The Revolution That Never Was
Montréal, June 24, 2001
This last-in-the-series essay at the culmination of a two year, independent research stint in Montréal (into 'community-constituent relationships' seen in complex systems terms) has benefited from insights coming my 'total immersion' in a highly complex 'community-constituent-codynamic' involving francophone, anglophone, autochtone and youth factions buffeted within the enveloping influence of the global economy. The inquiry in this essay has 'no place to go' to look for understanding, but to the very depths of a community's historically evolved conceptualization of 'our place in the world'.
Thomas Kuhn, in 'The Copernican Revolution' spoke of how difficult it is to 'unfold' the basic conceptions of space and time which have been deeply woven into the everyday fabric of our lives. So deeply, it appears, that 'The Copernican Revolution' is a 'Revolution That Never Was'.
What was the space-time issue at stake?
Kepler described it in the relativistic terms that "... the essence of movement consists not in being but in becoming, .."
The bird immersed in the dynamics of the flock, high above the earth in 'open space' is aware that the dynamic geometry of the flock is their only reference frame, and from experience the bird knows that its motion simultaneously, reciprocally changes the volumetric shape of that reference frame upon which every constituent in the community of birds depends on for guiding their individual dynamics. Together, they co-create their future, their enveloping environment which induces them to action and evolution, in the manner that 'the rainforest creates its own climate.'.
The dynamic geometric shape of space co-created by the relative dynamics of the birds gives rise to the 'community dynamic' which serves, self-referentially (simultaneously, reciprocally), as the reference for the dynamics of the individual birds.
This relativistic relationship applies to all of the constituents in the community of nature, faunal, floral and mineral; i.e. the dynamic geometry of space co-created by the relative dynamics of the constituents gives rise to the 'community dynamic' which serves, self-referentially (simultaneously, reciprocally) as the reference for the dynamics of the constituents.
The dynamic geometry of 'life' is a co-creative becoming, not something which is deterministically 'caused' by the actions and transactions of material things. When we change the geometry of our living space, ... a spider is there to hang a web from it. We did not 'cause' this to happen, ... our action was instead a 'relational intervention' in the enveloping continuously transforming complex of relational 'community-constituent' dynamics in which we are immersed. When the boy throws a stone in amongst the flock of geese feeding in the pond, ... he does not 'cause' the aesthetic dynamic geometry of geese-in-flight, he induces transformation in the geometry of the common containing space he shares with the birds, he transforms the common geometrical dynamic (i.e. 'the containing space') which serves as the reference for the individual dynamics of its included constituents.
In the Native American philosophy, this 'community-constituent-coresonance' wherein the constituents awarely 'co-create' their enveloping future is what we sense to be 'community spirit' or 'the spirit of the earth';
Spirit of the Earth
"If a man could make the right choices," he said, "then he could
significantly alter the course of the possible future. No man, then,
should feel insignificant, for it only takes one man to alter the
consciousness of mankind through the Spirit-that-moves-in-all-things.
In essence, one thought influences another, then another, until the
thought is made manifest throughout all of Creation. It is the same
thought, the same force, that causes an entire flock of birds to
change course, as the flock then has one mind."
In general, when the constituent of space moves, its containing space, its ultimate meaning and identity-giving reference, simultaneously, reciprocally transforms [i.e. the dynamical potential field transforms]. This is the 'unbounded' view of the world in which the 'ternary' of 'subject', 'object' and 'containing commons of community' are in a state of simultaneous co-evolution,... an 'unbounded view' which our scientific inquiry, as Kepler pointed out, was wont to 'bound' and 'reduce';
"For the boundary posts of investigation should not be set up in the narrow minds of a few men. 'The world is a petty thing, unless everyone finds the whole world in that which he is seeking,' as Seneca says. But the boundary posts of true speculation are the same as those of the fabric of the world; but the Christian religion has put up some fences around false speculation which is on the wrong track, in order that error may not rush headlong but may become in other respects harmless in itself. . . . my mind is never at leisure for the game of inventing new doctrines which are contrary to the true. Whatever I profess outwardly, that I believe inwardly: nothing is a worse cross for me than---I do not say, to speak what is contrary to my thought---to be unable to utter my inmost sentiments. I know that many innovators are produced by the same effect; but they are easily argued out of the error which seduces them. No one shows that I have committed an error. But because certain people cannot grasp the subtleties of things, they lay the charge of novelty-hunting upon me." (Johannes Kepler, 'Epitome of Copernican Astronomy', 1618)
Today, 'the sciences of complexity' struggles with the issues of 'community-constituent-coresonance' and 'community-constituent-coevolution' which the 'bounded inquiry' of mainstream science seems unable to 'get to'. They articulate their investigation in terms of 'how 'simple rules' can give rise to profound, aesthetic complexity, but they seem to miss the most fundamental point of their own findings, i.e;
* * *
Craig Reynolds of the Los Angeles Symbolics Corp. developed a computer simulation that captures the essence of flocking birds, herding sheep, or schooling fish in 1986. It is a screen full of moving objects, called boids (or bird objects), which obey three basic rules.
1. Attempt to maintain a minimum distance from all other Boids and objects on the screen.
2. Attempt to match speed with other Boids in the neighborhood.
3. Attempt to move to the center of the Boids in the neighborhood.
What results is the perfect schooling of the boids. They stay in formation while flowing around objects and walls, just like a real life school, flock, or herd. The simulation could start with the boids scattered around the screen randomly, and still they would spontaneously collect themselves into a flock. The second two rules produce the cohesion and alignment of the flock, the first rule ensures the necessary separation
* * *
In this article, there is no mention of the fact that such a model implies (a) the consciousness of the bird depends, relativistically, on the collective consciousness of the flock, (b) the reference frame for the individual constituent's dynamic is the co-created dynamic geometry of the community which transforms simultaneously, reciprocally, for any movement of any constituent, (c) the dynamics of the constituent and the dynamics of the community, being simultaneous and reciprocal, are dual aspects of a single unified phenomena, (d) the dynamically transforming geometry of the community represents the collective consciousness of the community, and (e) as the native 'spirit of the earth' philosophy observes, 'no constituent of the world should feel insignificant since it takes only one constituent to alter the collective consciousness of the community'.
If this simulation reflects the natural phenomenon of birds in flight as it is said to, then it is telling us that the space of our natural 'reality' as experienced by the constituent of nature is not empty, infinite and non-participating; i.e. 'space is not Euclidian' (as Poincaré and Einstein said), but is experienced instead as a curved space-time continuum whose dynamic geometry transforms simultaneously with the dynamic of the constituent. 'Place', the dynamic containing and including space of our reality, per the example of this 'Boids' simulation, is 'many-to-one relative motion', a 'collective becoming' or 'space-time transformation', rather than reality a characterizable by 'being', ... a reality 'determined' by fixed identity constituents and their causal actions. Here we have the same message as in Kepler's 'Harmonies of the World' and in the game of pool, ... we can always 'scientifically describe' the overall system behaviour in terms of the actions and transactions of the constituents, as if things transpire in empty, non-participating space, ... but the fact is that the actions of the constituents, simultaneously, reciprocally, transform the dynamic geometry of space which constitutes their 'opportunity-to-act'. The actions of the constituents are enfolded into the dynamic geometry of the common containing space which is the reference frame for the actions of the constituents. The dynamic geometry of space is thus a continuing 'remembrance', an accumulative 'collective consciousness' of the dynamic lives of its constituents which provides the reference base and opportunity for emerging generations of new constituents.
The many-to-one dynamic form of space' which emerges continuously from the flight of birds and which envelopes and serves as reference space for its co-creating constituents, the general model of 'relativity', when it is reduced to the descriptive science view of 'the trajectories of the constituents' (a view which imposes split-apart Euclidian space and absolute time),... 'drops out' the essential information of the 'unique' form of space 'seen' by the immersed constituent 'from the inside looking outwards' which continually transforms and continually guides its own transformation by 'informing' the constituent as to its 'opportunity-to-act'. The 'form of space' which the immersed participant 'sees' is an unbounded volume shaped by the relative dynamics of itself and its enveloping constituents and while one cannot present this on a 'flatspace' diagram or screen, it is the source of the emerging shape of 'place' the birds are co-creating. To 'understand' this 'sourcing', one has to tap into the simultaneous, collective consciousness of the constituents, as embodied in the dynamic shape of the space they are co-creating. In effect, what emerges from this 'immersed scientific view' (as opposed to the standard 'excluded observer descriptive scientific view') is an approach for 'understanding life'. The 'immersed scientific view' is the 'curved-space view' of relativity which 'includes' the 'excluded observer descriptive scientific view' in the same manner that spherical space includes rectangular space (Euclidian space), in the degenerate case where the radius of curvature goes to infinity, space 'flattens out' and there is no longer any self-referentiality coming from the dynamic 'reciprocal disposition' between the constituents and their enveloping space; i.e. where the dynamic shape of space no longer 'mediates' the actions of the constituents, but the constituents simply 'do their own thing'. Of course, the poor pool player 'thinks' in terms of all constituents being 'independent' and simply 'doing their own thing' even as he plays within the curved space of the game of pool, but the 'action' of the constituent ball/s he is moving is simultaneously, reciprocally, transforming the enveloping 'opportunity-to-act' seen by all constituents of the 'community' of balls. By ignoring the innate self-referentiality of his containing space, he (i.e. 'he' as the 'mind' of the constituent) infuses dissonance into the system. Thisdissonance-infusing model of the 'poor pool player' who believes he is playing in a non self-referential (Euclidian) space, is an apt model for the constituents of our 'descriptive-science-orienting' western society.
The dynamic form of space which envelopes us is the evolutionary 'product' of the relative dynamics of all prior constituents of space. While western society has been 'psychologically conditioned', by the precepts of observer-excluding (non-immersed, 'voyeur') descriptive science, the Native American tradition, like the wise pool player, recognizes the need to cultivate and tap into an awareness of the dynamically evolving form of his enveloping space (the collective consciousness of the constituents of space, be they animal, mineral or vegetable). The need to understand one's immersed, codynamical relationship with one's containing space (with 'the potency of Place'), and that our 'perception' is not limited to 'making our shots' but has the capacity of dynamically referencing or actions to our containing space, the source of our 'opportunity-to-make-shots', is indicated in the following native expressions;
'Form may vanish but the spaces between are held open by the breath of our ancestors.' ... 'The Canunpa [sacred pipe] is powerful, like the sun. It is all around us when we smoke the tobacco and yet inside us as the breath of our ancestors. It is as the sun exposing all there is to see on this earth to be seen, giving birth to truth.' (Lakota, from 'Always remember who you are, where you came from, 'Indian Country Today' )
[The ceremony of the pipe (Canunpa Wakan) is a sacred ritual to connect the physical and spiritual worlds. ... the pipe is a link between the Earth and the sky. Nothing is more sacred.' says White-Stag-of-Autumn, Lakota]
A deeper 'understanding' of reality derives from 'bringing into connection in the mind', the inside-outward perception of a uniquely personal immersion and codynamical participation in the enveloping dynamic geometry of space (the relativistic, self-referential scientific view), and the detached outside-inwards perception of 'the dynamics of things' (descriptive flatspace scientific view), ... a deeper understanding in the same 'geometric sense' of the view of the 'wise pool player' who is aware that the movement of the constituent is simultaneously, reciprocally transforming the shape of his containing space which governs the constituent's opportunity-to-move. This same 'geometry' of deeper understanding is what is going on in the 'ceremony of the pipe'.
One can think of this geometry in the astronomical terms of the included-and-involved 'inside-outward perception from the sun (or from the earth looking out at Mars, Jupiter etc.) relative to the excluded-and-detached 'outside-inwards' perception as the earth-observer turns his glance towards the sun and watches, in voyeur fashion, the dynamics of Mercury and Venus. As Kepler pointed out, the 'rational' rules of science and astronomy are not what the immersed constituent of space (faunal, floral and mineral, planet, man or electron) innately uses (instinctively or intuitively uses) for his 'navigation'. He references instead, directly to the enveloping dynamical geometry which he is co-creating through his relative codynamic with his fellow constituents, as in the case of birds in flight. He co-creates his dynamical reference, ... thus we can never say that 'he moves', we can only say that he 'co-creates' transformation in the dynamical geometry within which he is an immersed, included, co-creative participant. In this 'unbounded' perception of nature, the dynamic constituent is inextricably woven into own containing dynamic, otherwise known as 'space' (the 'self-referential' space of the unbounded relativistic view).
Kepler points out that in order to get to this unbounded views, one must 'let go' of the 'absolute kinetic trajectories' of things and key instead to the incident angles of incoming perception (this bypasses the imposing of artificial reference frames such as Euclidian space and absolute time). In the relativistic communications theory of Dennis Gabor (discoverer of holography whose theory allows 'information to interfere with itself' in accordance with Wolfgang Pauli's formulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), this enables 'wavefield continuation' wherein one can fold the incoming waves back on themselves exposing the objects which they interfered with along their journey; i.e. when one 'let's go' of the notion of the trajectories of things and uses only the dynamic azimuthal information, one can image the geometry of space and its constituents without a starting dependency on the notion of 'things in their own right' and 'trajectories'. Kepler approaches this in terms of the experienced fact that we are immersed in, and reference our dynamics to, the simultaneous harmonies of the system of sun and planets, and it follows that we must have implicit access to this referencing information;
"But whose good will it be to have harmonies between the journeys, or who will perceive the harmonies? For there are two things which disclose to us harmonies in natural things either light or sound light apprehended through the eyes or hidden senses proportioned to the eyes, and sound through the ears. The mind seizes upon these forms and, whether by instinct (on which Book IV speaks profusely) or by astronomical or harmonic ratiocination, discerns the concordant from the discordant. Now there are no sounds in the heavens, nor is the movement so turbulent that any noise is made by the rubbing against the ether. Light remains. If light has to teach these things about the planetary journeys, it will teach either the eyes or a sensorium analogous to the eyes and situated in definite place; and it seems that sense-perception must be present there in order that light of itself may immediately teach. Therefore there will be sense-perception in the total world, namely in order that the movements of all the planets may be presented to sense-perceptions at the same time. For that former route --- from observations through the longest detours of geometry and arithmetic, through the ratios of spheres and the other things which must be learned first, down to the journeys which have been exhibited --- is too long for any natural instinct, for the sake of moving which it seems reasonable that the harmonies have been introduced. Therefore with everything reduced to one view, I concluded rightly that the true journeys of the planets through the ether should be dismissed, and that we should turn our eyes to the apparent diurnal arcs, according as they are all apparent, from one definite and marked place in the world --- namely, from the solar body itself, the source of movement of all the planets and we must see, not how far away from the sun any one of the planets is, nor how much space it traverses in one day (for that is something for ratiocination and astronomy, not for instinct), but how great an angle the diurnal movement of each planet subtends in the solar body, or how great an arc it seems to traverse in one common circle described around the sun, such as the ecliptic, in order that these appearances, which were conveyed to the solar body by virtue of light, may be able to flow, together with the light, in a straight line into creatures, which are partakers of this instinct, as in Book IV we said the figure of the heavens flowed into the foetus by virtue of the rays."
There are two points to note here which are 'at odds with' mainstream science; i.e. 'motion' seen in 'unbounded relativistic terms' as the dynamical geometry of space co-created by its constituents is an innately deeper, information-richer way of perceiving motion than as 'the movement of material objects'.
The second point, coming from the science of complexity, as in the example of the 'boids' model, is that complexity (complex order) emerges from the self-referentiality between the awareness of the constituent and the 'collective awareness' of the community as embodied in the constituent-cocreated, continually transforming geometry of the community codynamic.
One does not stay 'in resonance with' the community codynamic by 'ratiocinative intellection' as Kepler refers to 'rationality', ... one stays 'in resonance' with the community codynamic by the same manner that one perceives the self-referential dynamics of finite, spherical space, the space of the 'flock of birds'. Einstein points out that one must look not to 'what the constituents of space are doing' but instead to what is happening to the 'reciprocal disposition' between the constituents; i.e. the geometric form of the 'community dynamic' which includes both 'reciprocal disposition' and the dynamics of the constituent;
"A geometrical-physical theory as such is incapable of being directly pictured, being merely a system of concepts. But these concepts serve the purpose of bringing a multiplicity of real or imaginary sensory experiences into connection in the mind. To ‘visualise’ a theory, or bring it home to one's mind, therefore means to give a representation to that abundance of experiences for which the theory supplies the schematic arrangement. In the present case we have to ask ourselves how we can represent that relation of solid bodies with respect to their reciprocal disposition (contact) which corresponds to the theory of a finite universe."
In mainstream science, 'reciprocal disposition' is ignored since in 'bounding' our investigation by imposing the abstract reference frame of infinite, empty, non-participating Euclidian space, ... 'reciprocal disposition' is undefined and therefore 'formless', ... however, in the curved space of the Earth's biosphere, just as on the curved space of the pool table, the emergence, subduction and/or movement of any constituent simultaneously, reciprocally transforms the geometry of opportunity which is the reference base for the immersed constituent's dynamic.
The 'Copernican Revolution', then , raised the issue of having two possible worldviews depending on whether or not we 'bound' our inquiry to 'what we see in front of us', a 'voyeur view' based on the imposing of Euclidian space and absolute time which excludes and detaches us from the relativistic dynamics of the space in which we are included and which is simultaneously influencing what we see in front of us.
It is a 'Revolution That Never Was' because of the effect which Kepler complained about in 1618 and which persists to this day;
"No one shows that I have committed an error. But because certain people cannot grasp the subtleties of things, they lay the charge of novelty-hunting upon me."
And, indeed, he who re-iterates the experience-based reasoning on the dynamical relativity of community-and-constituent as in this essay meets with the same 'response' from the majority of those well-trained (well-conditioned by) mainstream western scientific thinking, even though our experience is yelling out validation, and even though our persistence in ignoring that our perceptions of 'what's out there' are inextricably interwoven with our inclusion in the overall codynamic that encompasses our observing self as well as our observations. The pretzel-shaped orbit of Mars as seen from the earth 'smooths out' when we account for the fact that the 'community dynamic' also includes us, the earth observer. The mainstream western scientific observer is like the bird who is trying to find the equations for the motion of birds in 'absolute' or 'unversally generalized' terms, not realizing that every move he makes in his investigation is simultaneously, reciprocally transforming the enveloping space he is trying to describe. He thus describes the world 'as if he were not in it', mesmerizing himself into thinking that such a purely objective view of the world is possible and being satisfied that the future of the world is created by the causal action of things acting 'in-their-own-right'.
What such a person gives up is his own co-creative participation in the collective consciousness we refer to as 'community spirit' ('the spirit of the earth') and in the process reduces his view of his own life to purely 'causal terms', ... like the poor pool player who sees 'the game' as being fully determined by the actions and transactions of the balls, forgetting that as each constituent 'acts', he transforms everyone in the community's 'opportunity-to-act' in the manner of the bird within the flock.
The 'life' of the poor pool player is an anxious one in which he, as the 'mind' of individual constituent (ball) he is 'actionizing', seeks to achieve his causal goals in the quickest time he can, unaware of how his pursuit is simultaneously transforming the evolution of the playing field (the dynamic geometry of opportunity) in which he and his fellow constituents are immersed.
The 'life' of the wise pool player, meanwhile, is relaxed and 'in the continuing moment' since he understands that he is not detached from community but that his actions are relativistic interventions within a continuing co-creative community dynamic. He is aware that his action is altering the collective consciousness of his enveloping community which serves as the 'reference base' for everyone's actions. As he tunes his own actions to this 'collective consciousness', and in those instances where many constituents do the same, ... he becomes aware of the rising 'community spirit', the 'community-constituent-coresonance' that gives rise to the aesthetic dynamics of birds in flight.
These self-referential aesthetics where the dynamics of the outer are in balance with the dynamics of the inner which Kepler refers to as 'the subtleties of things' in his complaint;
"For the boundary posts of investigation should not be set up in the narrow minds of a few men. 'The world is a petty thing, unless everyone finds the whole world in that which he is seeking,' as Seneca says. But the boundary posts of true speculation are the same as those of the fabric of the world; . . . Whatever I profess outwardly, that I believe inwardly: nothing is a worse cross for me than---I do not say, to speak what is contrary to my thought---to be unable to utter my inmost sentiments. I know that many innovators are produced by the same effect; but they are easily argued out of the error which seduces them. No one shows that I have committed an error. But because certain people cannot grasp the subtleties of things, they lay the charge of novelty-hunting upon me."
Part II: The 'Regulatory View' of the 'Revolution That Never Was'
What was put at issue in 'The Copernican Revolution' was the question of whether the geometrical dynamics of the community of constituent objects we call 'the Universe' are subsidiary features of a particular constituent, 'the system of the Earth', ... or whether the geometrical dynamic of the 'system of the Earth' is a subsidiary feature of the Universe.
The question is, in other words, ... does the Universe-community have a 'one-to-many' dynamical geometry animated by a central Regulator-constituent, or does the Universe have a 'many-to-one' dynamical geometry wherein the animation of each and every constituent derives from the overall community-constituent-codynamic, an evolving, codynamical Unum we refer to as 'Nature', ... is God-the-orchestrator-of-the-Universe a 'central Regulator-constituent' or is God-the-orchestrator-of-the-Universe the 'codynamical Unum' we call 'Nature'? And is the Earth-dwelling constituent 'man' sitting at 'the right hand' of God-the-Regulator, or is the Earth-dwelling constituent 'man' both enveloped by and included in God-the-codynamical-Unum?
The 'Copernican Revolution' has been a 'Sitzkrieg' since the evidence was presented at the turn of the 16th century. As in most social revolutions, it is not the 'more coherent idea' which wins, but the politics. If the 'medium' of the life of Jesus 'was the message', ... the geometry of central regulatory control was simply 'not there'. Such a control-oriented 'message' seems to have derived 'in the mindseye of the beholder' and laid down in doctrinal form by political committee. Had Jesus been a pool player, there's no doubt that he would have played 'shape-over-shots', ... visualizing 'motion' in the deeper terms of the transformation of the community of balls and by his own 'moving', 'moving the community' in such a way as to open up opportunity for all, ... a very 'moving' way of being in the world, to be sure. Jesus would decidedly not have been the type of pool player who visualizes 'motion' in the narrow terms that 'things move and sequentially cause other things to move' along the axis of 'time', leaving the dynamically transforming geometry of opportunity as it opens up and closes down for the constituency, to a 'God who throws dice', ... a central-regulator God who does not 'live on the premises' but is instead an 'absentee Landlord'.
Are the actions of the constituents of the Universe solely determined by the sequential actions, transpiring in empty, infinite, non-participating space, of the constituents of the Universe? As Kepler showed, our natural experience aided by 'scientific reasoning' informs us that this cannot be the case.
If we assume that the unity of the order in Nature derives from ordering principles which are the same for all, ...which are 'universal', ... then we must assume that the influences which determine 'where we are coming from and where we are going to' in a dynamical sense are the same for all. This is the principle of 'relativity'. Our experience informs us that 'all is in motion' and that there are no absolute 'reference frames in their own right' other that the abstractions we invent and impose, and the motion of the constituent is with respect to the motion of the constituency. Our own motion is with respect to the motion of our enveloping constituency.
For matters of 'convenience', we may want to invent some abstract reference framings such 'Euclidian space' and 'absolute time' and impose them on our experience, ... but as the great philosopher, mathematician, scientists, Henri Poincaré observes;
"Space is another
framework we impose upon the world" . . . " . . . here the mind may
affirm because it lays down its own laws; but let us clearly understand that
while these laws are imposed on our science, which otherwise could not exist,
they are not imposed on Nature." . . . "Euclidian geometry is . . .
the simplest, . . . just as the polynomial of the first degree is simpler than a
polynomial of the second degree." . . . "the space revealed to us by
our senses is absolutely different from the space of geometry." . . . Henri
While most of us 'accept' the scientific findings of the day because we do not have the wherewithal to 'reproduce' the technology-assisted inquiry of modern science, ... the issues of space and time are different. All constituents of the Universe are 'born' with the necessary equipment to 'observe the laws of Nature', ... otherwise, Nature would not 'work'. Thus, we all must, at some level, understand the workings of Nature since our behaviour manifestly conforms with its workings.
The principles at stake in understanding the Earth's dynamical, geometric relationship with its 'fellows' and with the Universe were, to Kepler, the selfsame principles which underpin man's awareness and thought processes;
"But if it is permissible, using the thread of an analogy as a guide, to traverse the labyrinths of the mysteries of nature, not ineptly, I think, will someone have argued as follows: The relation of the six spheres to their common centre, thereby the centre of the whole world, is also the same as that of diagoia [discussive intellection] to hous [intuitive intellection], according as these faculties are distinguished by Aristotle, Plato, Proclus, and the rest; ..."
The first principle born of our experience is that 'we are moving' with respect the movements of the enveloping constituency of Nature even when we think ourselves to 'be at rest', ... the universe 'does not rest' and we are not 'the center' of what we perceive, any more than the Earth was thought to be. As Kepler says;
"Sacred is the Holy Office of our day, which admits the smallness of the Earth but not its motion: but to me, more sacred to me is Truth, when I, with all respect for the doctors of the Church, demonstrate from philosophy that the earth is round, circumhabited by antipodes, of a most insignificant smallness, and a swift wanderer amongst the stars." (Kepler, Astronomia Nova, 1609)
Such a view of the dynamical geometry of the Universe is a 'relativistic view' wherein the 'motion' of the many constituents cannot be fully understood in terms in the 'causal terms' of the 'movements of things' any more than the self-referentially evolving 'motion' of a configuration of billiard balls can be understood in the purely 'causal' terms of the 'movements' of the constituent balls. To 'bound' the view of 'motion' and reduce it to 'the movements of the constituents' out of the context of the dynamical geometry of the enveloping configuration 'co-created' by the constituents is an arbitrary and abstract 'bound' of 'convenience' brought about by our imposing of an abstract and rigid Euclidian frame, ... a reduction of the continuous motion in which we are immersed down to a collection of 'things in their own right' in stasis within an empty, infinite and non-participating space, ... a reduction which requires us to invent another abstraction, the abstraction of 'time', to re-animate our collection of 'in their own right' 'things' so as to approximately re-create or 'simulate' our deeper, experience-based perceptions wherein the codynamical geometric transformation within which we, the perceiver, are an immersed, included participant, is in a natural primacy over all abstract referencing based on 'persisting identity of objects' and 'inertial frames' where either 'stasis' or some common linear motion is used to infer the 'trajectory', 'velocity' and 'energy' of such fixed identity objects. The 'trajectory' is meaningless if the identity of that which is said produce does not persist, ... velocity does not exist without a rigid, static space to give it meaning, and 'energy' is a relative thing. That is, the energy of one's rocketship calculated with respect to one's planet of origin will appear to be one hundredth the energy of the approaching rocketship travelling at ten times one's speed, but the captain of the rocketship from the other planet who refers the velocities to his planet may see the relative energies in a totally different or even reverse relationship wherein he sees the energy of your rocketship to be one hundred times his own. While the two captains may argue over 'who is the better driver', ... they will agree on the quantity of energy dissipated in their collision; i.e. they will agree that the energy of motion emerges from the dynamics amongst things and that the notion of a 'thing that possesses kinetic energy' depends innately on the observer's sense of his own motion, or 'stasis'. The observer who 'forgets' that he is an immersed and included participant in a continuing relativistic codynamic whose space-time bounds are unknowable will be prone to philosophical error of profound practical impact. Re-citing Kepler's observations on this point;
"For the boundary posts of investigation should not be set up in the narrow minds of a few men. 'The world is a petty thing, unless everyone finds the whole world in that which he is seeking,' as Seneca says. But the boundary posts of true speculation are the same as those of the fabric of the world; . . ."
The solar system is an emergent 'community' which displays a 'many-to-one' coherency with the sun situated at the center of this coherency in the manner of the eye of storm which sits in the center of its own coherency. Were we 'sun-dwellers' as Kepler points out, we could only 'intuit' this coherency but could not 'see the coherency' 'out there in front of us'. When we visualize the solar system by 'in-and-back-outwards-again' inquiry, we re-diagram the dynamics of the system in terms of 'ratios', the ratio of the major axes of the orbits of Venus and Mercury around the sun. This gives us our analytic or 'voyeur' view of the solar system, a view in which the overall behaviour of the system is deducible from the behaviours of the constituents. But this is an animated version of the after-the-fact static view. If the sun and planets were a 'flock' or 'community' of birds, ... such a description would leave out the immersed co-creative influence of each constituent on the overall community dynamic which it is referencing to. Newton was acutely aware of this omission, wherein the descriptive theory does not 'explain the mechanism' for 'community-constituent-coresonance';
"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." (Isaac Newton, 'Author's Preface' to 'The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (The Principia)', 1687)
Like Kepler, Newton could see that the community-constituent harmony inducing properties of space went beyond what could be explained in terms of the 'movement' and 'transactions' of things;
"... 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." (Isaac Newton, 'General Scholium' (summary) to 'The Principia')
The imposition of Euclidian space and absolute time reference framing effectively 'bounds' the perception of the world, purging the relativistic 'community-constituent-coresonance' (i.e. 'many-to-one self-referentiality') and imposes an answer to the question; "... does the Universe-community have a 'one-to-many' dynamical geometry animated by a central Regulator-constituent, or does the Universe have a 'many-to-one' dynamical geometry wherein the animation of each and every constituent derives from the overall community-constituent-codynamic, an evolving, codynamical Unum we refer to as 'Nature', ... is God-the-orchestrator-of-the-Universe a 'central Regulator-constituent' or is God-the-orchestrator-of-the-Universe the 'codynamical Unum' we call 'Nature'? And is the Earth-dwelling constituent 'man' sitting at 'the right hand' of God-the-Regulator, or is the Earth-dwelling constituent 'man' both enveloped by and included in God-the-codynamical-Unum?
The answer which we are forcing on ourselves, that puts the Copernican Revolution in the deepfreeze, is the inevitable result of imposing the Euclidian space reference frame, 'the simplest geometry' which is 'absolutely different than the space revealed to us by our senses' (Poincaré). This abstract and unnatural reference framing which brings with it the notion of 'absolute time', allows for only one answer for how nature is 'regulated' and it is that of God-the-Regulator who lives outside of nature. This unnatural and abstract reference framing imposition and the 'answer' which follows from it, flies in the face of the relativistic nature of our enveloping world as as revealed to us by our senses which inform of our immersed co-creative participation in the evolutionary future, in the manner of the bird flying within the flock.
Part III: The Psychological View of 'The Revolution That Never Was'
Our basic experiential perception is that we are 'immersed' in some 'Place' which is in a continuing process of transformation, as we ourselves manifestly are. Awareness of enveloping 'Place'; i.e. awareness of the geometric dynamics of the immersing space seems to characterize all of the constituents of space, animal, vegetable and mineral.
In the continuing geometric dynamical transformation of our enveloping space, 'things' ('features') emerge, 'displace', engage, evolve and subduct. The perception of our experience informs us of the persistence of our enveloping space which outlives all of its constituents, ... or rather, that its constituents seem to be transient, evolving features of their containing Unum of 'Place'.
Whether we think of ourselves as a bird flying within a flock or a planet flying within a community of stars, we experience 'order' in the dynamic geometrical relationships between 'we' the constituent, and the enveloping constituents of space. While we manifestly induce transformation into this dynamic geometrical order, the order outlives us, having been 'in Place' prior to the birth of a perceiving constituent and persisting beyond the constituent's subduction. Nevertheless, our transient intervention becomes an 'inclusion' in the continuously evolving dynamic geometry of space (i.e. 'Place').
Our experience, in effect, informs us that our enveloping and including 'Place' has a potency which transcends its constituents. As Aristotle said in his 'Physics of Place';
"the potency of place must be a marvelous thing, and take precedence of all other things. For that without nothing else can exist, while it can exist without the others, must needs be first; for place does not pass out of existence when the things in it are annihilated."
Consistent with this view, Aristotle believed that nowhere on a line drawn from the smallest atom to the most complex creature was it possible to say where nonlife ends and life begins.
Prior to Aristotle, Heraclitus had, according to the Cambridge scholars Kirk, Raven and Schofield visualized space as 'aither', ... 'the brilliant fiery stuff which fills the shining sky and surrounds the world; this aither was widely regarded both as divine and as a place of souls." ... "... fire, by the regularity with which it absorbs fuel and emits smoke, while maintaining a kind of stability between them, patently embodies the rule of measure in change which inheres in the world process, and of which the Logos ['ordering inducing principle' which resides in the aither] is an expression. Thus it is naturally conceived as the very constituent of things which actively determines their structure and behaviour --- which ensures not only the opposition of opposites, but also their [harmonious] unity through 'strife'."
Lao Tsu, eastern contemporary of Heraclitus, also considered 'space' to be an order-mediator midwife for its constituents, saying; 'The spirit of the valley never dies. This is called the mysterious woman'.
This 'inclusional' view wherein the 'constituents of space' were the manifest, relativistic agents of transformation of their containing space, in the manner that a hurricane is a manifest relativistic agent of transformation of its containing atmosphere was a common underpinning of worldviews in ancient times. It was recognized that when we focused selectively on particular constituent features, we lost touch with the ongoing dynamically transforming relational geometry of our containing space. Lao Tsu, in speaking of the 'Tao', the ordering dynamic in space, in the Tao Te Ching, said;
The Tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
The view that the constituent of space was an 'inclusion' in his containing space, consistent with the philosophy of Heraclitus, Lao Tsu and Buddha, persisted until the latter part of the Pre-Socratic era and the rising influence of ideas of Parmenides (ca. 500 B.C.); i.e. the peoples of Europe and the Mediterranean; ". . . agreed in the fundamental assumptions that the individual is part of society, that society is imbedded in nature, and that nature is but the manifestation of the divine. This doctrine was, in fact, universally accepted by the peoples of the ancient world with the single exception of the Hebrews."('The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man', Frankfort, Frankfort, Wilson, Jacobsen and Irwin). As these authors also point out, "Heraclitus had declared being a perpetual becoming and had correlated the two concepts with his 'hidden attunement' [the fire-like mediator role of space]. Now Parmenides declared the two to be mutually exclusive, and only being to be real."
The above gives a view of the philosophical 'setting' in the west which preceded what some have referred to as 'the golden age of rationality' wherein the notion of the world being based on 'being' rather than 'becoming' rose to dominance. This philosophical view was also imbued in the western religious doctrine of a transcendent God, no longer immanent in Nature, but residing outside of nature and 'regulating' the emergent order and 'goings-on' of nature.
The 'geometrical equality' of the shift from 'becoming' to 'being' and the notion of God as the inductive ordering force immanent in nature, to the new notion of God as an external regulator, is clear.
The primacy of 'being' over 'becoming' (and therefore 'creation' animated by a transcendent Regulator-God over 'evolution' induced by an 'immanent-in-Nature-God), incorporated into western religious doctrine was the 'stage setting' for the 'Copernican Revolution', however, Johannes Kepler, though a committed Christian (Lutheran), was not about to accept the 'natural philosophy' views of the doctrinal committees of the Church, as 'the last word' as he indicates in 'Astronomia Nova' (1609);
"So much for the authority of the Holy Scripture. Now as regards the opinions of the saints about these matters of nature, I answer in one word, that in theology the weight of Authority, but in philosophy the weight of Reason alone is valid. Therefore a saint was Lanctantius, who denied the earth's rotundity; a saint was Augustine, who admitted the rotundity, but denied that antipodes exist. Sacred is the Holy Office of our day, which admits the smallness of the earth but denies its motion : but to me more sacred than all of these is Truth, when I, with all respect for the doctors of the Church, demonstrate from philosophy that the earth is round, circumhabited by antipodes, of a most insignificant smallness, and a swift wanderer among the stars."
What Kepler 'saw' in the astronomical issues at stake, was a geometrical 'archetype' which, at the same time, constituted a psychological model. In 'Harmonies of the World' he says;
"The relation of the six spheres to their common centre, thereby the centre of the whole world, is also the same as that of diagoia [discussive intellection] to hous [intuitive intellection], according as these faculties are distinguished by Aristotle, Plato, Proclus, and the rest; ..."
But he also said that there was a 'subtlety' in this that many people missed, and even though they could not refute his reasoning, strove to dismiss it by labelling it as a spurious 'novelty'. In 'The Epitome of Copernican Astronomy' he says;
"No one shows that I have committed an error. But because certain people cannot grasp the subtleties of things, they lay the charge of novelty-hunting upon me."
The 'subtlety' which is 'not being grasped', to which Kepler refers, and which, in spite of the coherency of the reasoning is still being dismissed by mainstream science today, and making of the Copernican Revolution a 'Revolution That Never Was', is as follows;
When one starts with the relativistic notion of the constituent of space being included in the enveloping community of constituents which, through the relative geometrical dynamics of this inclusionary system give us our 'perception' of our enveloping world, ... we 'understand' our dynamic in terms of an 'included codynamic'. That is, we cannot 'detach' our own motion from the motion in which we are immersed because the 'motion' or 'geometrical dynamics' in which we are immersed is our only experiential reference base to which we relativistically refer our individual-constituent motion. Experientially, we can perceive no fixed rectangular euclidian grid 'hanging in the sky' to use as a reference, such a device is an abstraction we impose as part of a rational-science process to DESCRIBE what is going on.
The science of understanding, from an immersed experiential point of view, ... the method by which all constituents of space 'navigate', which was being researched by Kepler, goes deeper than an 'observer-excluding description' . When the observer 'excludes himself', he is discounting his own codynamical involvement in his containing space. The example of the bird flying in a flock informs us that a description of the aesthetic, simultaneous harmony (community-constituent-coresonance) of the trajectories of the birds is not the same thing as a scientific explanation of how this 'community-constituent-codynamic' (flock-bird-codynamic) 'works'. That is, the 'requirements' for specifying the 'trajectories' of the birds depend upon the absolute 'being' of the bird, an absolutely rigid 'inertial frame' within which we can describe the path of the bird and an 'absolute time reference' we can use to 'globally synchronize' the mechanical animation of the movements of the birds and thus arrive at a dynamical description.). But the 'birds' don't have access to these abstractions, nor to this type of description, as Kepler notes;
"For that former route --- from observations through the longest detours of geometry and arithmetic, through the ratios of spheres and the other things which must be learned first, down to the journeys which have been exhibited --- is too long for any natural instinct, for the sake of moving which it seems reasonable that the harmonies have been introduced."
In other words, the 'birds' (constituents of their enveloping geometric, dynamic community) utilize a direct-referencing 'relativistic' view which is enabled by light and sensory perception (as validated by the information theory of Dennis Gabor). It can be thought of in terms of 'imaging' the dynamic geometry of space by bringing one's continuing experiential perceptions into connection in the mind.
The Copernican Revolution raised the question as to whether the Earth related to the enveloping configuration of planets ('stars' is the general term used by Kepler to refer to all/any types of cosmic bodies) in the 'one-to-many' manner of a central regulator, or in a 'many-to-one' manner wherein the 'unified dynamical geometry' of the community, co-created by the immersed constituents, inductively ordered the dynamics of the individual constituents. This 'simultaneous, reciprocal' harmony or 'community-constituent-coresonance' of 'many-to-one' dynamical ordering emerges naturally from a 'relativistic' view of dynamics, but it 'disappears' as soon as one visualizes things in terms of the 'actions' of things which are independent of their enveloping community.
Kepler suggested that we perceive things both in the 'many-to-one' ordering manner and in the 'one-to-many' ordering manner and his archetypeal model based on the solar system went as follows;
The earth (i.e. the 'earth-observer') has a view both in the included manner of the sun, where we look out at Mars and Jupiter whose spheres of revolution include us, and we can thus imagine what the sun must 'see' which correspond to hous [intuitive intellection] where Kepler says; "The relation of the six spheres to their common centre, thereby the centre of the whole world, is also the same as that of dialoia [discussive intellection] to nous [intuitive intellection], according as these faculties are distinguished by Aristotle, Plato, Proclus, and the rest; ..."
But when the earth-observer focuses not on 'what the sun sees', but instead, on the sun 'out there' in its 'center of coherency' role of causation wherein Venus and Mercury are orbiting around the sun, the earth-observer 'detaches himself' from codynamical involvement in what he is looking out at. It appears as if he is looking at 'a system in its own right' and this is indeed the 'detached view' provided by the descriptive science of Newton in 'The Principia'.
The earth-observer 'forgets' in this latter 'diagoia [discussive intellection]' view that he (the planet he is on) is an 'included constituent' in the relativistic 'community-constituent-codynamic' of the system of sun and planets.
Now, the subtlety runs deep here, ... so deep that it gets into the issue of the abstract absoluteness of 'numbers' and 'time'.
That is, if you can manage to remember that you, the earth-observer, are a relativistic participant in the dynamics of the sun, Venus and Mercury that you are 'looking out at', ... you will realize that what you perceive as 'a complete revolution of Venus around the sun' is not an 'absolute thing' with a beginning and ending, it represents instead the relative circulating rate of yourself (Earth) and Venus. The 'number' of revolutions which Venus makes gives us a general look at the abstract nature of the 'passage of time'. The absolute values of the trajectories of the planets and the absolute values of their periods (the passage of time) are the artifacts of 'detaching ourselves' from the geometrical dynamics we are immersed in and 'looking out at'.
In changing our view of nature from 'becoming' to 'being', and thinking of the cosmos in the absolute terms of 'things', we have 'invented time'. As Plato says in 'Timaeus';
"... for had we never seen the stars, and the sun, and the heaven, none of the words which we have spoken about the universe would ever have been uttered. But now the sight of day and night, and the months and the revolutions of the years, have created number, and have given us a conception of time, and the power of enquiring about the nature of the universe; and from this source we have derived philosophy, than which no greater good ever was or will be given by the gods to mortal man."
Plato's enamourment with absolute numbers ('ratio-nal' numbers) and Aristotle's enamourment with the absolute truths of excluded-middle logic together lead us into systems of reasoning which are 'absolute' and 'in their own right'. What does this absoluteness imply and why does it appeal? Pope John Paul II in his 13th encyclical 'Fides et Ratio' (Faith and Rationality), which can be seen as a 35,000 word philosophical plea for retaining the unnatural primacy of 'rationality-over-relativity', says, in support of the 'divinely absolute' and the notion of 'the universal knowledge of the good';
"If something is true, then it must be true for all people and all times. . . . Hypotheses may fascinate but they do not satisfy. Whether we admit it or not, there comes for everyone the moment when personal existence must be anchored to a truth recognized as final, a truth which confers a certitude no longer open to doubt."
De-frocked priest Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake in the Campo dei Fiori adjacent to the Vatican in the year 1600, after eight years of incarceration in the Vatican, was executed for the following 'relativistic' heresies; -His belief in Copernican astronomy; -his belief in the immanence of God in nature; -his rejection of all fixed value systems and his advocacy of the relativity of ethics;- his belief that no object, relation, or event could be absolutely good or absolutely evil, and similarly that no thought or action could be absolutely right or absolutely wrong; -his belief that there are no real separations (only logical distinctions) within the harmony and unity of dynamic nature; -his claim that the universe was continuous and had no beginning and will have no end in either space or time, and that there is life (including intelligent beings) on countless other worlds"
Bruno was clearly also not a fan of the 'rule of the majority', which seemed to be the inevitable and ultimate reference for issuing a definitive (absolute) statement on 'the universal knowledge of the good', saying;
"It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people"
The tie back to Kepler, Plato's rational numbers and Aristotle's absolute logic here, is that, in order to get to Pope John Paul II's 'a truth recognized as final, a truth which confers a certitude no longer open to doubt.', one is implicitly 'excluding the observer from the observation' and implying the existence of a 'Divine Observer'. But if one excludes the observer from the observation, one must assume that that there is no 'observer-dependency' imbued in the observation. Relativity, however, says that all kinetic motion is observer dependent because the observer must impose an inertial reference frame 'of convenience' (Poincaré) in order to assess the velocity and kinetic energy of an object. That is, while the person holding a baseball bat 'at rest' as he stands on a flatbed truck prescribes it to have zero velocity and zero kinetic energy, the surviving companions of the pedestrian struck on the head by it as the truck sped through the city streets, observes things rather differently.
Kepler pointed out that no motion could be seen as 'absolute' because of the ambiguity of the observer's relative motion, and suggested that all measurements of space and time were 'ratios' (hence his use of the term 'ratiocinative intellection'). For example, it seems 'reasonable' to say that 'Mercury goes around the sun four times per year' and we get to use Plato's rational numbers in the process. But what is really going on here, as Kepler points out, is that the ratio of 'the periodic returns around the sun' are, for the Earth and Mercury, in the ratio of 365:87. Now if I were observing from Mars rather than the Earth, I would say instead that 'Mercury goes around the sun eight times per year' since a 'Mars year' is in the ration of 686:365 with respect to an Earth year. So, in general, any observation which includes a dependency on an 'absolute number' is an 'observer-excluding' observation which includes observer-dependent observations. The 'truth' of the numerically quantitative observation may appear 'absolute' but information has been lost concerning the observer dependence. If the Mars-observer and Earth-observer 'forget' about this general effect, there may be a heated debate as to who has the better 'numerical value' for the number of times Mercury goes around the sun in 'a year' (i.e. relative to the time that the observer goes around the sun). Similarly, the constituent ball in a game of pool or the constituent bird flying within the flock (if it had the non-relativistic 'rational' proclivity of western man) could argue with 'its fellows' over which course of action will cultivate the biggest opening up of opportunity-to-act, the problem being that 'opportunity-to-act' is a geometry-of-Place which 'presents' in a unique manner to the individual constituent-observer. It is worth noting that the ambiguity innate in the observer-dependence is in a non-split-apart space-time sense since the 'Nature-of-our-experience' is a continuously evolving dynamical geometry in which we, the observer, are an immersed codynamically participating constituent. We cannot reduce our innately 'immersed, dynamically participating' view (a unique 'Place-dependent' view in a dynamical sense) to the notion of absolute things and absolute time without losing the 'ratio-ing' information associated with 'observer-dependence', the experience-valided fact that the observer is a relativistic inclusion in the enveloping system dynamic that he is co-creating.
In terms of observer-dependence in logical statements, the classic 'irresolvable paradox' of the Gödel's Theorem type comes about when logical statements refer to themselves; i.e. as in the following logical statement 'A'; 'this statement is false'. If 'A' is 'true' then it is, at the same time, 'false' and the rules of logic are that 'A' cannot, at the same time, be 'NOT.A' (i.e. something cannot, at the same time, be another thing). Of course we know that this 'excluded middle logic' is often transcended by the relativistic (inclusional) properties of our natural living space; i.e. the bird which flies within the flock is, at the same time, in a dynamical sense (the only sense possible in our experiencing of nature since 'stasis' is an abstraction), both constituent and community. And the constituent-bird-observer, because it is perceiving and referencing to the dynamical geometry of the community in which it is immersed, will have a unique, observer-dependent, view of 'community'. The observer-excluding logical statements two different birds make with respect to their common containing community will therefore likely differ, though, since logic drops out the observer-dependent information, the basis for reconciling such irresolvable conflict is not accessible at the level of logic. Recognition of this innate irresolvability in rational viewpoints is why the Native American puts the 'sharing circle' (which develops a 'holographic view') into primacy over the 'debated view'. That is, there is no point in 'debating' when conflict arises between different logical arguments on the basis of 'whose propositions are most true', if the conflict is due to observer-dependencies, information on which was 'dropped out' during the precipitation of the logical propositions.
[In complex systems such as resonant systems manifesting many-to-one harmony, the constituent dynamics are dependent features of the overall system dynamic (i.e. 'overall community dynamic'), thus the movement of the constituent is, at the same time, reciprocally, the dynamic of its enveloping system; i.e. the constituent dynamic is a qualitative aspect or 'feature' of the overall, over-riding community dynamic, or, stated inversely, the community dynamic is the enveloping 'dynamical context' which the constituent dynamic depends upon for definition. The constituent-as-observer, since it is an inclusion 'within' and 'of' the system, cannot 'stand on its own shoulders and look down and see itself and its containing system in relational context'.]
The point here, per Gödel's Theorem, and similar to the situation when one uses 'numbers' rather than 'ratios' is that logic and absolute, explicitly quantitative mathematical formulations are innately incapable of 'correcting themselves' for observer-dependencies due to the observer's codynamical inclusion within the system he is observing, ... the information necessary for correcting such observer-dependence having been 'dropped out' during the 'precipitating' of the 'divinely absolute' logical propositions.
Now, as the Scottish poet Robert Burns says in regard to the limitations implicit in observer-dependent perception, in 'To a Louse, on Seeing One on a Lady's Bonnet, at Church';
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An' foolish notion:
It would seem to follow that we should assemble in some circular geometry, perhaps in the manner of Baboons in the process of 'de-lousing', which facilitate making mutually supportive use of our unique and limited observer-dependent perceptions. That is, we need to be able to not only 'see what's out there' in our unique observer-dependent way, ... but also to gain a view of ourselves 'from the outside' showing our codynamical inclusion within the system.
Kepler points out how nature has equipped us for reconciling our 'relativistic' inclusional view with our 'voyeur' ratiocinative view, observing that the 'ratiocinative' view of the world comes from our NON-central positioning in the relational coherent dynamical system of sun and planets, and that were we at the center of coherency, observing as if from the sun, we would only have 'intuitive' awareness of participation (i.e. the 'ratio-ing opportunity' would be lacking);
"... unless the Earth, our domicile, measured out the annual circle, midway between the other spheres --- changing from place to place, from station to station --- never would human ratiocination have worked its way to the true interval of the planets and to the other things dependent from them, never would it have constituted astronomy. . . . if any mind observes from the sun those harmonies [the simultaneous relativistic 'community-constituent' harmonies of the system of sun and planets], that mind is without the assistance afforded by the movement and diverse stations of his abode, by means of which it may string together ratiocinations and discourse necessary for measuring out the planetary intervals."
In pointing out how the detached 'rational' view [the view based on 'being', the existence of the individual planets 'in their own right'] with its fragmenting into absolute trajectories and explicit times (periods) is a less complete view than the immersed 'intuitive' view [the view based on 'becoming', the simultaneous harmonies of the community of planets], Kepler points out that one must 'let go' of the absolute trajectories and explicit times and use only the relative geometrical dynamics, bringing these into connection in the mind so that the community-constituent codynamical relationship of the included observer, this dynamic geometrical information which we intuitively reference our actions to, is incorporated into the understanding of the system. In other words, we must REFERENCE FROM the 'dynamical Unum' view of the system in which one is a codynamically involved included constituent. This is the 'out-and-back-inwards-again' inquiry wherein one can capture a 'holographic' image of geometrical dynamics which preserves the dynamical form of space, ... a representation which is impossible if one starts off with the 'in-and-back-outwards-again' inquiry of rational science (voyeur description).
"Therefore with everything reduced to one view, I concluded rightly that the true journeys of the planets through the ether should be dismissed, and that we should turn our eyes to the apparent diurnal arcs, according as they are all apparent, from one definite and marked place in the world --- namely, from the solar body itself, the source of movement of all the planets and we must see, not how far away from the sun any one of the planets is, nor how much space it traverses in one day (for that is something for ratiocination and astronomy, not for instinct), but how great an angle the diurnal movement of each planet subtends in the solar body, or how great an arc it seems to traverse in one common circle described around the sun, such as the ecliptic, in order that these appearances, which were conveyed to the solar body by virtue of light, may be able to flow, together with the light, in a straight line into creatures, which are partakers of this instinct, as in Book IV we said the figure of the heavens flowed into the foetus by virtue of the rays."
In sum, Kepler is telling us what we already know from our experience, that the diagoia [discussive intellection] of voyeur, observer-excluding science is innately incapable of giving us an understanding of how the constituents of nature co-create the aesthetics of 'simultaneous harmony' as in the solar system and as in the flock of birds, ... phenomena wherein the 'many-to-one' dynamical unum of the community serves as the 'community spirit reference' for the dynamics of the included constituents. He is further saying that we cannot dismiss the subtleties of the relationship between the intuitive perception and inquiry of the immersed, included constituent of nature relative to the voyeur descriptive perception and inquiry of the detached scientific observer; i.e. as the skilled pool player knows, his perception of what he is seeking must be big enough to include the influence of his seeking actions on the place within which he is doing his seeking ; i.e. " 'The world is a petty thing, unless everyone finds the whole world in that which he is seeking,' as Seneca says. . . . No one shows that I have committed an error. But because certain people cannot grasp the subtleties of things, they lay the charge of novelty-hunting upon me."
As for " the boundary posts of investigation should not be set up in the narrow minds of a few men." and the tendency for narrow minds to dismiss what our experience validates as 'confusing and unnecessary novelty', the Copernican Revolution was, and continues to be 'stalled' by such narrowness, unnaturally subordinating to detached dialoia [discussive intellection], our transcending nous [intuitive intellection] - the timeless intellection which gives us our sense of inclusion in the beginningless and neverending 'becoming' of evolution and which endows us with our ability to co-create the aesthetic, simultaneous harmonies of 'community-constituent-coresonance' as manifest in the flight of a flock of birds.
The psychological damage of this unnatural inversion is mounting as we technology amplify our 'causing things to happen' in acts of seeking which 'make our world a petty thing' since we in no way 'find the whole world in that which we are seeking'. Instead of seeing things in terms of 'the terrain is everything',as Pasteur, on his deathbed, conceded to Antoine Béchamp, the relativistic view is one in which the 'causal agency' (e.g. microbe) must be seen instead as an 'effect' of the 'debalancing' of the 'community-constituent-codynamics'. Thus instead of seeing bacterial disease as the attack of a microbe, it may be seen in the deeper, inclusional view of 'community-constituent-dissonance' and a 'pro-biotic' rather than 'anti-biotic' personal healthcare approach used. Instead of seeing healthy community in terms of 'good causal regulation', it may be seen in the deeper, inclusional view of 'community-consituent-coresonance' and a pro-coresonance rather than an 'anti-dissonance' community healthcare approach used. And instead of seeing 'healthy genetics' in terms of 'good genetic engineering', it may be seen in the deeper, inclusional sense of 'genepool-gene-coresonance' and a pro-ecological (i.e. pro-genetic coresonance) genepool healthcare approach used.
As the Copernican Revolution, , the 'Revolution That Never Was' continues in its dormancy, western man continues to move like the poor pool player, using the cue-stick of constituent-as-action-agent in the manner of a cattle-prod ('constituent' designating 'human', 'gene', 'manager', 'company', 'nation' or etc.) to 'make things happen', ... pushing 'ahead' along the abstract 'axis of time' ever more frantically and 'against the clock', and using 'probability', the effect of the Regulator-God of nature when he is in 'dice-throwing' mode (an abstraction to make up for the gaps in our causal theory) to whitewash the damage being done by our actions to our ongoing 'opportunity-to-act', ... a state of affairs which encourages everyone to compete in building ever-more-powerful cattle-prods (e.g. transnational corporations) to ensure those wielding the prod will not themselves be 'snookered'.
Meanwhile, there are signs that the 'Copernican Revolution' is once again stirring, ... in the activities underpinning 'pro-biotics', 'deep ecology', the shift from 'representative democracy' (wherein actions are imposed in a 'one-to-many' fashion) to 'participative democracy' (wherein constituent actions cultivate a 'many-to-one' dynamical unity as with birds in flight) and other imaginative, collective-consciousness-tapping efforts aimed at co-creating resonance between the enveloping dynamic 'Place' of community and the reciprocally relating dynamics of its constituents. As the Brazilian proverb says;
"When we dream alone, it is only a dream. When we dream together, it is no longer a dream but the beginning of reality.
* * *
... Return to GoodShare's Welcome Page...