J.S. Bach, existing within the presently known bounds of our Solar System today.”- Kepler’s Actual Discovery, LHL

 

To this day, Kepler’s discovery of the solar system is the best model demonstration of how this higher level of science is to be created. However, we are led to believe that this demonstration by Kepler was only a scratching of the surface of the profound changes which are still yet to come from the New Physics. As mankind’s true identity, his true relationship to the Creator of this universe -something even we in this movement have only glimmers of- becomes embedded more deeply and widely in the hearts of the human species as we move into the next thousands and millions of years (and ever after), the heights to which our union with the living truth of that Creator will reach will be of unfathomable beauty. A humanity of a hundred trillion Cusas and a hundred trillion LaRouches spread across the cosmos. What will they do? Bending stars like reeds and planting galaxies like seeds. We know, whatever it is, that such a state of mankind will come, eventually, inevitably.

 

“Actually, what Kepler discovered, was the principle by which, by means of which the solar system is controlled. Not merely is the Solar System as such controlled, but its destiny is also controlled.  The one qualification is, which is clear to us today, especially to competent scientists and to competent thinkers generally, is that mankind, unlike any other living creature, has the ability to willfully determine a policy of action which had never existed before, making mankind a more powerful agency in the Solar System itself.  And that also implicitly goes to the universe at large.  So the idea is that, we're talking about the footprint of the Creator:  That the footprint of the Creator defines to us, a principle, which Kepler's design for the Solar System, presents.  But that design for the Solar System by Kepler is not the cause of the efficient result, but rather, if you understand what Kepler is saying, Kepler is pointing toward a higher principle which mankind at that time could not fully appreciate.  That there was a greater power in the universe, to which mankind was subject, and that Kepler had put his foot right on the mark:  That Kepler's principle of the organization of the Solar System, was not a creation in the sense of creating something.  It was creation which mankind was enabled to understand, but did not create.  But mankind does have the ability to improve, on the principle which underlies Kepler's conception, the higher principle which underlies Kepler's achievement.  And you know, people say, "that's religion,"  well, no, human beings if they don't have religion really aren't human.” Policy Cmt. Dis. 3/2/15.

 

What is the higher power which must exist in the universe such that the harmony of Kepler’s solar system could be brought into existence? What is the relationship of this higher power to what we know as “The Galaxy”. How will mankind come to embody such a power through his understanding of it? What is the “religion” or the “spiritual recrudescence” which we now need in order to accomplish this? If our intentions are not to become the Cusas of our day, such that we might find the answers to these question, then what other avenue towards immortality do we have?

 

 

 

Footnotes:

 

 

[1] Cusa does elaborate on two additional levels to be considered, one which is rational but tends towards the perceptual, and one which is rational but tends towards the intellect. I find it quite appropriate.

 

[2] Here I use the term "causal" as in the sense above.

 

[3] Take Mathew Ogden’s statement of metaphorical principle in the Friday webcast from a few weeks ago as an illustrative example of this principle as it applies in this way. “The pressure of the future and reflections of this pressure are erupting  in seemingly geographically separated points of the globe, erupting simultaneously, not because of some  sort of process of mechanical transmission, but because the planet is operating according to the character of  what the scientist Johannes Kepler identified, as the Solar System, a single unified process in which  everything is being moved by a single invisible universal principle.”

 

[4] Also, in this connection, if we are interested in finding ways in which the principle of the coincidence of opposites- or, more generally metaphor- can be used in our scientific investigations, it would also be relevant to mention that the concept of "opposite" per se (as the examples listed above) is difficult to attribute to what we generally consider to be physical reality. Hot and cold, for example, although intuitively opposite to us, are not really opposite from a scientific perspective.

 

[5] Besides this fundamental reason as to the superiority of Kepler's scientific method over that of Newton’s, there are two other interrelated things to be considered (which we will address later as to how they relate to the cited primary reason).

 

The first is the bare fact that the mathematical form of Newton’s force law is directly derived from one of Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. While we must give Newton credit for identifying the mathematical relation which implied the existence of a single unifying force between the planets and for hypothesizing that force itself -a force which did allow for a more simple physical/causal unification for the solar system (and mass generally) to be developed- we must note that it was only an additional, relatively small, step in a great journey which had already been taken by Kepler. In that connection, the second point to consider is that Kepler’s discovery of the the laws of planetary motion was a result of an epic scientific investigation, filled with treacherous obstacles, painstaking labor over years and years, and, above all, a constant dedication to the truth which took one form as an incessant scrutiny of the axioms (and their implications) and an unwavering willingness to abandon old hypothesis -no matter how much investment of time and effort had been put into erecting their edifice- and to create new ones. In short, Kepler’s investigation was one guided by true creativity and a faith in the human beauty of God’s creation.

 

Thus, Newton’s discovery of the new concept of gravitational force was thus somewhat like a disproportionate relay race: Kepler, who, after having ascended and descended mountains, after trudging through swamps filled with serpents, after traversing the seas between the islands where the sweet songs of the Sirens of “accurate models” are heard, and who, then, after completing an Odyssey greater than that of Ulysses, ascended the steep cliffs to the top of the great acropolis and dropped his baton on the ground. Newton retrieved it and waltzed up the final steps of the Pantheon, covered in cheers from the masses. Most of the people there had forgotten about Kepler, and didn’t even notice that he was not there celebrating with them. Others, who did remember him, thought that he may have either left in sadness from rejection or died from the exhaustion of the great journey, and thus felt pity for him. “How sad it is” said one “that Kepler could not have made those last few steps himself and received the credit for this new great causal unification”. But, little did they know, Kepler was not worried about the celebration he was missing on the Acropolis, for, he was too busy climbing a much higher peak, the peak of Mount Olympus, and was nearing his goal at the summit which, upon reaching, he would revel in stealing the golden vessels of Zeus to build a tabernacle to his God from them, far, far away from the boundaries of Olympus- indeed a harmonious tabernacle in which the heavenly bodies would all be placed.

 

Returning to the point of Kepler’s scientific method, if we consider how utterly imbued Kepler’s investigations were with rigorous hypotheses formation, we can see very clearly that Newton could not have done what Kepler did, and that by his own admission: “Hypotheses non fingo”. Thus, when thinking of Newton’s theory, we are reminded of the kind of “pick up the pieces” scientific discovery and subsequent “credit stealing” which the British are notorious for, as in the case of the discovery of the structure of DNA, which was actually done by a talented woman named Rosalind Franklin, but, which was credited to the eugenics/euthanasia promoting, racist, sexist, environmentalist James Watson and his implicitly Russellophilic friend Francis Crick - who never performed any experiments on DNA- after they had performed a “pick up the pieces” procedure with Franklin’s and others’ breakthrough research.  

 

[6] Apparently the first use of the term “Solar System” occurred in 1704, probably by some Newtonian. Obviously, Kepler died many years before that time, which would mean that he never even used that term. All this, however, only adds to the irony in LaRouche’s insistence that Kepler was the true discoverer of the “solar system” as scientifically defined.

 

[7] Just a few years later, Russell would actually criticized Hilbert’s formal systems for not having enough concern for the correspondence to real mathematics! I personally find it difficult, because of their seemingly contradictory statements and methods, to identify  whether or not Russell or Hilbert really believed that mathematics was actually just a meaningless construct implied by the logical adherence to a few arbitrary axioms, or, if  the mathematical concepts which the axiom systems were intended to structuralize actually  represented some meaningful or truthful aspect of human thinking in connection to reality.

 

[8] "In the second half of the 1920s, Hilbert replaced the consistency program with a conservativity program: Formalized mathematics was to be considered by analogy with theoretical physics. The ultimate justification for the theoretical part lies in its conservativity over “real” mathematics: whenever theoretical, “ideal” mathematics proves a “real” proposition, that proposition is also intuitively true." - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hilbert-program/ Hilbert’s disconnect from reality disturbed many. One of his former students, Hermann Weyl, described his obsession as to  “secure not truth, but the consistency of analysis”.

 

[9] This was the primary argument leveled against Leibniz’s calculus for example. Meanwhile LaPlace was getting sticky-icky himself from fantasizing about demons playing with his hard balls.

 

[10] The same thing can be said for the attempt to reduce science in this way. "A few fundamental phenomena should be set up as the axioms from which all observable data could then be derived by rigorous mathematical deduction as smoothly and as satisfyingly as the theorems of Euclid had been derived from his axioms." -Says Hilbert’s biographer. This quote again demonstrates the reliance of the axiomatic system on intuitive concepts. After all, “fundamental phenomena” are all imbued with intuitive conceptual content. As Einstein pointed out, there really is no observation without theory.

 

[11] Illustrative of this is the mere fact that this poster is not lying.

 

[12] I treated the same subject from a different standpoint in a paper I wrote titled “On Scientific Conceptualization and Quantum Issues” (primarily in the last 5 paragraphs of part one). It is available here if interested: https://larouchenet.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8652

 

[13] This of course bears on the issue of a valid approach to education. If the basic formulas, terms, concepts, causes and the like do not function as “placeholders” for the actual process of discovery which the students engaged in to create the intellectual content of these new ideas for themselves, then that system of education is absolutely incompetent. Every time a student sees a term, a symbol, a word which is put before them in the classroom, they must be able to recall the discovery which they made of the concept. If this is not achieved, the the various combinations and rules of context which these words and symbols enter into becomes nothing but a meaningless formal game- one which will lead to rage and depression in the students.

 

[14] It should be noted that other of Einstein’s discoveries were not rationally resolvable with prior axioms after they had been discovered. In fact, even the case of special relativity is not a perfect example of a discovery later shown to be axiomatically consistent with previous knowledge since it did require an abandonment, at least temporarily, of the axioms respecting space and time, but, because it did not introduce any new axiom per se it is a fitting example. But even with this considered, Einstein’s special relativity could similarly be viewed as “nothing but” a logical demonstration of the inconsistency of the axiom system containing the notions of space, time, a constant speed of light, and the principle that in all inertial reference frames physical laws remain the same.  Again, a seemingly “logical” procedure, but no- really more of a creative intellectual one. Also, ironically, Planck’s discovery of the quantized energy emission characteristic of matter was thought of, by him, initially, as axiomatically consistent with the physics of his day.

 

[15] From  “ A Study of  Life and the New Physics”, 1930

 

[16] Admittedly, due to the intimidating influence of popular opinion exemplified by Rutherford’s somewhat stupid quote “All science is either physics or stamp collecting”, most people working in sciences which admit the existence of entities other than those of “fundamental physics” would probably, if pressed, verbally express that such entities don't really exist, and that the world really is “nothing but” etc. This kind of thing does exist in science today, and it undoubtedly has deleterious effects on the research of those engaged in such fields (and science as a whole), even despite the fact that researches in such fields represent a larger portion of the scientific community. Acute depression resulting from a scientific culture which is dismissive of and undermines the importance of the scientific efforts in fields other than physics or chemistry is, in my opinion, a severe problem which is not greatly appreciated. How creative can you be, what new discoveries can you make, if, underlying all your efforts, you believe that your investigations really have no fundamental importance for human knowledge? Vernadsky was engaged in the study of life and geology, yet, the scientific insights he gained from study in those fields gave us what could be the pathway down which we find the next scientific revolution. It is doubtful that he could have generated such insights if he had had this problem.

 

[17]As in the neo-Nietzschean “Landmark Forum” cult today.

 

[18] What about the concept of “Force”? It is true that many scientist do admit that forces exist in the universe. But the concept of force becomes confused sometimes because sometimes people try to claim that “force” is mathematically defined as mass multiplied by acceleration and thus it's only a descriptive mathematical value derived from phenomena. Besides the fact that this merely draws the question to the meaning of another concept- mass- this is not actually the way most people think about forces. Most people have an intuitive concept of a causal factor when they say “force”- a “pushing” or “pulling” or “stiving”.. Whether they like it or not, they are attributing this concept to physical reality. Kohler pointed out that, sometimes, some physicists will even recognize this but then claim that they don't really believe in forces in reality, but that they only temporarily use this concept in performing physics because it allows them to understand and solve problems!

 

[19] Taken from “KEPLER'S ACTUAL DISCOVERY: Mathematics Is Not Science” by LHL

 

[20] Thus, in the scientific sense, sense-perception does not determine whether something is really “one” or not. We see the same thing in music. The sense-perceptually discrete elements are not the thing which brings them into existence. If it really is a one, then it is somewhat accidental whether or not the thing you are looking at appears to be one to the sense or not.

 

[21] From “The Strategic Situation Now” by LHL

 

[22] As in the quantum paradox.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Please reload

Recent Posts
Please reload

© 2017 Ian Brinkley