SHAPE
HOME ARCHIVE SEARCH ABOUT SHAPE BACK TO E-JOURNAL
ISSUE16

Previous page of Issue

The Demise of Formalism (Part 3) - The Rise of Emergence

SERIES: The Demise of Formalism
AUTHOR: Jim Schofield
STRANDS: PHILOSOPHY

ABSTRACT:

In the mid 1980s this author wrote an article entitled The Demise of Formalism. It was about Mathematics and the work of contributors like Gödel and Turing, who had proved that Hilbert’s conception of the nature of Mathematics was incorrect, and it was neither complete nor coherent, or even entirely consistent, as he had asserted. But that was then!

The content at that time only addressed the discipline of Mathematics and nothing beyond that. After a further 25 years since then many new ideas have been developed, which take the area involved well beyond Mathematics alone, and well into Philosophy in general. The most obvious extensions were, as you might imagine, in the ideas involved in Formal Logic, and, of course, then into all disciplines which use Formal Logic as their “banker technique”. Even further it had become more and more clear that the techniques involved had very limited areas of application, and in particular excluded all disciplines which involved significant Qualitative Change, and most especially in those interludes in development which were covered by the revolutionary Events termed Emergences. To be able to tackle THE most essential areas of Reality just had to involve these crucial Events, for otherwise they would only be addressing entities and relations embedded in totally stable periods. Science would then be limited to the study of what was possible within Stability. Ideas such as the Origin of Life on Earth as well as its subsequent Evolution would be left out of the areas for study, and it soon became clear that the development of Planet Earth itself, not to mention the Cosmos, were also evolving systems and had to have their Emergences too.

Now these Events are remarkable interludes involved concentrated avalanches of Change, and each one, on completion produces its own entirely New Level, containing entirely new entities, properties, relations and indeed processes. To make matters worse, it had also become clear that the methods universally used in the Sciences up to now were totally inadequate to such cataclysms of Change within Emergences. Indeed, the nature of any Emergence could NOT be derived from knowledge of prior conditions, no matter how full they were. Nothing could be predicted from before the crucial Event that would pertain after the Event!

Now though these features seemed to make this an impossible area to study, such Emergences had been identified as such in the past, and the touchstone and template for such Revolutions had to be the First Appearance of Life on Earth. In addition, once recognised and described, these Events seemed to be cropping up everywhere, from interludes within the development of the Cosmos, to the emergence of Human Consciousness in Man.

By October 2007, the research of this author had reached the stage where another, much wider Demise of Formalism was necessary, and this is it! But what is included here was by no means the last word in this area, which by October 2009 had resulted in the publication (in SHAPE on-line Journal) of The Theory of Emergences. This paper can be seen as the immediate precursor to that Theory, and as such, several important differences will be evident between the two.
 

SYNOPSIS:

1. All of Mankind’s methods of attempting to understand Reality have been, and will always be, both provisional and incomplete. They are a measure of the relative success of the journey along a self-made path, and some of its greatest achievements must not be measured absolutely against The Truth, but as brilliant inventions, which alone in their time allowed real progress in this objective.

2.Indeed, such events are not unlike Didactic Models, in that they may not be the truth, but do indeed illuminate the way forwards, while allowing concrete achievements at every step.

3.And, of course, Formal Logic was just such a turning point in Mankind’s struggle to make sense of his surroundings. The advance from such a Plurality-based technique, and its retinue of consequent forms had to be the next step. Yet, though continuing to make use of these ideas where appropriate, we must also seek an alternative for what they cannot cope with – that is in attempting to deal with Qualitative Change.

4.Hegel knew what was required, but could not use the methods of Formal Logic or Science in constructing the necessary ideas. The only obvious area for intense study that would contain these necessary qualities was Human Thinking itself – and indeed the only inexhaustible example of that which was immediately available to him were his own Thoughts.

5.But, his methods could not have been more different from those of both his fellow philosophers and those of the scientists. Where they would extensively restrict their area of study to “reveal” its relations, he could only take his Thinking exactly as it was, warts and all! He used Introspection, and was roundly condemned for such a wholly “non-objective methodology”

6.But, not only was Hegel sidelined for choosing “an wholly inappropriate path”, but his achievements were restructured into clichés and “rules”, which would have made him cringe.

7.Only the Young Hegelians delighted in his profound and major gains, but they too were highly critical of his introspective stance and abandoned Idealism for Materialism en masse. With Marx as leader, the blockage seemed to have been cleared

8.Bringing in a wide variety of other disciplines, Marx began to construct what his enemies soon christened as “Marxism”, and his insistence on the primary area of Social Change meant that there was no place for him in Academia. But he did continue Hegel’s work and developed Dialectical Logic considerably. The future seemed bright, but it didn’t work out that way.


Read Paper (PDF)

Left click to open in browser window, right click to download.

Previous paper in series