The previous article illustrated how Kepler's belief in the Christian Trinity and the Holy Ghost inspired his paradigm shift. His Math-Fact Matrix shifted the Attention of Science from the Forms of Geometry to the Forces of Physics. In Kepler's case, the arrow pointed from Religion to Science.
Kepler: Religion -> Science
The current article shows how the logic of Kepler's forces acted to erode the traditional Patriarchy, i.e. the unquestioned authority of kings, sultans, emperors and Popes. How? Humans inadvertently apply the relational logic of a known system to better understand the logic of an unknown system. This so-called metaphorical logic provides the foundation for our abstract thought. The logic behind our ability to manipulate physical forces was extended to believe in our ability to manipulate social forces. The proactive logic of Forces replaced the reactive logic of traditional social Forms. Rather than blindly accepting Authority, people began questioning Authority. In this case, the arrow points from Science to Society.
Kepler's Forces: Science -> Society
Unfortunately, the Patriarchy coopted the proactive logic of force manipulation and replaced it with the reactive logic of scientific determinism. Lehman's Information Digestion Model represents a paradigm shift that reintroduces intentional choice into the scientific reality. Rather than passive victims of Fate, the logic underlying the ID model indicates that we can become Masters of our Destiny.
Section Headings
In order to make their contribution, each of our Immortals of Science (Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler) battled against the absolute respect for traditional authority of their contemporaries. This mindset is typical of the standard clan-based societies that preceded the modern individualistic societies that many of us live in. The notion reflects the Patriarchy, where the head of the family, normally male, always has the last word. After hearing input, he makes the final decision – no questions asked – no challenging his authority.
Indeed one of Kepler’s and Galileo’s biggest contributions to our cultural intelligence was in breaking the suffocating grip of tradition upon the educated. Traditional thought in their era was founded in the Bible and ancient Greek philosophy, which included the works of Aristotle and Ptolemy. Galileo’s brilliant insights into the nature of reality led him to break with Aristotelian tradition. Kepler’s astronomical computations led him to reject the Ptolemaic model. The models of reality proposed by both of these ancient Greek philosophers had dominated the minds of the educated for close to 2000 years – a hard habit to break.
Copernicus’ belief that God’s natural laws were not messy, but rather based in elegant simplicity, led him to break with the common sense, earth-based, geocentric view of the Universe. However, Copernicus did not really break with ancient Greek thought. Like Ptolemy and indeed the Greeks, Romans, and Arabs before him, Copernicus still believed that the planets moved in perfect circles at constant velocity and were perfect spheres.
Copernicus was not really challenging Ptolemy or the Church. He was challenging common sense notions of reality; in some ways, an even more daunting task. Yet, he still continued to apply Ptolemaic geometrical models to formulate his sun-based heliocentric model. This was his fatal flaw.
It is actually no wonder that the stranglehold of the Ptolemaic geocentric model was so intense. Somewhat miraculously, Ptolemy’s mathematical system (spherical trigonometry before algebra) supported the planetary facts. In fact, his Math-Fact Matrix was so precise that astrologers had employed his mathematical formulas to predict planetary position for 1500 years. The mathematical correspondence was too compelling to entertain a new paradigm.
Neither Kepler nor Galileo had challenged the geometric model. But then Brahe’s precise data inspired astronomers to at least attempt different solutions to get a better fit. But none including Kepler challenged the geometrical world-view. Indeed he merely shifted his calculations from Earth-centered to Sun-centered. His initial research, still perfect circle oriented, inspired his first work that championed the Copernican system. It was only finally, after 6 years of hard work including thousands of pages of calculations that Kepler’s newly uncovered, more precise Math-Data Matrix forced him to challenge Ptolemaic tradition.
Was he happy with his act of defiance? Not at all. He felt as if he had spoiled the perfection of the old order. His personal integrity bound him to value Truth over Traditional Beliefs. In this case, Truth was found in the precision of his Math-Data Matrix.
Inspired by Kepler’s first work, Galileo adopted a heliocentric attitude. Yet it was only because of observations with the newly invented and personally improved telescope that Galileo definitively broke with the scholastic authorities including the Church. His powerful visual cortex provided him with incontrovertible evidence that Jupiter had moons and that the planets were not perfect spheres. In this case, Galileo’s integrity compelled him to value Sensory Data (Empirical Evidence) over Tradition.
The personal integrity of both of our geniuses inspired them to break with traditional authority, in their case ancient Greek forms (not Church dogma). Their integrity in turn motivated other brilliant humans to challenge academic dogma, rather than submit to traditional authority figures. Challenging ancient Greek authority was a great break-through. Many thinkers adopted this new relational logic regarding tradition to deal with the objections of contemporaries.
(Kepler's & Galileo's Integrity) inspires (Integrity in future Generations)
Although their behavior ignited a greater social intelligence in Academia, we suggest that their Science had an even greater impact on conventional thought and social institutions. As we shall argue, Kepler and Galileo’s introduction of the idea of natural forces accidently but effectively challenged the almost universal acceptance of traditional status quo. Indeed, their fresh way of approaching natural phenomenon inadvertently acted to erode the Patriarchy – with its ‘divinely ordained’ social order and aristocratic privilege.
A major difference, perhaps the most significant, between the logic of Geometry (Ptolemy) and the logic of Physics (Kepler) concerns their relationship with Causation. In Geometry, there are no Forces, hence no Causation. In contrast, a prime focus of Physics concerns the Forces that cause Change. While classical Greek Geometry ignores Causation, Physics specializes in Causation.
Kepler was acutely aware that his notion of Causation represented a brand-new way of thinking. This awareness is exhibited in the title of his most important work: A New Astronomy based upon Causation or Physics of the Sky. Although he was conscious of the significance of his novel ideas to the science of astronomy, he was unaware of the potential impact of these revolutionary ideas upon the relational logics of the average human. We suggest that the concepts of Forces combined with Causation first introduced by Kepler catalyzed liminal changes in cognition that transformed human culture as a whole, both interpersonally and politically.
In the relational logic of traditional Geometry, things are the way they are because God or the gods made them that way. No questions asked. The stars and planets orbit the Earth in perfect circles at a constant speed because of Divine Law.
The politico-religious logical extension is straightforward. The logic of divine, unchanging circular planetary orbits translates into: “We are leaders and you are serfs because God wills it.” Under this way of thinking, there are no forces, only the will of God. He can do anything he wants, whenever he wants – no limitations. Miracles are standard fare.
The absolute and perfect Platonic forms reflect this mindset. The nearly exact fit between Ptolemy’s spherical trigonometry (his Geometry) and planetary position provides evidence for these idealized forms. The same logic applies to a non-causal Science (Geometry) and a static social order (the Patriarchy). God orders the Heavens and the Earth according to immutable and inscrutable laws.
In the Geometrical world view there is no relationship between the planetary orbits. Each planet is separate and independent of the others. In contrast, Kepler’s planetary model posited a regular and consistent relationship between the planets and the sun. Kepler’s discovery of a causal universe inspired the logical quest to ascertain both the relationship between things and the invisible, yet knowable, forces that cause these relationships. These Forces can both cause things to be the way they are and cause things to change. Rather than accepting the status quo, we can force changes in the world around us.
Why would the new Keplerian logic – his solar forces, exert an influence upon the humans that are exposed to it? Cognitive science has ‘proved’ that humans learn abstract thinking from the external logic of our sensory environment. If exposed to a new kind of logical relationship with one’s surroundings, one could easily, on liminal levels at least, extend this new logic into other areas of life.
Newton applied the logic behind Kepler’s solar force to the Earth and came up with the force of gravity. The scientific community quickly learned that forces cause things to happen. Changing the force changes the result. Scientists and engineers began manipulating these earthly forces, sometimes for the common good, sometimes for personal gain. Oh well.
The logic behind the evidence was clear. It was easy to apply in a metaphorical fashion. Just as it is possible to manipulate physical forces, it is also possible to manipulate social forces. We don’t have to accept the status quo – things as they are. Rather we can work to change our world. Replacing permanent Platonic forms with Keplerian dynamic forces on the physical plane provided an irrefutable and powerful example of how a new type of relational logic better able to characterize reality. By extension, this same logic could be applied to social change.
Metaphorical Logic: Manipulate Physical Forces -> Manipulate Social Forces
Kingdoms were the standard political system up until the reemergence of democracy in the late 18th century. Kingdoms/Empires/Sultanates were all manifestations of the Patriarchy. The questioning of traditional authority was not allowed. The ruling class was on top because of God’s will; not because of historical circumstance.
Wisdom was passed down from generation to generation. When asked ‘why things are they way they are’, the answer was invariably ‘because they have always been that way.’ In traditional society people don’t generally look for causes, but rather rely on precedent.
With the advent of the relational logic of forces came Freemasons and then democracy. Both challenged and then eventually overturned the traditional power structure. Rather than the divine right of rulers and the absolute authority of the Patriarch, the citizenry was allowed to decide policy through the vote. Blood line did not determine the right to rule, rather all humans, including the underclasses and women, were given a voice in the decision-making process. In theory at least, everyone’s opinion was important, not just the head of the family or those with aristocratic blood.
Relational Forces -> Freemasonry & Democracy
We suggest that Kepler’s introduction of causality into our solar system was a major contributing factor to the undermining of Traditional Authority and the Patriarchy. Rather than accepting things as they were, the new logic illustrated that humans can change things, for better or worse. Just as the material world can be manipulated so can our socio-political world.
Regarding Kepler’s discovery process of the solar force: the Arrow pointed from Religion to Science. Then due to the Relational Logic of Forces: the Arrow points from Science to Society (social forms). Rather than adversarial, these examples illustrate an interactive relationship between Religion, Science and Society.
Kepler’s Momentous Discovery: Religion -> Science
Force Concept’s Impact on Societal Forms: Science -> Society
Unfortunately, as is frequently the case, the Establishment undermined the Will of the People. Masquerading as disciples of Science, adherents of Scientism coopted the interactive message/logic of force manipulation. They transformed this proactive logic into reactive determinism. In such a way, they realigned their distorted version of Science with the Patriarchy, thereby becoming priests of doom.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, scientists exhibited our ability to manipulate physical forces to our advantage. This talent provided a clear example of ‘free’ will – our limited ability to shape our world, and by extension our behavior, via intention. It seemed like a done deal. Matter is determined by deterministic forces, but Life has the ability to choose between limited options, e.g. kingdoms or democracy – imperial domination or self-rule.
But then came the re-inversion back to the deterministic logic that supports the Patriarchy. Astro-physicists are able to plot the course of Matter back to the Big Bang over 10 billion years ago and even project its course billions of years into the future. Biologists illustrated conclusively that living systems are only composed of Matter (no special particles). Consisting solely of bio-molecules, living behavior is determined by deterministic chemical interactions.
Due to the overwhelming amount of material evidence supporting determinism, supposed philosopher-scientists mad(k)e an inductive leap – reasoning from many Specific Examples to a General Truth. It’s a great method for pattern recognition; but a Logical Fallacy when determining the nature of reality. Witness the Thanksgiving Turkey.
The fallacious reasoning is straightforward. There is an abundance of evidence that Matter is deterministic. Therefore we can reason that all phenomenon, including living behavior, is deterministic. This conclusion is prevalent in certain high-level scientific circles – despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary – for instance, the ongoing decision making required of every human being in order to merely survive – including the faux philosopher-scientists that are making the fallacious claim.
Why their intellectual blindness? Is their impaired vision due to being dazzled by mathematics or their expensive machines? Could they be afraid on liminal levels of being shunned as an outsider by academics for violating the current dogma? Or could they have inadvertently adopted the deterministic Logic of Matter due to regular contact? Whatever the reason, they have somehow conveniently forgotten about the regular and ongoing choices they make to further their academic careers.
Perhaps their Vision has been clouded by lack of concrete evidence. If true, they are like the Medieval Catholic scholars that rejected Galileo’s experiential/visual evidence as conclusive support for Copernicus’ heliocentrism because it lacked a theoretical foundation. This reason for rejection is at least a common response to novel models of Reality.
But we wish at a bare minimum they would respond with Newtonian humility (picking up a few grains of sand on wide beach). Rather they hold their ignorance as a badge of courage – even forcing others to take the Kool-Aid - if they are to join their exclusive Club.
Well take heart – Advertisement coming – There is a mathematical system that both describes the rhythms of Attention and also incorporates Choice – Data Stream Dynamics (DSD). Further there is a model that both corresponds with our common-sense version of reality and has a physical substrate - the Information Digestion Model (ID Model). DSD is mathematical realization of the image overlay process that our ID system employs to interact with an ongoing and dynamic environment.
This mathematics is not a Calculus, the obedient mathematics of material systems; Rather this mathematics of living systems belongs to the set of recursive functions – the disobedient algorithms that allow feedback. Having both a Material and Attention-based component, Life obeys both the deterministic laws of Matter and the choice-based rules of Attention. Rather than exclusive – inclusive.
This logic of Attention is not at all deterministic. Hence Attention’s Math-Fact Matrix does not lend support to the traditions of the Patriarchy. Rather the logic of our ID system is proactive-interactive. With all the looming problems of our brief tenure on this fair planet coming to a head, we must manifest this a new logic before it is too late.
Let us consolidate our findings regarding the symmetries between Scientific, Religious and Cultural Logic.
Science and Religion can have an amicable relationship as long as their respective dogmas do not clash. For instance the Catholic Church embraced the scientific and philosophical writings of both Aristotle and Ptolemy, even though they lived during pagan times. Why? Their books did not challenge Church dogma in any way. Their fields of action, e.g. astronomy and spirit, were mutually exclusive.
However, the Christian Church ruthlessly suppressed atomist teachings. This was not due to their scientific speculation, i.e. everything is composed of tiny particles. Instead early Christian leaders found it expedient to burn any books associated with this tradition because the so-called atomists derived a philosophy of life from their scientific theory that was diametrically opposed to the Christian perspective. Specifically, Epicurus, the primary advocate for atomism, claimed that the gods and the afterlife don’t exist. He wrote many popular and influential books on the subject. Yet none of them survived the fire of time, presumably due to Christian censorship.1
This phenomenon provides us with a great example of a major disparity between the pagan and Christian world-views. While Epicurus and many other philosophers challenged the existence of the Greco-Roman pantheon of gods, their writings were not suppressed, and the philosophy flourished.
What was the difference? The polytheistic pagan world did not hold to the notion that there was one truth and one god. The inclusive mindset of the pre-Christian Roman Empire allowed individuals to worship how they pleased, e.g. polytheism or monotheism, and expound whichever philosophy suited them. There was only one restriction: they couldn’t challenge the state, a prohibition that is true of virtually any form of government.
What factors transformed the Greco-Roman world from an inclusive poly-truth culture into an exclusive mono-truth culture?
One possibility is that the citizenry inadvertently adopted a monotheistic, one truth mentality due to the widespread practice of Ptolemaic astrology combined with planetary ephemeris2. One feature of the internal logic of this astrological system is particularly applicable. The regular employment of planetary ephemeris indicated that one mathematical truth was able to precisely determine the position of all celestial bodies. In parallel fashion, the citizenry came to believe in the few centuries after Ptolemy introduced his astronomical system that there was only one religious truth and only one God. The logical parallel is striking.
The implicit logic of the Ptolemaic system was static and unchanging, i.e. heavenly bodies revolving in perfect circles at a constant velocity forever. This heavenly logic was analogous to, hence reinforced, the logic of the militaristic, patriarchal world view that has dominated human society since at least the Bronze Age. According to this ancient tradition, the supposedly ‘natural’ hierarchical structure is forever and divinely ordained.
Was it a coincidence that the challenge to the unchanging Ptolemaic system coincided with a changing social structure epitomized by the emergence of the Freemasons? Just as Kepler introduced a dynamic science, the Masons began to believe in a dynamic social structure. Specifically wealthy traders and businessmen began to join the ruling class, while they had been excluded previously.
Did the scientific logic lead or follow the social revolution? Perhaps an interaction between the two. Our next article on the history and social consequences of Freemasonry will shed a nuanced light on this question.
1 Lehman, Lucretius, Atomism & the Swerve, 2015
2 A widespread consensus amongst the neural linguistic community is that humans inadvertently mimic the internal logic behind their environmental interactions in order to form abstractions that make sense of their world.