From Strength to Nemesis?

Montréal, January 5, 2001



Prologue: … Imagine a world inhabited by humans wherein a culture emerges and rises to dominance based on their powerful ‘rational’ ability of describing and replicating the complex processes and structures of their world without addressing the ‘geometric shape of space’ which these actions induce.


For these people, the tool of ‘rationality’ or ‘ratio-taking’ intellection, which reduces perceptual information on volumetric-form coming from their immersed-in-the-world ‘codynamical’ experience, to curvilinear trajectories and fixed symbols called ‘numbers’, is seen as a quasi Divine faculty whose relative presence in the individual becomes the primary basis for allocating the fruits of the commons of nature in which they live.


Because they placed ‘rationality’, which ignores volumetric form, on the highest pedestal, and because their rational sciences consider only the ‘assertive behaviours’ of the constituents of their living space, seen as ‘independent causal agents’, the ‘shape’ of the dynamic opportunity space in which they were all immersed participating constituents came into a state of neglect.   The manifestation of this neglect was a growing dissonance and dysfunction in their society, wherein people and their initiatives, in all walks of life, were increasingly coming into conflict.  In response, there had been a general effort to purify their ‘management systems’ by excluding the ‘less rationally performant’ from having positions of influence and/or having access to resources which could interfere with the rational management of action.  Strangely, these rational purification programs had seemed to make things worse.


After some time, those who were driving on the crowded freeways, carefully following the rational laws and principles of driving, the ‘rules of the road’, begin to think; … ‘but if we all referenced our movements ‘relativistically’ to the shape of space we are ‘co-creating’ by our joint actions, … the shape of space in which we are all immersed participant-constituents, we could then collaboratively arrange for the shape of space to open up opportunity for us to move, to  serve our respective purpose’, instead of just ignoring the shape of space as we assert into it and transform it, and consequently become victims of our neglect of how we are shaping it.


At a meeting on the topic, a man who ran a local billiards parlour spoke up; … ‘I think you are on the right track in suggesting that we re-reference our actions to the ‘shape of space’ we are co-creating, since there is a lesson in the game of pool on this.   To manage the evolution of the multi-constituent configuration solely on the basis of the assertive behaviours of the individual constituents or balls, what we call ‘playing shots over shape’ in pool, is to infuse dissonance into the system.  On the other hand, ‘playing shape over shots’ or ‘putting opportunity space management into the primacy over action management’ leads to a more satisfying situation wherein there is a ‘resonance’ between the evolving shape of space with its opening up of corridors of opportunity and the assertive codynamic of the constituency of balls into these openings, … what is possible is a volumetric co-resonance between assertive purpose and inductive opportunity.


At this point, a much respected airforce fighter pilot spoke up from the back of the room, saying; ‘I agree with both of these ‘freeway driving’ and ‘pool-playing’ comments on ‘volumetric co-resonance’.   This relativistic view of  creative cooperation between the geometry of space and the assertive behaviour of the constituents is a natural view which is ‘bigger’ than the ‘rational’ view which considers only the assertive ‘action management’ aspect and neglects the reciprocal effects on the shape of space.


When we fly in wide open spaces or when we are diverging out of crowded quarters, our rational methods work fine, but when we are doing aerobatics, and are co-creating convergent patterns, we have found that we must, like the pool player and freeway driver, tap into the collective mind of the constituency, and put our co-management of opportunity space into the primacy over our action management.


We suffered through much to learn this lesson.   One of our aerobatic routines, the inverting prism, caused us particular grief.   In this routine, three of us fly directly towards our virtual collision point in a common ‘plane’ at constant altitude, co-creating a shrinking triangle while a fourth aircraft flies vertically upwards on a radial through the virtual center of the shrinking triangle, the collision point, ‘threading the needle’ ‘just in time’ by penetrating the shrinking triangle just before it reduces to a point and just before the three aircraft forming the triangle have to veer to avoid collision.  At this point the shrinking prism ‘turns inside out’ and becomes a growing prism, kind of like the upwelling and subduction life-cycle archetype which characterizes all things in nature.  


This routine called for each pilot to follow a pre-planned course with extreme precision and this was highly susceptible to the slightest fluctuations in air currents, variations in jet thrust, elevator position, navigational instrumentation, pilot error etc. and after several accidents and many ‘close calls’, we launched a program to overcome this ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions’.   At first we used the same rational purification approach that others here have been questioning, the ‘exclusion of the less rationally performant’ and we made all of our pilots submit to a ‘precision figures examination’ similar to what is done in ice-skating competitions, selecting only those pilots with the highest precision for the ‘inverting prism’ routine.   But things got worse rather than better with an increase in the number of accidents and close-calls rather than reduction.


Then one day, when we were in a bar having drinks after the funeral of one of our members who had crashed doing the ‘inverting prism’, an old-timer playing pool overheard us, and proceeded to give us an entirely different slant on the problem.   What he said was that a ‘rational, assertive-only’approach was more acceptable when the ‘table was less crowded’, … when things were widely spaced and diverging rather than clustering, … but when the ‘opportunity space’ shrunk down with respect to the number of constituents who needed to share it, … that was when one had to account for ‘shape’ and to contrive to achieve ‘coresonance’ between the balls which were asserting into ‘configuration space’ and the ‘shape of configuration space’ that was opening up for the balls.  He pointed out that this was just like ‘relativity theory’ with its self-referential ‘curved space’ where one had to concern oneself not just with the ‘assertive action of the constituent seen as ‘independent agent’ but also with the simultaneous, reciprocal configuration-space transforming effects of the assertive actions.  


In order to combat the ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions’ which is ever-present in ‘crowded’ codynamics, he said that ‘in moving’, one had to be simultaneously guided by the reciprocally evolving shape of space, and that one’s assertive movement was, at the same time, the evolving shape of space.   By understanding that one’s assertive movement ‘was’ the shape of space, the flip side or ‘reciprocal’ to the assertive co-dynamic of the constituent, one could feel one’s co-creative participation in the evolution of the overall system.  This, as he explained, was very different from thinking that each constituent was helping to ‘construct something’ sequentially, with ‘rational precision’, by following a prescribed course of assertive action, and assuming that if everyone ‘did their assertive jobs correctly’, everything would work out right.


When we got back to the barracks, we went into a huddle and reviewed all of our data.  What we came up with was that the theory requirements for ‘construction’ were not the same as for ‘co-creation’.   With our ‘inverting prism’ routine, we were in the business of co-creating a transforming volumetric form which was ‘complete’ in itself in the continuing moment, though continuously transforming throughout a ‘life-cycle’ associated with the inverting of one apex as one moved from the ‘convergent prismoidal form’ to its rebirth into a ‘divergent prismoidal form’


So, our conclusion was, similar to the rest of you here, that ‘rational, assertive action only’ theory is fine for the mechanical collaboration involved in construction projects, where the thing to be constructed exists out there in the future at some fixed x,y,z,t coordinates and where this fixed future vision can be used to set up a globally synchronous linear sequential time reference to coordinate the precision assertive actions of multiple constituents seen as ‘independent causal agents’ in bringing it about.   That is, the rational theory with its ‘purification’ or ‘exclusion of the less rationally performant’ policy as protection against disruptive perturbations is okay for constructing something explicit and ‘out there’ in fixed x,y,z,t coordinate space, but it is fundamentally inadequate for dealing with co-creative evolution where nothing is ‘explicit’ but all is relational and the reference space is the configuration of the constituency itself which is continuously evolving.


When we reviewed the pilots results on the ‘precision figures’ examination, this time we noticed the many written observations from some of our ‘best’ pilots, to the effect that they were not interested in ‘doing precision curvilinear figures’ on their own, but were more interested in co-creating codynamical volumetric forms, co-cultivating the dynamic shape of space.   And it was these pilots who we had been excluding from our team partipation!  They pointed out to us that all the individual could do with his ‘assertive behaviour’ was to ‘paint’ curvilinear trajectories in the sky, and that it took four or more pilots ‘co-creating’ together to produce volumetric form, the stuff of our natural experience.   They said that our training program, which had shifted towards honing the precision of rational assertive action, was inviting them to ignore emergent dissonance and revert to the desired shape of space when they were flying, … that they were excluded from participation in this case by their departure from the precision plan, and that the whole exercise was purging them of their natural ability to ‘tune in’ to the coresonant reciprocity between constituent codynamics and the co-evolving shape of the containing space.’


Though the pilot was a ‘military man’ trained for conflict, and ‘conflict’ was currently a ‘bad word’ in the culture, the others realized that he had re-cast ‘opposition’, the essence of conflict, into the more satisfying light of ‘co-creative codynamics’ and had introduced the useful notion of ‘coresonance’ between assertive action and the inductive ‘shape’ of the space which gives domicile to the the assertive action.


This imagined world in which a culture with a strong rational mindset had emerged and risen to dominance, was a world in which the constituents had come to the realization that there was a fundamental difference between ‘construction’ of an object ‘out there’ in fixed space and time coordinates and ‘co-creation’ of  the shape of one’s containing space, one’s ‘dynamic opportunity space’ and that the theory requirements of these two undertakings were very different. 


Fortunately, the culture which had near-Deified the rational constructive approach, by opening up its fundamental theories and beliefs to questioning, had discovered that the notion of ‘selection’, or, ‘exclusion of the less rationally performant’ (‘exclusion of less precise assertive behaviours’) was a recipe for the elimination of the co-creative skills essential for returning their world to coresonant, container-constituent harmony.


The peoples of this world came to realize that they, the ‘inhabitants’ who participated in, and were constituents of their world, were both ‘habitat and inhabitant’ at the same time, in the sense of the resonance or dissonance between their purposive assertive actions and the shape of their opportunity inducing space.   It became clear to them that ‘opportunity management’ which was a volumetric shaping affair, had to be in the primacy over ‘action management’ which was a curvilinear trajectory affair, in order to attenuate container-constituent dissonance and cultivate and nurture container-constituent resonance, and that this primacy was respected by the simple constituents of their natural world, their fellow constituent minerals, plants and animals.


Indeed, they also recognized the necessity to construct ‘things’ which, by cognitive illusion, seemed to exist ‘absolutely’ in fixed x,y,z,t coordinate space, an activity which sometimes clashed with their co-creative container-constituent-coevolution, but the newly won awareness that the ‘absoluteness’ of the fixed coordinate space and the explicit structures within was a ‘cognitive illusion’ which had to be subordinated to their living co-creative codynamic was sufficient for them to avoid ever again falling into the trap of aberrantly seeking to attenuate higher dimensional volumetric container-constituent dissonance issues, with the lower dimensional trajectory oriented rational theory/tools of assertive action of ‘independent causal agents’.


end of prologue, and beginning of our ‘real world’ discussion;


In ‘Harmonies of the World’ (1618), Johannes Kepler noted that the constituents of nature did not in reality use the rational laws and principles which science uses to describe the behaviours of the constituents of nature, but instead, referenced their behaviour intuitively to the geometry of space-time informationally encoded in ‘light’. In 1971, Denis Gabor received a Nobel prize in physics for showing how the geometric shape of space can be encoded in the space-time phase properties of light, confirming what had seemed intuitively reasonable.   The freeway driver, for example, references his actions to the dynamic shape of the opportunity space he co-creates with his fellows rather than driving solely by rational laws and principles, as does the whirlpool in a river flow, the solar system and hexagonal cell-building honey bees.


Kepler’s observation thus raises the question; … what understanding of ‘the way the world works’ might we be missing by our reliance on rational theory, which describes the explicit structures of the world, and the material-kinetic transactional patterns as well, but which fails to inform us of such things as the nature of the ‘management theory’ used by the bees in the development of their highly optimized hexagonal cells.


This essay, which brings into connection common geometries manifest in five other (diverse content oriented) web-essays, exposes a radical difference in rational versus relativistic theory when it is applied to ‘constituency management’ and system evolution.   When rational theory (theory based on the assertive actions of ‘independent causal agents’) is compared with relativistic theory (theory which sees assertive action simultaneously, reciprocally transforming the shape of the containing space which gates and modulates the patterns of assertive actions), there is scant difference between the two in describing the explicit static and dynamic structures of natural phenomena seen in terms of the assertive behaviours of independent causal agents, …however, the two theories differ radically when seen in the context of ‘managing’ as contrasted with ‘describing’.


In the game of pool, which emulates spherical space (e.g. a ‘four-bank shot’ which reflects four times off the banks at 90 degrees going into and coming out of the two diagonally opposite corners to form a rectangle a foot or so wide, comes back through the same position it started out at, as if it had made the 360 degree ‘trip’ around the outer surface of a table-sized sphere), placing or removing a ball on the table, or moving a ball however slightly, simultaneously, reciprocally changes the ‘shape of dynamic opportunity space’.   That is, the emergence or subduction of a ball, or its movement involves a simultaneous ‘presence’ which implicates all regions of the spherical space.


An awareness of this effect is vitally important to questions of management and system evolution, but one that transcends rational theory since it is purely ‘relativistic’ and ‘relational’.   That is, rational theory will allow one to faithfully replicate the explicit static and kinetic structural configurations of the game of pool, but it will not touch the issue of how the movement of the balls reciprocally transforms the ‘shape of dynamic opportunity space’ and thus gates and modulates the evolving patterns of the material kinetics.    As a ball is added or removed from the table and as a ball is moved, the associated ‘field of presence’ simultaneously envelopes the entire table, and associates with the transformation of opportunity.


Rational theory; … the theory of the assertive action of the constituents of space seen as ‘independent causal agents’ is radically inadequate for the purpose of  ‘managing’ system evolution, because it fails to account for the simultaneous, reciprocal transformation of the shape of space, an innate, inseparable aspect of ‘assertive behaviour’ which ‘self-referentially’ gates and modulates the evolving patterns of assertive behaviour.  What rational theory does not cover, and in fact ‘conceals’ is that the ‘assertive organism’ is at the same time ‘its environment’.


This essay is about how ‘natural theory’ incorporating relativistic effects, transcends ‘rational theory’ in ‘managing’ system evolution/adaptation.   While rational theory and relativistic theory may run ‘neck and neck’ in replicating the explicit structural aspects of natural phenomena, there is radical divergence between the two in the domain of ‘managing’ the co-creative codynamics of the constituents of space and in cultivating harmonious system evolution.   In particular, rational theory applied to management leads to ‘purification’ by ‘selection’ or ‘exclusion of the less rationally performant’ while ‘relativistic theory’ applied to management leads to the inclusionary cultivation of coresonance between assertive codynamics and inductive opportunity shaping.


What then are the downsides of using rational theory to describe ‘the way the world works’ in view of the fact that the constituents of the world which is being described are themselves co-asserting to a different theoretical drum coresonance?   Rational theory seems to have no problem, for example, in replicating the highly space-and-material optimized hexagonal structures made by the bees, in spite of the bees being induced to use very different ‘laws and principles’, … and rational theory seems to have no problem in modeling the ‘structural patterns’ of freeway traffic even though the drivers may be cultivating an exploitable ‘coresonance’ between their codynamics and the reciprocal ‘shape of dynamic opportunity space’ they want to drive into in the manner of ‘the rain forest making its own climate’.   Rational theory, in fact, ‘conceals and buries’ issues of coresonance between assertive codynamics and induced transformation of the shape of space in the mathematics of probability.   Rational theory concedes that, sometimes, the same number of vehicles can flow through the same opportunity corridors more harmoniously than at other times, and assigns this flow-through difference to such things as ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions’, ignoring the obvious, that the drivers as a group, are capable of co-cultivating coresonance between their assertive actions and the shape of the dynamic opportunity space they are asserting into.


If the freeway drivers were to resort to referencing their dynamical actions firstly to the laws and principles of rational theory which apply to ‘independent causal agents’ rather than referencing their codynamics to the simultaneously, reciprocally transformed ‘shape of dynamic opportunity space’, … they would not only lose the flow efficiencies coming from their conscious cultivation of resonance between the emergent shape of space and their kinetic trajectories, but they would inherit a large exposure to the emergence of dissonance (‘chaos’) coming from ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions’.  If a deer crossed the road, a wind retarded the acceleration of a truck, or a driver’s attention lagged for a moment, dissonance could quickly emerge.  In fact the likelihood of emergent dissonance rises with the number and volume of the assertive agents relative to the volume of their dynamical opportunity space (i.e. imagine a crowded, multi-lane freeway where the high speeds of vehicular travel demands a large dynamical opportunity space for safe, i.e. harmonious, passage).


In general, as rational systems are technology-amplified to extend the breadth and depth of their ‘action management’ reach, and as the population of constituents in the system increases, rationally managed systems become more and more exposed to the emergence of dissonance from ‘sensitive dependence on initial conditions’.  Meanwhile, ‘relativistic’ systems as found in nature, whose constituents reference their codynamical motion to ‘the shape of the opportunity space’ they are co-creating, such as the system of sun and planets, systems of collaborative freeway drivers and systems of vortices within vortices as in fluid flow, are not nearly as highly exposed to outbreaks of dissonance because the constituents are co-creating, with their codynamic, a harmonious ‘shape of dynamic opportunity space’ rather than ‘working to rule’ by referencing their individual actions to a suite of rational laws and principles grounded in ‘initial conditions’ and modeled transversely (sequentially) from past to future in fixed space x,y,z,t coordinates.  In the relativistic schema, adaptation is continuous and ‘in the now’, coming from continuous, simultaneous reconciliation of the codynamic and its reciprocally influenced shape of opportunity space (the shape of space ‘is’ the reference frame for the codynamic), while in the rational schema, the potential for error between the predicted and actual systems state rises in proportion to the displacement of its current space and time coordinates relative to the space and time coordinates of the ‘initial conditions’ which were used to ‘prime’ the rational equations.


In the rational system, the individual agent, if he is forced to ‘update’ the parameterization of his ‘equations’ to avoid imminent ‘collision’ (i.e. if he is in position to revert to ‘co-creative’ mode and is not ‘flying by wire’ in a blind sense), is often not himself in a position to visualize the full codynamic in which he is an immersed constituent, participant (in the ‘rational management’ mode, he is given such information only on a ‘need to know’ basis), thus his unilateral updating of his parameters may exacerbate the dissonance.   An example of the hazards of a unilateral update, when switching ‘rational’ and ‘relativistic’ management modes is where many people are entering a crowded pedestrian terrace crossing in many different directions, … as long as everyone is orienting to the ‘shape of dynamic opportunity space’, the flow is fairly smooth, but when a person reverts to ‘rational mode’ to avoid a collision, he may move abruptly and confuse the codynamic for others in his vicinity, particularly those approaching him from behind. (see  Prologue: Purposive People, Causality and Systems Science’ at  )


While mismatch between rational scientific models of constituent dynamics versus the ‘method’ of the constituents themselves doesn’t appear to effect the ability of the rational theory to ‘replicate’ the static and dynamic structures of natural phenomena (rational theory simply accepts and describes such dissonance and does not deal with ‘why?’), it does indeed effect the agent management process which in turn bears on the evolving form of the system and this is perhaps more clearly seen from the immersed perspective of the participating constituent.


Perhaps the most striking difference between the ‘rational’ and ‘relativistic’ management approach, is the fact that the ‘vantage point’ for the source of observation and guidance for constituent action-management in the rational management schema is external to the system (the ‘excluded observer’ who is looking down and in on it), whereas in the relativistic schema, the ‘vantage point’ for the source of observation and guidance is the immersed and participating ‘inductive eye’ of  the system; i.e. the source is the participating co-creator (who is tuned in to the collective view and consciousness of his fellow co-creators) of the evolving form of the system and whose ‘eye’ and inductive-assertive influence is analogous to the ‘eye’ of a vortex in fluid flow.  While the ‘vortical eye’ of the relativistic systems manager is a ‘centerless eye’ (a vortex has no center of its own since it ‘does not exist in its own right’ but is a purely relational pattern) which ‘sees’ and co-manages relativistic relationships (the shape of dynamical opportunity space), the ‘perspectival eye’ of the rational systems manager is a ‘self-centered eye’ which ‘sees’ and manages the explicit assertive behaviours of the constituency of ‘independent causal agents’.


So the difference between ‘rational’ and ‘relativistic’ ‘theory’ is minimal when seen in terms of the quantitative predicting of the structural form of things, including the explicit assertive actions of ‘independent causal agents’ (e.g. as Einstein and Infeld say in ‘The Evolution of Physic’, “Mercury’s ellipse [by the confirmed predictions of relativity theory] would perform a complete rotation in three million years!  We see how small the effect is, and how hopeless it would be to seek it in the case of planets further removed from the sun.”)


But the difference between ‘rational’ and ‘relativistic’ theory diverges radically when the respective theories are used to manage the evolution of ‘complex systems’ involving populous constituencies wherein the ratio of ‘dynamic opportunity space’ to ‘constituency volume’ shrinks from the huge ratios which prevail in interplanetary space towards 1.0 on a next-to-grid-locked California freeway or inside of a crowded beehive.


Again, ‘rational theory’ works well for ‘replicating the explicit structures’, both static and dynamic, which emerge from natural processes, but such theory diverges radically from ‘relativistic theory’ when it is seen in the context of a ‘management theory’.   In particular, when the ‘management’ of systems (natural or man-made) is envisaged in terms of ‘rational theory’, the adaptive evolution of the system is seen in terms of ‘purification’; i.e. ‘selection’, or, exclusion of the ‘less rationally performant’ (as in Darwinian ‘selection’).


However, this ‘exclusionary’ view derives from the ‘rational’ laws and principles governing the assertive behaviours of ‘independent causal agents’ (i.e. from theory that ignores the natural, relativistic, simultaneous reciprocity between material codynamics and the shape of dynamic opportunity space).   Rational ‘management theory’, when the managed system encounters instabilities or ‘emergent dissonance’, addresses these instabilities by ‘purification’, preferentially selecting and rewarding those constituents which demonstrate the best ability for precision compliance with rational laws and principles and excluding and/or suppressing the ‘less rationally performant’ constituents.   In effect, system management in rational theory terms, envisages the evolving entity to be the ‘independent assertive agent’ (ignoring its simultaneous relationship to the ‘shape of dynamic opportunity space in which it is an immersed participating constituent), while system management in relativistic theory terms, envisages ‘container-constituent-coevolution’ wherein the ‘assertive agent’ is simultaneously, reciprocally its inductive influence on the shape of dynamic opportunity space, and where ‘coresonance’ is to be co-cultivated between the agents ‘assertive’ and ‘inductive’ modes (i.e. its ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ modes).


From the point of view of the participating constituent on the ‘freeway driving team’, for example, … since the rational theory as used in management mode focuses solely on assertive behaviours (i.e. it does not recognize the induced transformation of the shape of dynamic opportunity space which is simultaneously reciprocal to the assertive behaviours of the ‘independent’ causal agents), it can only ‘optimize’ on this basis, and thus it will preferentially ‘select’ those constituents (freeway drivers) that best follow the theory based controls.   Those constituents most skilled in the cultivation of coresonance between assertive co-dynamic and inductive shape of space transformation,  if they attempt to use these skills, will necessarily depart from compliance with the precision assertion requirements of rational theory and be preferentially eliminated as ‘less rationally performant’.


This path of rationalist purification, if pursued intensively and persistently, leads on to a ‘death spiral’ wherein the more that the system is purged of those ‘less rationally performant’ ‘relativistic’ agents skilled in co-creating a coresonant opportunity space, leading to a phase where the exposure to dissonance will rise in proportion to the purification, in the same manner that the freeway driving situation does when everyone ‘drives to rule’ and the slightest perturbation, such as a dog crossing the road, leads to chaos, since there is no longer any ‘ethic’ to open up opportunity corridors for one another, and one is in ‘no-mans’ land when the equations are out of synch and must be re-initialized.


This effect, where dissonance is infused by managing solely in terms of the precision of assertive actions, is well know in the game of pool and thus one plays ‘shape over shots’ (opportunity space management over action management) in spite of one’s high precision shooting skills, in order to avoid the infusing of dissonance and ‘getting snookered’ (one’s precision shooting skills are instead placed in the service of ‘shape management’)..


In short, as rational systems continue to be technology-amplified, Kepler’s observations become more and more important.  Rational systems management proceeds by ‘selection’ of those constituents that best follow the rational laws and principles and by the ‘exclusion’ of the ‘less rationally performant’.   In the case of highly leveraged rational systems , this in effect equates to purging the system of those constituents who would intuitively put ‘referencing to the shape of dynamic opportunity space’ into the primacy over rational laws and principles.   Thus, the genre of freeway drivers who would put the achieving of codynamical harmony by ‘referencing to the shape of space’ into the primacy over achieving codynamical harmony by means of carefully calculated rational laws and principles, will be progressively purged from the system by rational management practice as technology amplification broadens, deepens and complexifies rational systems.


In this manner, society currently appears to be drawn towards two watersheds, an exclusionary option which puts ‘rational’ systems management, with its referencing to Euclidian space/absolute time and purificationist ‘exclusion of the less rationally performant’ into the primacy, … and the other ‘inclusionary option’ which puts intuitive referencing to ‘the co-created shape of dynamic opportunity space’ into the primacy.   While the former ‘drives out’ the latter, the latter ‘includes’ the former in the role of a ‘special case’ supportive tool; i.e. ‘special case’ in the sense that non-participating rectangular space is a degenerate case of self-referential curved space where the radius of curvature goes to infinity (where space is sparsely populated))


Thus, deeper than the need for ‘transdisciplinarity’ in science is the need to understand this ‘split’ in scientific viewpoint within each discipline and the need for an awareness that rational theory, while fine for ‘construction’ is radically inadequate for ‘managing’, … and that construction must be subordinated to overall systems management.


As technology-amplification of rational systems management broadens and deepens, contention is boiling up to the surface in all disciplines, ranging from medicine (HIV-AIDS and cancer research issues), through management and governance theory (representative democracy versus participative democracy issues).   The geometry of the ‘split’ is congruent across a broad diversity of issues with the majority generally advocating the primacy of rational management and a small ‘heretical’ representation advocating the primacy of relativistic management.


As Kepler pointed out and Poincaré clarified, we can impose our rational theory on the social world we have created, but we cannot impose it on nature.  It is manifest from our experiencing of nature that natural systems manifest a coresonance between assertive codynamics and the evolving shape of dynamic opportunity space.  In one of the essays cited below, ‘Faster Than a Speeding Light’, E. E. Richards says;


 * * *

“Each cosmic body---a planet, a moon, or a star---utilizes the spherical shape as its energy containment. The sphere is an ideal shape for a resonant cavity. The very nature of the sphere means that it resonates over vast spectrums of frequency. For example, if we start by considering the earth circumference of approximately 7.5 Hz., as a fundamental, we may calculate and detect many higher harmonically-related frequencies. In addition, there are radius frequencies with higher harmonics present. Harmonic waves in a spherical solid set up a periodic distribution within the inner and outer spherical cavities. The Van Allen energy belts surrounding the earth also present a multitude of resonant harmonics at lower frequencies than the circumference 7.5 Hz. Figure (9) shows some of the earth related frequencies. …


… "The Music of the Spheres", an ancient concept of the Universal Song, may be seen as a reality when considering the motions of the solar system. When the revolutions and rotations for the planets and their moons are converted to frequencies, there appear many harmonic relationships. For examples: the Moon's revolution is harmonically attuned to the three largest moons of Jupiter, which are themselves one octave separated from each other in their revolutions. Jupiter's rotation is a harmonic of the Earth, and Pasiphae, the outer moon of Jupiter, is in harmony with the Earth's revolution. There are many other similar solar system harmonics.

  * * *


It is worth a reminder that rational theory deals only in the assertive behaviour of ‘independent causal agents’ and thus does not speak to the manifest coresonant reciprocation between the matter and the shape of space which characterizes the various nestings, from the atomic and molecular level up through the cellular level, through the organismic level, the community level to the biospheric environmental level.   Isaac Newton acknowledged this shortfall in his own rational theory, in his ‘General Scholium’ summarizing his ‘Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica’ (1687) as follows;


"... and the planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolutions in orbits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained ; but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws.   The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane.  Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets ; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits ; for by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the planets, and with great rapidity ; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions.   This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."


That the ‘resonances’ manifest in celestial codynamics should emanate solely from the assertive behaviours of the ‘independent causal agents’ was an ‘absurdity’ in Newton’s view, and he left no doubt that he wanted to distance himself from such views in a letter to Richard Bentley (Cambridge Lecturer linking the Principia to Theology);


"It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must do, if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it.  And this is one reason, why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me.  That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another, at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it."


While Newton often alluded to a Divine source for the celestial regularities seeming to emanate from the containing space itself ( Kepler had overtly stated that ‘space’ was the orchestrating source and that the geometry of space was ‘God himself’), he left the door open to a deepening of the scientific-philosophical understanding as in his following comment in the ‘Author’s Preface’ to the ‘Principia’;


"I wish we could derive the rest of the phaenomena of nature by the same kind of reasoning from physical principles; for I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they all may depend upon certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain; but I hope the principles laid down will afford some light either to this or some truer method of philosophy."


In the intervening 313 years, our culture’s ‘faith in God’ seems to have been eroded by a ‘faith in rational science’ and the issues of the coresonant volumes of space seem to have been forgotten, overshadowed by the amazing ‘constructional’ achievements of rational science.  Meanwhile, the ‘dissonance’ induced from ‘assertive only’ rational theory continues to build, along with the growth of ‘purificationist’ management programs which seek to ‘exclude the rationally less performant’ even down to the level of primary schooling.   The rational management leaders in business and politics have meanwhile lost all credibility in the public’s eye, from a common sense point of view, and continue to operate on a pure power hierarchy basis.


While quantum theory and relativity have come along, which both imply an ‘uncertainty’ in the purely assertive view of things, and some form of ‘participation of space’ in physical phenomena, there seems little attempt to explore the ‘simultaneous reciprocity’ of space and matter, and mainstream science appears to be exploiting quantum theory primarily to cannibalize it for new insights into ‘constructionist’ opportunities involving ‘assertive behaviour’ only aspects.


The hits of breakthrough in being ‘held hostage’ to this rational theory in the primacy mode of  management, seem most promising in the domain of evolutionary biology, where there is a rejection of Darwinian selection (rational management view); e.g. Douglas Caldwell, Alan Rayner, Humberto Maturana.   Other ‘hotspots’ are implied by some of the other essays cited below, including the HIV-AIDS controversy, and the general impression that there is some fundamental flaw in medicine and medical research (i.e. human psychological and physicals systems and subsystems are still being seen in a ‘causal agent’ problem-elimination context, rather than in terms of coresonant systems wherein the shape of space is in the primacy over assertive agent action and one must nurture the space-matter co-equilibria.).


I have appended five ‘sample’ excerpts from insight-giving commentaries on the web which, brought into connection in the mind, bring forth an implicit, ‘holodisciplinary’ image of the above discussed ‘split’ in scientific philosophy.   That is, all of these essays speak to the problems of the ‘rational management’ approach  (in that it ‘excludes’ that which is not ‘rationality theory compliant’).   Implicit in them all is the suggestion of a ‘bigger story’ scientific view which includes ‘resonance effects’. 


The five excerpts derive from the following;


1.      ‘The Tyranny of Time’ by Manu Kothari and Lopa Mehta (India)


This essay shows how the notion of sequential time (time as a linear progression from past to future based on material-kinetic transconfiguration) as contrasted with biologic (ontogenic) time (time as a biological rhythm or ‘life-cycle’ based on simultaneous, reciprocal ‘outer-inner’ codynamical ‘shape-of-space-time’ transformation’), and how our perceptions of reality are ‘shaped’ by which notion of ‘time’ we choose to put into the primacy of our mental modeling.


2.      ‘The Big Bang Never Happened’, by Eric Lerner, and a reader’s review


This book (which I have not yet read) deals with a viable alternative (transformative) cosmological view that runs into the culturally conditioned implicit  belief that mathematical formulae are superior to empirical observation”.   That is, there is a belief in our western culture that the world dynamic derives from a purely assertive transactions base rather than outer-inner transformation, a view which gives rise to western science’s transactional ‘creation myth’, otherwise known as the ‘big bang’, a rational science myth which is purely assertive and out of the context of ‘outer-inner’ transformation.


3.      ‘The Limits of Science’ by Anthony Liversidge


This essay examines the ‘slipperiness’ of science in the context of the current HIV – AIDS controversy.   Liversidge is a writer interested in the concepts and behaviours of leading scientist.    His essay includes observations as to how the media ‘becomes party to’ scientific debate, by selectively serving the ideas of the majority.   As Kothari also points out, citing Bertrand Russell, in the second of his commentaries I have included, “Modern Education teaches how to do, but not how to think” and media education is similarly more attuned to telling us ‘how to do’ the current scientific conceptualization, but not ‘how to scientifically conceptualize’.


4.      ‘Manu Kothari’, an Interview by Jethu Mundul


This interview commentary by Manu Kothari is remarkable for the clarity of its straight-forward experience-referenced simplicity, as it cuts through the bs foundations of modern mainstream medicine.  In conjunction with his above-cited  essay co-authored with Lopa Mehta, ‘Tyranny of Time: Time that never was’, Kothari fashions a means of perceiving the world dynamic which puts the transformative (‘coresonant’, curved space-time) and the transactional (assert behaviours in Euclidian space and sequential time) into a relational context with respect to our mental modeling habitudes and the associated ‘conceptualizing issues’ which are currently spawning controversy in our society.


5.      ‘Faster Than a Speeding Light’, by E. E. Richards


This essay on simultaneity, which is consistent with Kothari’s conceptualization, suggests that the ‘sequential time’ and Euclidian space based view of the world is a ‘little story’ (a ‘cognitive illusion’) included within the far ‘bigger story’ of outer-inner reciprocal interference.




The commonality amongst my own views on ‘community as complex system’ and the views of Doug Caldwell (nested proliferation theory) and Alan Rayner (inclusionality) emanate from the notion that the world dynamic, the phenomenal reality of our experience, issues forth from a volumetrically nested, outer-inner codynamic.  All of us share the view of evolution as ‘container-constituent-coevolution’ or ‘habitat-inhabitant-cotransformation’.   This view puts ‘motion’ in the context of simultaneous volumetric space-time transformation, the ‘whole-and-part’ metamorphosis of space, rather than in the context of sequential (transverse from past-to-future) transactional tree growth.


Now this common view of the world dynamic and evolution, which we key to experience supported by abstract absolute formulae (rather than vice versa) runs against the grain of the mainstream scientific belief.


Mainstream science implicitly fosters the ‘belief’ that the world dynamic and evolution can be fully described in terms of the ‘assertive behaviours’ of material entities, ignoring ‘the participation of space’ (Einstein); i.e. ignoring the simultaneous transformation of the containing space reciprocal to the interfering assertive behaviours of the constituents of space; i.e. ignoring the outer-inner codynamic which is manifest in our experience, whether it is our experience at playing pool, or driving on the freeway or in flying as a member of an aerobatics team; i.e. the transformative ‘shape of dynamic opportunity space’ (the unbounded inter-constituent space which presents corridors of opportunity relative to the purpose of the included constituent) is what we ‘tune to’ (‘reference to’) and thus its shape ‘induces’ the codynamical patterns of the world dynamic.


The fact that it is difficult sharing the relativistic outer-inner transformative view in scientific circles is not surprising if one applies the same geometries to ‘thought and language’ (as did Lev Vygotsky, the Russian literary critic turned ‘father of Russian psychology).  While Piaget reckoned that the spontaneous conceptualization which comes from the quest for pleasure and satisfying our needs, was both detached and antagonistic with our ‘scientific conceptualization’ associated with our socialization, Vygotsky saw the two as ‘reciprocal aspects of a common outer-inner codynamic’.  That is, the ‘historic child’ in us has not ‘vanished’ but is still within us as an ontogenic ‘geological layer’ which we continue to ‘reference to’ (though our cultural conditioning would have us deny this ‘inner child’).   Thus, the rational statements we make, … we make for a reason, to satisfy some outer-inner codynamical balancing need, rather than to linearly ‘cause’ some particular ‘effect’ as in the linear ‘transactional’ view.  (i.e. as Poincaré explains in ‘The Relativity of Space’, we manage ourselves on a volumetric ‘inner-outer’ basis and not on a ‘one assertion at a time basis’ in spite of what our ‘one assertion at a time’ rationality might try to con us into believing).


As Vygotsky says; “When we observe the child in action, it becomes obvious that it is not only the word ‘mama’ that means, say, ‘Mama, put me in the chair, ‘ but the child’s whole behaviour at that moment  (his reaching out toward the chair, trying to hold on to it etc.).  Here the ‘affective-conative’ directedness towards an object (to use Meumann’s terms) is as yet inseparable from the ‘intentional tendency’ of speech.  The two are still a homogeneous whole, and the only correct translation of mama, or of any other early words, is the pointing gesture [i.e. the inner-outer inductive transformation appeal attaches to the word and even after we socialize to the point that the word seems to have value in its own right, this ‘inductive halo’ is still enveloping it.].”  


As Vygotsky explains, the development of subject-object logic comes along much later and rather than being ‘replaced’, this early ‘outer-inner’ inductive use of speech stays on as the deeper ground to which the logical speech ‘references’ (as a vortex within a containing vortex).  What ‘we say’ in a linearly assertive way thus references and adapts to ‘what we need’ in an ‘inner-outer’ volumetric sense, the ‘inductive transformation’ which it would give us pleasure to see transpire.   It is thus our common experience (backed up by formal studies) that when ‘authority figures’ such as the boss or a competitor or adversary or close friend comes into the meeting room, one’s speech content changes to handle the full inner-outer volumetric systems issues (e.g. ‘Yes, C.J., … super idea, C.J’ as the staff say to the boss in ‘The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin’).   Thus, when employees become financially ‘bullet proof’ (e.g. fully vested in a retirement program) they often abandon the contentual ‘spin-meistering’ they used to ‘put on’ for the boss’s benefit or a competitor’s, and shape their content more on the basis of the needs of their ontogenic ‘self’ development and the respect of their peers (i.e. respect for the honesty and forthrightness of their speech which had been suppressed for some years).   That is, the speaker chooses his content in harmony with the inner-outer inductive transformation he is in need of, which evolves over the course of his ontogeny.


Since the authority figures (in terms of assertive power) in business, government, media and public are all rewarding on the basis of the ‘rational content’ of one’s speech, and pretending the non-existence of the overriding ‘inner child’ influence of the need to induce transformation in one’s containing space (the ‘medium is the message’ or ‘real’ message), does not exist, it is neither ‘politically correct’ nor ‘popular’ nor ‘profitable’ inside of our culture to ‘blow the whistle’.   This is well captured by the ‘webs of maya’ ‘Knots’ of psychiatrist R. D. Laing, as follows;


"They are playing a game.

 They are playing at not playing a game.

If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me.

I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game."


The implication is that what we refer to as ‘normality’ in our western rationality-in-the-primacy culture is ‘insanity’, as others besides Laing have been saying (e.g. Becker, Foucault, Baudrillard, DeLeuze).   In Laing’s words, however,


"What we call 'normal' is a product of repression, denial, splitting, projection, introjection and other forms of destructive action on experience.  It is radically estranged from the structure of being."


A common reaction to our own ‘insanity’ and the growing pangs of  dissonance in our world is, in keeping with the rationality-in-the-primacy approach, to search for an assertive agent based ‘cause’ and eliminate or suppress it.   Thus, there is persisting denial that the responsible party is ‘us’, and a progressive rise of ‘conspiracy theory’ which seeks to mobilize a ‘posse’ to ‘get those responsible’ for the dissonance.   As Alan Rayner says, in his essay in the Times Higher Educational Supplement (Nov. 24, 2000), in the context of the credibility of the rational scientific approach;


“… The shining aura of infallibility that used to shield scientific authority has begun to fade, to be replaced by questions: do they honestly know what they are talking about; can our science really foresee the long-term consequences of our actions? And as the global impact of human technology looks set to outstrip human wisdom, these questions become more urgent: the future quality, if not survival of our living space is in doubt. Faced with this crisis, the retaliatory response of some is to accuse the disquieted public of ignorance, irrationality, irresponsibility and pursuing a political agenda. Ironically, it is the deliberate ignorance of context, compounded by political, economic and career aspirations, which really risks unleashing dysfunction: indeed it already has done so. “


Finally, it is not getting any easier to be a ‘heretic’ in our society, since to be true to the heresy would have one criticize the approach of  ‘rational primacists’ in government and business, as well the increasing population of ‘rational primacists’ among us who are mobilizing to ‘make the world a better place’ by purely assertive means (an approach destined to induce even more dissonance).  Because of the rational-commercial nature of the media, there is not much to be gained by its giving ‘access to the microphone’ to heretics who would attack everyone (the good, the bad and the ugly), since the media is not conversant with Goedel’s theorem and the notion that; “The attacker who attacks those who are unable to attack themselves cannot attack himself, but cannot avoid doing so”.


Meanwhile, it is hard to abandon the primacy of assertiveness, but as in the case of the aerobatics team in the imaginary world of the prologue to this essay, perhaps we can simply find ways to put a harmonious spin on ‘conflict’, through poetry and humour, perhaps, …


     In the slaughterhouse of love, they kill only the best,

     none of the weak or deformed

     Don't run away from this dying.

    Whoever's not killed for love is dead meat.


                                                   Jelaluddin Rumi


 * * *



[1] THE TYRANNY OF TIME : Time that never was


We can beat our chests bloody red trying to find a definition of time, and never find one, because we're sweating over an issue that begins in man's mind, and ends there, without any semblance of external reality. Time is if you insist it is. It is not if you agree it is not. It's a classic microversion of the old movie The Man Who Never Was.

by Manu Kothari & Lopa Mehta




... snip....  


"The American public," according to Joseph Hixson in his book on America's scientific scandal of the century titled The Patchwork Mouse, "known to the rest of the world as the originator of fads and fetishes, suffers from time to time with a preoccupation over a single disease. Today that disease is cancer." Cancer, as a phenomenon, brilliantly illustrates the cerebral bankruptcy with which scientists can ride a hobbyhorse, advertising their galloping speed. For the past 225 years, scientists have been claiming, chasing, nabbing the cancer cell that never was, the cause that never was, the gene that never was, the cure that never was. Cancer scientists, therapists and journalists seem to have taken a cue from Voltaire: "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer - "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." So they continue to invent or discover what never was, is, or will be. And all that they end up wasting is more money, more animal blood. After trillions of dollars down the cancerous drain soaked with the blood of millions of innocent animals, the cancer establishment is worse off than ever before, caught in a quagmire of its own making.


Two Nobel-opinions ought to suffice to sum up the absurdity of the situation. James Watson of The Double Helix fame, has described cancer research as "intellectually bankrupt, fiscally wasteful and therapeutically useless". When asked about the (US) National Cancer Program, he declared: "It's a bunch of shit." Linus Pauling, of alpha-helix fame, and a double Nobel-laureate, warned: "Everyone should know that the `war on cancer' is largely a fraud."


[2] The Big Bang Never Happened

by Eric J. Lerner


Reprint edition (December 1992)


Editorial Reviews

Book Description

A mesmerizing challenge to orthodox cosmology with powerful implications not only for cosmology itself but also for our notions of time, God, and human nature -- with a new Preface addressing the latest developments in the field.

Far-ranging and provocative, The Big Bang Never Happened is more than a critique of one of the primary theories of astronomy -- that the universe appeared out of nothingness in a single cataclysmic explosion ten to twenty billion years ago. Drawing on new discoveries in particle physics and thermodynamics as well as on readings in history and philosophy, Eric J. Lerner confronts the values behind the Big Bang theory: the belief that mathematical formulae are superior to empirical observation; that the universe is finite and decaying; and that it could only come into being through some outside force. With inspiring boldness and scientific rigor, he offers a brilliantly orchestrated argument that generates explosive intellectual debate. --This text refers to the Paperback edition. []




the big dud?


August 8, 2000

The Big Bang has gained a reputation of invincibility. It has become in the last 40 years a central pillar of scientific orthodoxy. It is the modern creation myth. The vehicle, however, is in constant need of shoring up and bailing out as its original intuitive simplicity is stoved in. Missing links, large and small, abound. Increasingly eccentric views of the architecture are pronounced to compensate for rips and gaps in the sciences needed to support it. New subatomic 'dimensions' are casually added, the noetic ether of superstrings, to accommodate an evermore insubstantial construct. Time has lost its contingency as to 'direction' or spatial integrity. . Structural beams such as the primacy of light speed are tossed to notions of 'inflation' to account for the universe's 'lumpiness'. Uncertainty, entropy and 'consciousness' form an occult ethos of blind acceptance in respected scientific circles. All has become a magical superstructure understood within a closely held cryptography. Lerner's engaging critique is a colloquial history of the Big Bang, related to the societal and scientific cultures that spawned it. He argues the apprehension of the infinite universe, an anathema to the Big Bang, is directly related to an era's technological vigour.


The pervasive current in modern cosmology is that of its growing alienation from observable experiment. 'Experiments' conducted at the limits of conjectural horizons can produce only attributed results. Every 'finding' or anomaly must be insinuated into the grand master plan, geometrically complicating its conceptual foundation. By necessity, then, the test of validity becomes credulity, consonant with the scientist's rank in the priestly hierarchy, rather than by scientific method. A spectral edifice is the result, integrated into an understanding which relies on symbolic consistency rather than physical verification. Lerner notes that forces of electromagnetism and plasma physics provide a much more accessible explanation for the universe's large scale structure, using the pioneering theories of Hannes Alfven's filamentary universe. This takes the altogether reasonable route of explaining events of the past in terms of processes visible today. These, however, are so much less portentous and profound than a primal mythical singularity..


It is difficult to come up with one constructive industrial application that has been developed from contemporary cosmology beyond those based on the state of atomic science as at the end of Second World War. Its realms are now remote, exotic mathematics, far too refined and theologically pleasing than to be subjected to standards of empiricism or function. Unanchored by technological progress science loses its fundamental inspiration. One harkens back to Oswald Spengler's 'Decline of The West', where he predicted all sciences in late stage civilization would converge into number forms, abandon their proofs and utilities, and manifest boundless belief systems. A vast academic bureaucracy, tenure, life works, Nobel prizes, research grants are now totally invested in the Big Bang. The current drift in the intellectual tides seems destined to continue along with public fascination. Lerner's contribution is in reasserting a healthy skepticism and proposing some realistic alternatives. Scientific paradigms have been fiercely defended throughout history, but have also been subjected to recurrent revolutions as their focus becomes more inward and aesthetic than useful.





[3] The Limits of Science

By Anthony F. Liversidge, from "The Cultural Studies Times", Fall, 1995.


What science is, is a slippery topic, as the science wars show. According to some, it is a religion, ripe for deconstruction as a myth-making cultural activity. Well, fine. That strikes a chord with anyone familiar with the way scientists operate in real life, and as even the clear headed Karl Popper remarked, "science must begin with myth, and with the criticism of myths." Others say that, on the contrary, science is an internal process insulated, if done well, from social and even psychological influence, and therefore from such analysis. That argument, too, seems undeniable.


Perhaps it simply boils down to which science, and which scientist, one is talking about. Sciences vary. As do scientists, a species that includes, as Peter Medawar observed, "collectors, classifiers, and compulsive tidiers up; many are detectives by temperament and many are explorers, some are artists and other artisans. There are poet-scientists and philosopher-scientists and even a few mystics."


The practice of science varies according to which community one is considering.



... snip...


Year after year, the position that HIV is the cause of AIDS is maintained by the scientific establishment in the teeth of a gale of findings that cast doubt on the idea. Among the latest is a new probable cause of Kaposi's Sarcoma, the rare purple skin cancer that was originally the prime marker for what was eventually named AIDS. Now mainstream researchers believe it is not caused by HIV, but a new virus (L. Altman, The New York Times, 16 Dec. 1994). Another concern is the accuracy of both the Elisa and Western Blot blood test, which have proved to cross-react with an abundance of other diseases including malaria, casting grave doubt as to the reality of any AIDS epidemic at all in Africa (AIDS in Africa: Distinguishing Fact from Fiction, World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 1995). Whether the skepticism is ultimately vindicated or not is beside the point here. What is important is that it is clearly well-founded, and the history of the early suffocated debate perfectly illustrates that enormous pressures can be brought to bear against dissent, even when the challenge comes from the ranks of the leadership in a field. In this case, the chief exponent of review was a senior, prizewinning retrovirologist, who first urged reassessment in Cancer Research, a leading journal, and then at exhaustive length in what is arguably the most reputable scientific journal in the world, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, eight years ago. (Both articles are so far without reply in the same journals, though at the time of the Proceedings article Robert Gallo, the NIH scientist who invented the HIV-AIDS theory, promised the editors a refutation).


The Berkeley professor of retrovirology who so rashly took on this role was and is one of the most prominent figures in retrovirology, blessed at the time with one of the richest federal grants ($350,000 a year) in science to pursue research avenues wherever his mind led him. Today, however Peter Duesberg is virtually without grants, graduate students or influence, prevented from replying to his critics in leading journals and routinely ignored or detracted in the mainstream press. The Nobel he was expected to win for his earlier work has gone to others, and coverage of his ideas in the science news journals and in the mainstream press has been fitful, gratuitously antagonistic and uniformly disparaging of the heresy and heretic both.


All this, despite the plain fact that Duesberg's doubts have not been satisfied in any respect, his credentials are otherwise unsullied, and his hundreds of scientific supporters now include at least three Nobel prize winners. Of his two most influential opponents on the issue, one (Gallo) barely fought off public censure for stealing credit for the discovery of HIV, and the other (David Baltimore) was forced to resign a prestigious university presidency after unsuccessfully resisting the retraction of a false research article to which his Nobel-prize winning name was attached.


None of that affects the scientific argument, of course, but it does raise questions as to why the media has proved so reluctant to cover the dissent. The New York Times, for instance, which systematically refers to HIV as the virus that causes AIDS, has covered the Duesberg dispute with only five brief stories in nine years. A string of mainstream magazines have assigned pieces only to kill them and coverage by network television has been non-existent until recently, owing to pressure from scientists at the NIH. (B. Ellison and P. Duesberg, "Why We Will Never Win The War On Aids", Inside Story Communications, 1994 and Regnery Gateway, 1995).

Blatant, even admitted censorship has also been seen in the coverage of the dispute by the most widely read general news journals in science, Science and Nature. Science early on published a four page exchange between Duesberg and his opponents, but then cut off the debate and, apart from a sprinkling of letters, has published only tendentious news articles since, casting Duesberg and his ideas in an unfavorable light, quoting his critics liberally and limiting his replies. Nature has three times published unreviewed 'correspondence' claiming to refute Duesberg's ideas, and remarkably, has then explicitly declined to allow Duesberg to respond in full. Indeed, editor John Maddox advertised the censorship in a full page editorial entitled "Has Duesberg a Right of Reply?" (The answer was no).


The peculiar extent to which Nature is willing to head off Duesberg's views was further exhibited when the Sunday Times of London printed extensive coverage of the unorthodoxy and of what it called "The Conspiracy of Silence" last year. Maddox wrote an editorial blasting the newspaper, and advising his readers not to buy the paper. The episode was reminiscent of an incident earlier when a NIH bureaucrat important in AIDS warned that reporters who covered Duesberg "are going to find their access to scientists may diminish." (The AAAS Observer, Sept. 1, 1989, p. 4)


Paradigms are not overthrown save by new ones, and Duesberg has argued exhaustively that drugs are the prime candidate for a cause of AIDS. His latest work on the topic, refuting a study published in Nature which claimed otherwise, is in Genetica, a journal published in the Netherlands, which has devoted a special issue to alternative AIDS hypotheses, intended to redress the balance in the debate. Experimental work on such hypotheses remains limited, however, by the monopoly of federal funding by the AIDS establishment. Duesberg has applied for numerous grants to carry out experiments exploring the drug hypothesis but has always been turned down even, as in the latest instance, when his proposal had the strong support of the editor of Science.


Thus the Galiliean challenger is censored, and the 20th Century Church of the science establishment maintains its hegemony as effectively as the Church of Rome did in the 17th. In modern times the repression is abetted by an uncritical press, and the cooperation of funding officials who have an incestuous relationship with the ruling scientists. Then there is the power and influence of the drug companies, on which the few investigative reporters in the field have had nothing good to report.


All this difficulty in overturning the entrenched orthodoxy may be nothing special to AIDS, or to science in general, but it hinges on a close-mindedness, a psychological and perhaps even venal attachment to the status quo that is contrary to the values professed by scientists as vital to good work. Is it naive to demand better? Much of the philosophy of science, and much of what has been written about the way science and scientists work, seems to argue that this behavior is inevitable as long as scientists are human, and anyway not entirely a bad thing. I once asked Thomas Kuhn whether the political battle forced on every reformer of orthodoxy in science was not contrary to the professed ethic of scientists, and he gave the question short shrift. Without such an obstacle course, he demanded, how otherwise would the new paradigm be tested? 


Such philosophical equanimity might fit with Kuhn's essential point that we must understand science as realpolitik, but I suggest that its force dissipates in an instant if one asks the obvious question: would Kuhn feel the same way if his own doctor informed him that his blood had tested positive for HIV? It is hard to imagine that he would not quickly develop a consuming, not-so- philosophical interest in seeing what conclusion might be reached freed of all political, cultural and psychological bias.


And that's my point. We need cultural studies in science because some science isn't being practiced as good science. The philosophers may be right in saying that ultimate reality is forever beyond our grasp. The pragmatists may be right that complete objectivity is impossible for any human. But the aim, at least, should be good science, as far as we can achieve it. The public interest demands that scientific method in practice has to try, at least, to bring the fantasy of theory as closely in accord with reality as humanly possible. To that end, scientists should be ashamed of restricting the free flow of information and debate which is the lifeblood of good science. So should the science editors who abet them.


In the end, the best definition of science may be Peter Duesberg's. He has sacrificed much material advantage to a sense of public responsibility and to an ideal of science which is simple, straightforward, has absolutely nothing worldly about it, and no mystification either. "Science", Duesberg has written, "is the search for the ultimate match between facts and theory." Science studies may, ironically, help to educate scientists, the press and the public to restore this fundamental notion to primacy by suggesting that scientists have their moral obligations as well. They do, when lives hinge on truth.


Anthony F. Liversidge is a writer and contributing editor at Omni magazine with a special interest in the ideas and behavior of leading scientists. He lives in New York City. His e-mail address is





An interview (part one)

By Jethu Mundul

June 2000


Dr. Manu Kothari (1935) is Professor of Anatomy, at the Seth G.S. Medical College, in Mumbai, India. He is the author of eight books including: The Nature of Cancer (Vol. One), Bombay, 1973. Cancer: Myths and Realities of Cause and Cure, London, 1979. The Other Face of Cancer, Goa, 1994. Human Genetics, Bombay, 1986. Essentials of Human Embryology, Bombay, 1983. Death: A new perspective on the phenomena of disease and dying, London, 1986. Living and Dying, Goa, 1996. Violence in Modern Medicine: In, Violence and Science, 1988. Next to these books he published numerous articles in the Journal of Postgraduate Medicine.


The meeting that took place in Pretoria at the behest of President Mbeki, was to decide whether the orthodox group is right mainly that HIV causes AIDS, that AIDS is a fatal disease and must be treated as an emergency measure - or that there is not much substance in the entire hypothesis, as a very small group on the other side thinks.


And I think it is very bold of the President, to, intellectualise the issue and that is how we met there. You see, one of the key points which has been used by the media that AIDS is a curent catastrophe, and one point which Peter Duesberg pointed out, who is the pioneer dissident as you might say, who doesn't believe that there is an HIV virus, who doesn't believe that that it causes AIDS, who doesn't believe that AIDS should be treated like the way we are treating, you know. He was the person who said "Here we have a situation, where what is most important is that, as in his opinion, the orthodox group seems to be poorly read, and the dissident group which is very well read, is not listened to for whatever reason."


Now the question is what really is bygging this issue, and therefore, I want to use this as a platform to discuss medicine's failure, or otherwise in such leading areas as cancer, heart attack, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, arthritis, peptic ulcers. Just consider these, and you realise that you've got to fall back on a very important book which came out from Rockefeller Foundation called 'Doing better and feeling worse, Health in the United States'. This was in 1977. Now what is "Doing Better"? Until the '60s, the United States used to spend about 8 billion dollars a year on health. Now it is spending worth 1.25 billion dollars a day. Moral of the story.. doctors, hospitals, manufacturers are having a gala time! And who's "Feeling worse"? Oviously the patient!


The 1977 decision that we are feeling worse, patients are feeling worse, remains unchanged as of May 2000 A.D. Now the questionis "Why so"? If you go into that book, in the first chapter written by Lewis Thomas, a Yale, philosopher, physician, and who was lately the Director of Sloan Kettering Institute, he says, "..When it comes to these major issues like cancer, heart attack, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, arthritis and peptic ulcer.. medicine knows next to nothing"! And in the same book, there is another medical physician Wildarsky, who says that in 9 problems out of 10, medicine can do precious little. In fact, there is a global survey that 9 prescriptions and procedures, 9 investigations and whatever out of 10 are not onyl unneccesary but unwarranted!

Now why have we come to this? We have come to this because, I think, beginning 1930, technology started taking over thinking. And therefore, circa 1930 Betrand Russel said, that Modern Education teaches how to do, but not how to think. And since a common person wants things to be done, like it is in court, that Justice should not only be done but seen to be done, so therapy not only should be done, but seen to be done.


Assertive action has become a priority issue in medicine, however wrong it may be. Now with regard to AIDS, let me point out a few epistemological principles which come to the fore. Epistemology is the science of knowledge. It is a science which takes any piece of information and weighs its worthwhileness, its possiblity, its impossibilty,.. uselessness, its worthwhileness. Now consider that about 300 years ago, an apple fell on the bald pate of Newton and gravitation was born. Since then we have been studying gravitation left, right and centre! We know everything about it from the 10th decimal point.. but one thing remains certain, we can't alter gravity. As Robert Arturu says," apple must fall down"! Therefore, supposing we know everything about cancer cell, that in no way will allow you to alter the cancer cell. Therefore, in fact, Lyall Watson on the European side and Lewis Thomas on the American side, both have generalised that the biggest discovery of the 20th century is the discovery of Human Ignorance!

In 1996, the KEM Hospital, the institution where I work, celebrated its 50th year. And the Dean told me I should suggest to him a rather unusual, offbeat topic for a conference to be held. So I said, Sir, why don't you hold a first ever conference on Medical ignorance. And he started laughing. He didn't take up the issue for the simple reason, he said, that if this conference is held, money flowing in from pharmaceutical firms will close down. So I said, O.K. sir. I give you a guarantee that I will organise the conference, but not talk at the conference. But somehow it never came to pass. And lo and behold in 1977, I get a book from America sent to me by one of my students, Encyclopedia Scientific Ignorance. This was followed up by Pergaman Oxford in 1979 with Encyclopedia of Medical Ignorance. Now these two encyclopedias more than underscore what Lyall Watson and Lewis Thomas said. Let us go back in the hoary past and Shankaracharya. He said in 9th century, that if "Gyaan"(knowledge) is "Aananth"(happiness), so is "Agyaan"(ignorance). And much later Blaise Pascal said that knowledge is the inner surface of the sphere, whose outer surface is painted with ignorance. And therefore, sometimes when somebody calls me that I am well read, then I tell them that I know that I am very very ignorant, because the more you know, the more exponentially you become ignorant. And that explains to you why some of the greatest people who are very learned, are almost painfully humble. You almost get irritated that this man knows so much and yet he pretends to be humble. But in the depths of his heart you see, he knows that he doesn't know!


I am a teacher, and so I've got to teach my students. And I often think of my role. What is my role here? And then I realise that I am a resident of "the democracy of intellect". This is a phrase used by Jacob Bronowski in one of his small books titled 'Democracy and Intellect'. There is neither dissidence nor proponence. There is only a democracy of intellect. And what is my task? The task of any teacher is to take the student to the outer limits of knowledge and to the beginning of his ignorance, thereby establishing an epistemological equality which must be at the heart of any democracy. So thinking along these lines, our own department where I have been teaching for the last forty years, we have very cardinal principles. That on the first day, the student must learn to have a healthy disrespect for the three T's.. teacher, what is taught and the textbook. And towards that end we encourage them to take an oath which was supposed to be a ritual in early Europe, especially in particular universities. You take an oath, that here I have come not to worship what is known, but to question! Question, question and question! And therefore, the issue of HIV/AIDS also demands questioning.


Now to help our questioning on HIV/AIDS, or rather, to have a moral right on this issue, let us take other areas where things appear so pretty clear. 1946 Augustus Bier wrote, that all you know about cancer can be written down on a visiting card, we don't know! And till today it remains unchanged. Around 1983, James Watson of the double helix fame, characterised cancer research as intellectually bankrupt, financially ex invigorating and therapeutically useless. And he said cancer establishments are a lot of shit.. that is the term he used. Sir Meg McFarlen, the Nobel Laureate,summoned up the entire Nobel scene, and he said that after a thousand main years work, the outcome is precisely nil. And today what has happened is, cancer cell no longer is taken as a structural entity. Cancer cell is taken as one more form of normal cello. Now the question is what is cancer cell and what is normal cell?


So Albert Szent-gyorgii, the Nobel Laureate for the discovery of vitamon C and actin myocine, while chairing a session in America at the 69th Ciba Symposium on Sub molecular biology and cancer, on the last page, he is asked, Sir, can you define what is a cancer cell?. And he says, typically of a humble person,"My dear sir, how can I tell you what's a cancer cell when I don't know what's a normal cell?" Yet in the cancer establishment, the bogey of cancer cell as being a vicious, savage cell is being sustained. Another unholy humbug which thet are sustaining, is that chemotherapy and radiotherapy are useful because they tend to kill the more fast multiplying cells as compared to normal cells. So we went on till cytokinetics arrived. And cytokinetics arrived to destroy two illusions. Cytokinetics showed that if at all cancer cells multiply painfully slowly with the result that when you give radio therapy and chemo therapy, before you kill a single cancer cell, you will destroy a million normal cells. That is the trade off, okay? And the other illusion which it destroyed was that of early diagnosis, we still drumbeat early diagnosis. From 1802 through the 19th and 20th century, some of the most leading thinkers have shown that early diagnosis is not possible. This was said intuitively. Then came cytokinetics. And Cytokinetics has shown that before a tumour assumes one milligram of weight, which no scan ever can detect, it's a billion cell strong! And to arrive at that it will take a few years. Which means that by the time a cancer is diagnosed, a symptomatic silent cancer is diagnosed and detected by the most sensitive scan, it has been in the patient's body from 5-20 years. And therefore, when I think about this bogey of early cancer, I say, quoting, almost paraphrasing Churchill.."Never in the history of science has so much untruth been told, by so few, to so many, for so long".


Right, and therefore you know... go furthur! We wrote the 10th chapter of our smaller book, because Ivan Illich realised that the larger volume 'Nature of Cancer', 1000 pages, nobody will read. So he said. Manu, bring it to one tenth, and we brought it! And at that time we wrote the 10th chapter,'Cancer is unresearchable'. When I sent it to England, my publisher said, Manu, you are in the habit of joking, but this is carrying a joke too far!. So I said, what you do is circulate this chapter among top cancer specialists in England, and if they ask me to modify it. I'll do it. If they ask me to drop it, I'll drop it. On purely intellectual grounds they could do neither. And now that chapter has stayed in the series of additions and transalations and we have shown that cancer is unresearchable.


1979, 14th March was the 100th birth anniversary of my beloved Einstein, And therefore, Lopa and I decided to pay a tribute to him. Why pay a tribute to him? Let it be known to the whole world that in the word of J.B.S. Harding, Einstein has been the greatest Jew after Jesus Christ! So Lopa and I wrote an article, On Time, Uncertainity, Relativity and Normality in medicine. And that was published in Chicago. The title was "Trans science aspect of disease and death". That from the common cold to cancer, basically science can do nothing about its cause, about its course, about its cure. So some friend tod me, I'm a Luddite. I don't know what are technological advances. There is MRI. There is CT Scan and therefore, he says, just see. And therefore the next chapter was, Trans technique aspects of diseases and death. Believe me, till today, about cause, course and cure of common cold, cancer, coronary, heart attack, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, HIV and AIDS, medicine knows next to nothing. And medicine must accept that it knows next to nothing. okay?


About diabetes. We seem to know that there is diabetes and anti diabetic drugs. But I think we are kidding! Diabetes is a multi faceted problem. Protein metabolism is disturbed, fat metabolism is disturbed, sugar metabolism is disturbed, arterial health is disturbed. At the moment we have only one parameter, glucose level. So we give a drug to bring the glucose to the doctor's desired level not neccessarily to the patient's comfort. And you call it curing diabetes, treating diabetes! You're kidding.

I think, some years ago, there was a Conference held only to define Diabetes mellitus. And at the end of 3 days, they gave it up that it can't be defined. Medecine has not defined hypertension, medecine has not defined heart attack, medecine has not defined cancer, medecine can't define arthritis, medecine can't define HIV and AIDS! It Can't! when you are so grossly deficient, how can you research? At the moment writing the ABC of cardiolopgy. A for artery, B for blood, C for codium or heart. And what is my revelation? i thought that cardiologists must be knowledgeable people, but there is profound ignorance! there is not a single genuine anti cardiac drug, not a single one.


And I must wax eloquent on angiography, angioplasty and bypass. It was in 1993 that Renu Varmani, trained here. but now is a big person in America, majestically declared"we no longer trust coronary angiogram in the USA. We go for intra coronary ultra sonogram". So I said," Madam, should I put an obituary in the Times of India tomorrow, that coronary angiography is dead?" She said" You must pay, you must do that" And then she said "When you do angioplasty, the coronary arteries are invariably torn". So I said, " Shall I announce tomorrow that coronary tear is part of coronary care?" She said "Yes". And what is the bottomline today? That angioplasty does not lengthen life, creates many complications. And if you put stent inside, stent induced stenosis of the arteries today described as the most common iatrogenic, malignant disorder.


Okay! I have just a download from American college of cardiology and American Heart Association, which says angiography is unreliable! Therefore you do intracoronary ultra sonogram which is unreliable, therefore you do thalium optic study which is unreliable, therefore you do coronary angioscopy! All four together are unreliable. Now the fact that they are unreliable, I transalated into the fact that if you do angioplasty and bypass, nobody's life is lengthened. No one!


Let's go to bypass. Let's take Harrison's Textbook of Medecine. Large volumes, Volume One and Two.. nearly two and a half thousand pages, which i have followed from 10th to 14th edition, 1983 to 1998! Fifteen years and Five editions! And you go to the section, coronary bypass... and what does it say? We don't know how bypass works! But the following are the three theories. 1)Placebo is effective 64%! This 64% i got from another book, but no wonder N.Y.Times once described coronary bypass as the costliest Aspirin!


Okay, you spend a lot of money, and you are convinced that the right thing has been done. (2) Sensory neurectomy. Because the pericardium is cut, nerves are cut, the heart is botched upas ever, but because the fellow doesn't feel the pain, he does not build up an alarm reaction. And probably the worst is in cold print."Bypass probably works by infarcting the ischaemic segment", transalated into ordinary language, it means, bypass-by killing the complaining segment. So the segment is killed. it's nerves are killed and the fellow is pain free immediately on the operating table. But moral of the story... bypass is a surgery which is very very unscientific, to say the least. And I have a book, History of Coronary Revascularization, by Richard Preston, one of the Brooklyn cardiologists. And he has stated from 1890 till today, and this is a book around 1978, and he asked her, his cardiologist friend, as to why they were selling an operation which had very poor rational. And the reply was that the consideration of the economy. This is a marketplace, my client wants to buy, so I want to sell! Moral of the story, what do we do in cancerology or cardiology? We cannot attack the primary problem, precisely because there is no problem! It's a part of growing. okay? Everybody gets it.

So you can't treat everybody, but what do we do? Whenever there is a symptom, when cancer causes lump, in case the lump is bothering the contours and the beauty of the person, remove it! If it is blocking a tube, remove it. Moral of the story, Tata hospital has to ease, provided there is dis-ease! Presence of cancer means nothing, okay?


In fact, I may read out to you from Boyd's Pathology, that cancer is one of the classical examples where the person may be totally at peace with himself, therefore there is a lump, he has no disease, he has got cancer, but he has no disease. In a similar fashion, you may take my coronary angiogram and find it awfully diseased, but I have no symptoms. Because I have no symptoms, I am not dis-eased. There is no need for an easer called physician. And therefore, there is no need for the physician to violate what is called Heal's Law. He says that it is impossible to make an asymptomatic person feel better, therefore it is very much possible to make an asymptomatic patient feel worse1 You go to Hinduja (hospital). You go up well dressed, pay a large amount. You walk in as a person, you walk out as a patient! Because what do they do? They do investigate, and as Rousseau says, implant into your brain a worm of suspicion which starts crawling. From that day you start thinking that it's not hunky- dory with you, and this particular preempting a disease, has not paid off to anybody in any field. And therefore, my bottom line about cancer, my bottom line about coronaryu, my bottom line about diabetes and hypertension is, if they are silent, do nothing! And as and when you treat, treat the symptom, warning the individual that this will worsen his condition. One symptom will disappear, other will arrive! Just to give you an example, Lawrence Clinical Pharmacology is now in its 8th celebrated edition. You go under the section of cardiac failure. You go to the summarizing box at the end of chapter, and there is a very profound statement "Relief of symptoms does not improve prognosis and vice versa". You go to the 1956 Transactions of the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6. There is a fifty page article by Hardin Jones of National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland. He surveyed global cancer of all types and compared the untreated and the treated, to conclude that the untreated out lives the treated, both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity. Secondly he said, "Cancer does not cure". Third he said"There is a physiological mechanism which finishes off an individual".


Which brings me to Bertrand Russel's 1918 article on Causation. He said, Causalism has died in all advanced sciences, but in some sciences it survived. Because like the King of England, the king of England and the king of Egypt, it's supposed to do no harm. Okay?






"Each cosmic body---a planet, a moon, or a star---utilizes the spherical shape as its energy containment. The sphere is an ideal shape for a resonant cavity. The very nature of the sphere means that it resonates over vast spectrums of frequency. For example, if we start by considering the earth circumference of approximately 7.5 Hz., as a fundamental, we may calculate and detect many higher harmonically-related frequencies. In addition, there are radius frequencies with higher harmonics present. Harmonic waves in a spherical solid set up a periodic distribution within the inner and outer spherical cavities. The Van Allen energy belts surrounding the earth also present a multitude of resonant harmonics at lower frequencies than the circumference 7.5 Hz. Figure (9) shows some of the earth related frequencies.


The numerous energy belts about the earth act as spherical capacitors, one within another. These energy field capacitors create highly fluctuating potential gradients, vertically arrayed at right angles to the earth surface. These large spherical capacitors longitudinally couple a continuous supply of vibrations from the outer magnetosphere to the earth surface and within the earth. The many surrounding energy belts act as sensitive detecting membranes to couple the solar system and galactic information vibrations to the inner earth fields which we inhabit. In addition, they also transfer the earth's natural resonances back out into the solar system and galaxy, thus supplying earth's link to the galaxy.

Let us once again look at the Moon and its mean distance from the Earth. If the distance of the Earth to the Moon (approximately 385,000 Km.) is considered as a wavelength, then its frequency will be .78 Hz. The distance changes throughout each month due to the elliptical orbit, giving a maximum frequency of .83 Hz. and a minimum of .74 Hz. The higher harmonics of these frequencies may be detected by ELF sensing instruments. All of these harmonics lie within the human brain-wave region. Figure (10) shows many of the possible energy belt frequencies. These frequencies are also within the human biological spectrum.


What might this Earth-Moon-wavelength longitudinal near-field wave of influence look like? Just imagine it as a long vibrating steel rod extending from and attached to the Earth on one side, and the Moon on the other. Now compare this with a meter stick held in your hands. If you tap your finger on one end of the meter stick, the taps will be instantly felt at the opposite end. There is no transmission time. Likewise, Earth's multitude of natural resonant vibrations are instantly, longitudinally, coupled to be received at the Moon. Also the Moon sends back her messages. There is no rate of velocity of the signal transmission, such as the speed of light; all is instantaneous. The Earth and Moon each modulate the common longitudinal chord with their individual resonances. Since each body is a multi-resonant sphere, they also share many common fundamental frequencies and harmonics. See Figure (11).


It should not take a great stretch of your imagination to see how our solar system's ever-changing longitudinal chords of influence resonate and interact by coupling all bodies of the system to all other bodies, instantaneously! Figure(12) shows an example. Each individual system of stars, planets, moons, asteroids, and comets instantaneously displays its own unique qualities of vibrational influence to the neighboring star systems and to the galaxy. Figure (13) shows us some of the frequencies of the other nearby stellar systems. And Figure (14) shows some of the nearby sun-like stellar systems, which may have similar planetary configurations to our own solar system.




What are these longitudinal waves and how might they function? As noted previously, T.J.J. See pictured an incessant bidirectional, gravitational, wave-stress, interlocked, cork-screw tension in the aether. The Russian torsion field researchers describe them in at least three types of electric fields, spin fields, and bidirectional gravity fields. The physicist Andrei Sakharov describes a longitudinal, spin-polarized G-field which cannot be screened. Another researcher, E.T. Whittaker, describes bundles of harmonic bidirectional longitudinal wave-pairs. There are many common frequencies associated with all spherical structures. Imagine an infinite series harmonic longitudinal spiraling wave emitted from the Earth, meeting a likewise opposite spiraling wave emitted from the Moon, pulling and holding against the counter force of the link to all other bodies of the universe."


Return to Index of Essays