top
study-index
prior
next
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A RELATIVITY AND DIALECTIC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AA RELATIVITY.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAA REFERENTIALS AND POLARITY 1
----------------------------------
Galilei measured the speed of falling objects with reference to a
conveniently chosen object neutral with respect to the experiment, i.e.
immobile: the tower of Pizza. But is it really immobile? It is certainly
immobile with respect to the earth crust, which we propose to call the
REFERENTIAL of the experiment. But the earth crust itself is far from
absolute immobility: it turns around the earth axle, together with
the earth around the sun, together with the solar system around
the galactic center, etc. Rather than some single object moving with
respect to some other immobile one, we seem to face a series of objects,
or, as we proposed to call them, referentials moving with respect to
one another.
Consequently, Galilei's experiment is not absolute, but relative to
the referential earth crust which itself is moving, but whose movements
are disregarded. Therefore, in absolute terms it's conclusions
are wrong: we cannot be absolutely sure about a value which we measure
with help of some inexact reference. Reliable knowledge seems
to require an absolute referential. But we have just seen, that such
referential, absolutely immobile, absolutely neutral with respect to
all kinematic experiments does not exist in practice. Should we conclude
that reliable knowledge is impossible?
Now, in the case of Galilei's experiment the error resulting from
assuming earth crust as immobile is negligible. We may loosen the
requirement of a referential's absolute neutrality by accepting it to be
relative as far as the errors resulting from the referential's
participation in a particular experiment are negligible. Such acceptable
relative referential may be called PERTINENT. For many current
experiments the referential earth crust is pertinent. This assumption
is the base of our daily praxis and of the so called 'common sense'.
It maintains its validity for restricted areas of science, such as low
speed mechanics. Now we may say that, while absolute knowledge is
impossible, reliable approximate knowledge is possible as long as it
refers to pertinent referentials.
What we just said for physical experiments can be generalized over the
whole human reality: an absolute phenomenon cannot be conceived, let
alone experienced. It coexists necessarily with some other phenomenon:
the phenomenal structure is polar.
AAA REFERENTIALS AND POLARITY 2
----------------------------------
Referentials do not have any exceptional status distinguishing them from
other objects of cognition, from other phenomena. To say that an apple
is moving with respect to the Pizza tower, or indeed with respect to the
earth crust is equivalent with saying that the earth crust is moving
with respect to the apple. Apple and earth crust are two poles of
a specific structure which we shall call the PHENOMENAL DIPOLE.
This statement may be generalised as the PRINCIPLE OF POLARITY:
Phenomena never occur alone, but always as poles of a phenomenal dipole.
The choice of a pole as referential is arbitrary and usually pragmatic.
However, a simple rule of thumb suggests to choose in most cases
the more complex pole as the referential. Galilei was perfectly entitled
to choose the apple as referential. However, he preferred the tower or,
indeed, the earth crust. The future has shown that this choice allowed
to formulate a simple, consistent and reliable theory: the earth crust
confirmed itself as an epistemologically efficient referential.
The referential and its polar counterpart may be called respectively
the FOUNDING pole or FOUNDATION and the FOUNDED pole.
Referentials, as all phenomena have a specific complexity which may be
used as an ordering criterion. The referentials of our example may be
ordered as a series of increasing complexity: apple, earth-crust,
planet earth, solar system, galaxie. This series is a branch of a more
complex network structure of all conceivable pertinent referentials
concerning the human reality which we propose to call the HUMAN UNIVERSE
OF DISCOURSE, shortly UH. UH clearly changes with time, which we may
symbolize with a lower case subscript such as "t": UH(t). Droping the
subscript implies our contemporary UH. On the other hand UH admits
various instances for human classes such as cultures, collectivities
and individuals, which we shall symbolize with upper case subscripts
and call PROPER of the concerned class.
For example, denoting with "G" the Ancient Greek Culture, with "g" the
corresponding period and with "m" for the period of the Middle Ages,
we symbolize:
UH(G,g) : the Ancient Greek universe of discourse as it appeared
to the ancient Greeks themselves,
UH(G,m) : the Ancient Greek universe of discourse as it appeared
to the Middle Ages,
UH(G) : the Ancient Greek universe of discourse as it appears to us.
We may now classify referentials with respect to concerned human classes
and phenomena as follows:
referential type criterion
---------------- ---------
proper human class
pertinent phenomenon
non-pertinent phenomenon
improper human class
AAA REFERENTIALS AND POLARITY 2
----------------------------------
As any phenomenon, a referential may be known more or less precisely.
When Einstein first decided to abandon the trials to interpret the
invariability of c (speed of light) within the context of the current
mecanistic physics and to create instead a new referntial SR (Special
Relativity), all details of SR had still to be precised. SR has been
initially restricted to its bare definition: SR supports the invariance
of c. At this stage SR was in its initial status, it was defined, but
not precised. It was still incapable to help interpreting the invariance
of c in concrete cases, incapable to satisfy particular instances of the
general principle specified in its definition. For concrete cases SR was
still non-pertinent. However, being itself an essential objective of
the research on physical relativity, it was obviously pertinent for
this research.
Newly intialized referentials are usually pertinent only for general,
fundamental investigation. Some of them eventually become pertinent for
particular cases, after having been sufficiently precised in detail.
We have defined the universe in general and UH in particular as
a network whose nodes-referentials form layers of increasing complexity.
Let us now have a closer look at the UH. What can we say about its
limits, about its most and least complex phenomenal dipoles?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAB ELEMENTARY EXTREMITY OF THE UH: SITUATION.
----------------------------------------------
UH is supposed to reflect the state of the art of our contemporary
knowledge. Consequently, we see it as the current scientific universe US
extended over the entire domain of human reality. In the determination
of US we have chosen to follow the Vienna Circle which considered
physics as the fundamental scientific domain.
Contemporary physics reduced on the one hand its universe to phenomena
and, on the other hand, determined its element- the observation as the
dipole: observer / observed. These terms put in our opinion too much
stress on the passive, perceiving aspect of the observation. We suppose
that a physicist will most probably qualify this statement as pedantic
and argue that nobody takes the term "observer" at its face value and
that the ability to conceive, to plan and to organise an observation is
implied by the term at least as strongly as that to actually carry it
out. Still, in our context, more general than that of physics, it may
lead to misunderstandings, so that we prefer to replace "observation",
"observer" and "observed" respectively with: SITUATION, SUBJECT and
OBJECT.
The element of UH is, consequently, an individual human situation
comprising two poles: subject and object. According to the principle
of relativity either one may be chosen as referential. Choosing subject
as referential is equivalent with examining the object and vice versa.
Subject is the elementary foundation of "objective" physical type
investigation and object - that of psychological introspection.
Subject founds objectivity and object founds subjectivity.
Surprising as it may seem at the first glance, this statement describes
one of the most essential features of human reason. We shall discuss
its implications in the following chapter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AABA TEMPORALITY IN UH 1
-------------------------
Situation is a multidimensional structure. Subject and object are
positioned in time and space, perception of the object postulates some
sort of "sensorium", or a space whose dimensions coincide with the types
of sensations conceivable for the subject. At this place we shall
consider one of the involved dimensions, that of time.
With respect to time only the currently present or current situation may
be considered as elementary. One may of course conceive past and future
situations, but they have a higher degree of complexity.
A past situation is a recollection experienced as related to the current
one, as one of its components. However, at the time of its own presence
the past situation had not been related to the current, which at this
time did not yet exist. Recollection is more complex than presence.
Similar reasoning holds for future situations or projections.
The present moment divides the time into two distinct areas: past
and future. What can be said about these areas with respect to the basic
polarity subject / object of the situation?
Past appears to the present awareness as something which exists as such,
which cannot be changed in any way, but which can be known. In other
words past coincides with the object-pole of the situation and the
elementary knowledge is identical with awareness of the past.
On the contrary, future does not exist yet as such. It exists only as
subject's projection. Future coincides therefore with the subject and
the awareness of it is experienced as subjective belief and volition.
Consequently, past and future correspond to the basic polarity of
the situation, respectivaly to object and subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAC COMPLEX EXTREMITY OF THE UH: VIEW.
--------------------------------------
The opposite extremity, the most complex conceivable referential of
the UH is theoretically unlimited. In practice the UH is "covered" by
a collection of nodes, each of which truncates a particular series or
branch, as the galaxie in our example. This "cover" represents the
"state of the art" of the considered human class. It is by no means
single valued. The UH is subject to constant development carried out by
individuals and by different scientific, political, artistic and
religious communities. Consequently, it comprises various competive
branches culminating in different cover nodes, which may be called
views. Different collectivities consider different views as pertinent.
The UH of a culture is a changing, dynamic structure of often competing
views. As long as the development and the transition among competing
views is smooth, the culture is in the state of synchrony, or evolution,
otherwise it passes through a period of diachrony or revolution.
RESUME.
-------
The PRINCIPLE OF POLARITY: Phenomena occur necessarily as poles of
phenomenal dipoles. Each of the poles may be chosen as the referential
or the foundation of the other.
All phenomenal dipoles conceivable by a human class "C" and considered
at a moment "t" form a network structure ordered by the degree of
complexity, called the HUMAN UNIVERSE OF DISCOURSE, symbolized as
UH(C,t).
NOTE: Uniquness of t does not necesserily extend over the whole UH.
It concernes the PERTINENT REFERENTIAL for the type of phenomena
in question. It may be the euclidian referential for most of current
phenomena, SR for high speed mechanics GR, (General Relativity) for
cosmological area. The uniquness of t means that all apparently
different moments of lower level referentials transform into a unique t
at the pertinent level. We lack at the moment appropriate context
and concepts to discuss this problem in detail. We shall do it in parts
B (Modelling) and C (Mind as Modelling Device).
The elementary component of the UH is human SITUATION comprising two
poles: SUBJECT and OBJECT. Subject is the elementary foundation of
objective physical type investigation and object, that of subjective
psychological introspection.
The complex extremity of the UH is theoretically unlimited and
practically closed by a cover of nodes truncating respective branches.
Cover nodes, or views of UH(C) represent the state of the art of the
human class C. Among various classes they may be incompatibe and
competing. The smooth, or abrupt form of their competition determins
respectively the evolutionary, or revolutionary state of a culture.