Biological Physics A Revolution in the Humanities. Dr. Bill Thompson. Circle 8. Winter Session NSU
How stupid are we seeking to invent a logic for the soul as we did by inventing psychology? A study of the soul. We would be better off recognizing the work done in converting The philosopher’s Stone1 in the way of the illustration as we have done to great effect,2 so that we can communicate feelings more mathematically,3 and avoid violence more than by going to war itself,4without removing the threat of war.5 I call this new invention of mine
biological physics and it is the work of Brentano6 under a different rubric of metaphenomenalism rather than metaphysics. This is a paradigm shift, a
revolution in the humanities (with thanks to all those in the humanities who got it wrong but for the right reasons). I have tried to explain this to local
politicians, in Islington, and they have refused to understand. And yet I find myself voting for them in elections because there is no real alternative to democracy and my faith in one party over another. Yet how can democracy work if the people do not have faith in their own systems? If they seek instead, to pray on their knees to an absentee landlord they hope to eventually meet in some posthumous condition of physics, or prey on each other using the philosophers stones in war, rather than in peaceful understanding. The important issue is that there can be no study of what we can never experience in the moment, and there can be no description of any moment that is not simply a synthesis of other experiences. This is why Brentano’s’ empiricism
pushes epistemological claims regarding materiality into a dead end of faith in the biology or the physics, neither of which can be prescient, predictive, to the or any required extent. This is why biology and physics let us down as much as they please us, and the humanities go to war with an internecine metaphysics. No wonder Nietzsche said that the people were not ready.7 No wonder Marx said that the only true revolution would be an educated and organised people joined together in faith of the sort we need in each other.8 At the moment, only 50% of general groups of people believe in democracy because only 50% of the people believe they are capable of putting together institutions in order to solve problems that will allow them to have day by day plans that work for them throughout a not unreasonable number of years. This is what Mongiovi calls the basic or vulgar understanding9 of biological physics. Individuals who can make 24 hour cycles over 7 days work for them over a few months. This is most of us adult humans on the planet. The empirical forms of most biological physical systems are of this vulgar sort. If we wish to have larger biological physical systems, then we must
organise ourselves to make them possible. Even then we do not have faith in the very institutions we ourselves must have in order to ensure that our 24 hour day by day 7 day plans work over say three months, and also decade by decade and indeed generation by generation, (although the latter course of production has decreased with the ability we have to wander biologically10 within the physics as we do now compared to even one hundred years ago).
The Old institutions organised around Faith in individuals (leaders, shaman, prophets, fathers, mothers, family, tribes, cultures, and posthumously available afterlives, we were forced to believe in because we had not invaded the living body and discovered the possibilities of biological physics until the late 20th and early 21st centuries.11
Even today, 2023, now that we have the possibility of the philosopher’s Stone put into practice amongst us as value for both individual and collective purposes, the means of exchange, distribution, and manufacture, are not widely enough known and as Mongiovi states remain in a vulgar state generally speaking, in spite of efforts to improve.12 It is pointless to try and understand the mysteries of the intuitions each individual may have, using any kind of metaphysics. It is also pointless to try and understand the longterm interests of any group of people using metaphysics, even when using numbers
and statistics, when these are based on individuals and the general levels of understanding that are generally in place for three months of daily practice rather than decades, as is the need for large scale institutions tasked with making such contexts possible. It is necessary to use conversational modes of synthesis and practice in order to produce temporary maps in other words temporary contexts, so that individuals and long-term interests may proceed side by side. In democratic terms this is best done country by country and borough by borough. Inevitably we already do this we just don’t realise we are doing this. The glue that holds the larger scale contexts together is faith in the larger scale contexts as beneficial for those holding them together as a map
or plan. The problem is the map has become a mirror of the experience, and the users understand themselves as map readers of those maps, rather than understanding the context becomes converted into a map over days, weeks, months, years, decades and generations. Two neuroscientists demonstrate the tension in physics regarding this issue. Lakoff,13 and Eagleman,14 and the tussle is in the general understanding of biological physics as to the amount of focus any individual can allow in their learning to make maximum use of plasticity in our understandings of biological physics. Metaphysics makes this more difficult if not actually impossible. Metaphenomenalism is a rubric under which I ask people to work towards an easier understanding of
biological physics. That decision is up to you. This book aims to help you make thatdecision.
1 Regardie I, The Philosopher’s Stone, Llewellyn Publications, 1970.
2 Simmel G, 1900, the Philosophy of Money, London and New York, Routledge, 1991.
3 Graeber D, Debt, Melvillehouse, 2012.
4 Sunzi, The Art of War, -2500 UCT.
5 Schmitt C, 1932, Concept of the Political, Uni of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1996.
6 Brentano F, 1874, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint translated by Kraus O + McAlister L L, Routledge,
N Y, 1973.
7 Nietzsche FW, 1882, The Gay Science, Dover Thrift Editions, 2022. ¶125.
8 Wright Mills C, 1962, The Marxists, Pelican, 1973.
9 Mongiovi G, What is Orthodox Economics, St. John’s University, New York. 2023.
10 Thompson B, Wander, Paperback ISBN: 9781784566876, 2019.
11 Al-Khalili J, Life on the Edge, Black Swan, 2014.
12 Pettifor A, The Production of Money, Verso, 2017.
13 Lakoff G, 1996, Moral Politics, Chicago and London, Uni of Chicago Press, 2002.
14 Eagleman D, Livewired, Canongate, 2020.
I am a viscous mass. An inseparable part of the total viscous mass of the universe.i As Lacan (sort of) said,
back to Freud,ii but with the id, as the viscous mass I am. The ego is the biological physics I seem to be.
And, as with Heidegger’s (Thor’s) hammer, my world seems full of nails.
A simulated phenomenal physics. This motivates (my) the ego, to make the world in its image as a physical phenomenal order, that becomes my nemesis, my prison. Inevitably we must literally face both id and some universe, each having other plans I strive to comprehend using our phenomenal systems.
We manifest our loves and fears, and create great literature, facing the “killing” machine we see in the mirror of the simulations we produce as real. I am the octopus, I am the lily, I am the speaking mammal. I must try, try again, fail better. (Beckett)iii