Computers
as embodied mathematics and logic:
Implications
for computer applications, HCI and AI
by
Kristo Ivanov,
prof.em., Umeå University
Dec 2015, Research review (version 240823-2155)
<http://www8.informatik.umu.se/~kivanov/BrouwerComputMathLog.htm>
< https://archive.org/details/BrouwerComputMathLog_201801
>
CONTENTS
Link
to a General Disclaimer
Introduction and literature
Intuitionism and formalism
Rejected parts of Brouwer's dissertation
A feminist parenthesis on quantum mechanics
Recognizing the problems in the "Rejected
parts"
Life, art, and mysticism
Commentary on "Life, art, and mysticism"
Symptoms: ontology of logic
Symptoms: syntax, semantics, pragmatics
Buddhist models of the mind
Analytical psychological approach
The analytical psychologist Jung's
approach
A diffuse conclusion
A concluding exercise
-----
In the search for an understanding of the
"essence" of computation in order to better grasp the intellectual
impact of information technology I decided to look into controversies about the
foundations of mathematics and logic as bases of formalisms that are embodied
in computers, such as Boolean algebra and binary arithmetic for digital
electronics, algorithm theory and numerical analysis, analytic geometry for
graphics, and symbolic logic for software development. In an age of computer
graphics, acoustics, and haptic technology it is easy to get a perception that
knowledge of meaning of computation and of computers, not to mention its
ethical implications if any, is less relevant for design of new equipment or
use of what is already available. The meaning of "use" itself is
obfuscated by the seeing computers as tools instead of theory-laden
instruments, as well as by the availability of techniques of human-computer
interaction - HCI - and of so-called artificial intelligence - AI, mediated
through HCI. The matter is further complicated by the submersion of computation
into continuously arising neologisms and terms such as virtual reality or
digital materiality without a clarification, for instance, of whether reality
is material and digitality is mathematical.
Resuming: the
main message of this article is that only if we understand what we are doing
with the basic formalisms of mathematics and related logic, geometry and such,
we will understand what we are doing with computers. And this is valid even as the computing is used to
generate sensory stimuli like visual, auditory or haptic which introduce
artistic and emotional dimensions that are focused in another
essay of mine on the philosopher Kant's
third critique. My writing is also motivated by my purpose of facilitating the
further investigation of systemically related issues by potential readers. In
order to save space and simplify the editing of this work, this is done by
means of rich bibliographical references indicated in the links associated to
the underlines of key words, available only for those who need them while
reading the text on a computer that is connected to the Internet. For further
details about the style of the style of my writing this text I wish to refer at
once to the last paragraph of the conclusion of the whole essay.
Before going further: as a preliminary didactic advice
on how to read the text that follows it is to read my research-disclaimer, and
to note that the text is not written in a narrow linear logical sequence with
the purpose of supporting one single thesis, motivating extremely logical
readers to stop reading this text exclaiming: "The text is too long - what
do you want to say?" Logic itself together with mathematics is here called
into question. Nobody would dare to ask the same question of, say, a criticism
of quantum physics unless the critic criticizes a detail in a
logical-mathematical edifice that for the rest is hoped to be left intact
supporting the old established mainstream thesis.
On several occasions I witnessed the
"mystical" fascination experienced in interaction with computers: it
appears in "religious" wars about which is the best computer brand or
programming language, but most clearly in computer
addiction including mobile phones and in games, and
unfortunately less clearly in misjudging benefits if not even costs of
computers such as in business, government and private life. The latter is
partly portrayed in the "productivity
paradox", not to mention the recurring myth of AI, i.e.
"artificial intelligence" taking over humanity and the whole world,
notwithstanding opportunely ignored or misunderstood research like the reported
in The Design of Inquiring
Systems (more about it below.) The only courageous direct hint of
critique I met in my searches had been Clifford
Truesdell's in his An
Idiot's Fugitive Essays on Science (1984), especially its essays on
The scholar, a
species threatened by the professions and the
apparently controversial The
computer: ruin of science and threat to mankind. I
had also read about a famous controversy on the foundations of mathematics and
its relation to logic. It attracted my attention since mathematics and logic as
embodied in computers have been often if not always considered as the most
reliable fields of scientific method, human knowledge and their philosophical
guides. I also was puzzled by the fact that such foundational controversies
were mostly ignored in today's computing and information science, as if the
controversies had been solved. It turns out that probably they were eventually
ignored because of "more important" military and
industrial-commercial perceptions of a trivial and opportune "good
enough".
My earlier, naively ambitious
attempts in this vague research direction recall the "remember
not the sins of my youth" but can
have some general interest for their references. They may be surveyed in old
papers like Presuppositions of formal methods for development of
computer systems (pdf, 1983), Logic
and psycho-logic: A Logical-psychological perspective of computer support (pdf, 1990), and more generally in a draft of a
research program on Logic
and psycho-logic: A logical-psychological perspective of computer support (pdf, 1990). They are also mentioned marginally but
significatively in related context such as in my essay Belief and
Reason (1993).
In my latest efforts I did
study the recurrent name of a key-mathematician involved in the controversies
mentioned above: L.E. Jan Brouwer. For this purpose I concentrated upon his
"ideological manifesto" in
Jan Brouwer, Intuitionism and Formalism (pdf-format) in the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society (Vol. 37, No.1, 1999, pp. 55-64 reprinted from Vol 20, No. 2, 1913, pp. 81-96.)
The second and third texts
consist of an introduction to Brouwer original book in Dutch and the book
itself:
Walter P. Van Stigt, Introduction to Life, Art and Mysticism (1996, pdf)
That is, the book got a for
our present secular epoch disconcerting, unfortunate if not outright repelling
title that in its English translation appears as
Jan Brouwer, Life, Art and Mysticism (1905, pdf)
Both the last mentioned
works were published as articles in the Notre
Dame Journal of Formal Logic, (vol. 37, No. 3, Summer 1996.) Because of my
need for a better understanding of van Stigt's English translation from the
Dutch I checked my readings of this Brouwer's book against its Italian
translation, that is,
Jan Brouwer, Vita, Arte e Mistica, (2015), the first published book in a language other than Dutch, with an introduction by Lorenzo Perilli and a very pertinent commenting essay by numerical analyst Paolo Zellini.
The last two main papers in
by Brouwer himself, translated into English that I will consider are presented
in
Jan Brouwer: "Mathematics, science, and language", (original lecture in German, year 1928) in Paolo Mancosu From Brouwer to Hilbert: The debate on the Foundations of Mathematics in the 1920s. Oxford University Press, (1998), pp. 45-53. Also, more complete, in William Bragg Ewald, ed. From Kant to Hilbert: A source book in the foundations of mathematics. Vol. 2. (1996). Oxford Univ. Press (pp. 1170-1185). Commentaries by Vladimir Tasic in Mathematics and the roots of postmodern thought, pp. 44ff. and notes p. 163 as well as by Mark van Atten in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
and
Walter P. van Stigt's translation of The rejected parts of Brouwer's dissertation on the foundations of mathematics, in Historia Mathematica, Vol 6, No. 4 (1979).
This historically and
theoretically meaningful rejection of parts of what became a famous
mathematical dissertation bears meaningful resemblances with the case of
another doctoral dissertation of Erik Persson on realistic computing (cf. virtual reality) that I was appointed to be faculty opponent for at
Lund university in 2003.
The issue is extremely
complex and the more so for a non-mathematician like me who studied mainly
engineering maths such as required for electronic engineering. Such a
complexity is obvious the simple context of the misuse of mathematics such as in Ralph Abraham's contribution to Mathknow: Mathematics, Applied Science
and Real Life (2009), but much more in writings that deal with the
controversy in which Brouwer was involved. See especially in the kind of
summary offered (in Italian) by Giovanni
Sambin, Per una dinamica nei
fondamenti (pdf) i.e.
"For a dynamics in foundations", 2005 or the list of research subjects
in the list of research publications by Richard Tieszen, or in earlier historical times, in Imre Lakatos (ed.) Problems in the Philosophy
of Mathematics: Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics (1967). In the last mentioned work one can
see, for example, contributions by Y. Bar-Hillel who was an acknowledged
inspiration for defining the concept of data and information in the original
school of Swedish Theoretical Analysis of
Information Systems by the grand old man of Swedish computer information
systems, prof. Börje Langefors. The latter's conception of
what data, information and systems are or how they should be defined was later
questioned by me in The Systems Approach to
Design and Inquiring Information Systems, presaging my need of the present ongoing study.
The complexity of the
involved issues that, however, also hides some main questions, is also
evidenced by whoever seeks orientation in further comments or explanations in
the following complementary sources
Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Dirk van Dalen, Mystic, Geometer, and Intuitionist: The Life of L.E.J.Brouwer, (volumes 1 and 2, 2013), or volume 1 (1999) and volume , (2015) as in secondary sources such as in the review by Bonnie Shulman of the volume 1, by Richard Tieszen of its chapter 2 "Mathematics and Mysticism" (pdf) in Philosophia Mathematica (3, Vol. 8, 2000, pp. 217-224, and by I. Grattan-Guinness in Bulletin of The American Mathematical Society (Vol. 36, No. 4, 1999, pp. 529-532). Refs. to more reviews here.
Paolo Zellini, La Ribellione del numero [The rebellion of the number]. Adelphi (1985), esp. pp. 20-30 and 133ff. Summary of Spanish translation here.
Other parallel
cross-checking literature that has been consulted is
L.E.J. Brouwer, in Wikipedia
Raymond L. Wilder, "Relativity of standards of mathematical rigor", in Dictionary of the history of ideas, vol. III, pp. 170-177 (on Brouwer esp. p. 176f.), the author having also written the relevant book Mathematics as a cultural system (1981).
Stephen Orr, Brouwer's Mysticism – The Hegelian in all of us
L.E.J. Brouwer, a Mathematician on Self, Hermitary
Henk Barendregt, Buddhist models of the mind and the common core thesis on mysticism (pdf), an article that is relevant for our studies of the relation of Brouwer's thought to later psychology
Mark van Atten & Robert Tragesser, Mysticism and Mathematics: Brouwer, Gdel and the common core thesis (pdf, orig. published in W.Deppert and M. Rahnfeld Klarheit in Religionsdingen, Leipziger Universittsverlag, 2003, pp. 145-160)
Brouwer's Philosophy of Mathematics (pdf). A review article of L. J. Brouwer, Collected Works, North-Holland/American Elsevier. Vol.1 and Vol. 2, 1975-1976) in Erkenntnis 15 (1980), pp. 105-126
J.J. O'Connor & E.F. Robertson, Luitzen Egbertus Jan Brouwer (biography)
Philosophy of Mathematics: Intuitionism. In mathematics-in-europe.eu
Ernst Snapper, The Three Crises in Mathematics: Logicism, Intuitionism and Formalism. (pdf)
L.E.J. Brouwer, Consciousness, philosophy, and mathematics. In Paul Benacerraf & Hilary Putnam (eds.) Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983 pp 90-96 (Excerpted from 10th International Congress of Philosophy, Amsterdam, 1948. Proceedings I, Fascicule II (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1949), pp. 1243-1249.
L.E.J. Brouwer, Lectures on Intuitionism. Historical Introduction and Fundamental Notions. Source: Brouwer's Cambridge Lectures on Intuitionism (1951). Publ. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981. (Most of first lecture plus appendix of fragments.)
Miriam Franchella, Brouwer and Nietzsche: Views about Life, Views about Logic. History and Philosophy of Logic, 36:4, 367-391. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2015.1048968>
Robert J. Leonard, Ethics and the Excluded Middle: Karl Menger and Social Science in Interwar Vienna. Isis 89, No. 1 (March 1998), 1-26. (Published by the University of Chicago Press on behalf of the History of Science Society.) The introductory abstract sets the stage: "This account of Menger shows how, on the eve of Hitler's arrival in Vienna, social scientific, mathematical, and political debates there were deeply intertwined."
There are indeed many
secondary sources as the above, which attempt to survey and resume both
Brouwer's heritage and the controversy at the turn of the past century as
represented mainly by two protagonists, Brouwer himself and the famous
mathematician David Hilbert. In mentioning these sources I refrain from considering others which to
different degrees are more "technical" in the sense of specialized
and of difficult understanding by the educated general reader including myself.
Some examples are
Edward Nelson, Understanding Intuitionism (pdf), at Princeton University
Alan Weir, Formalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Mark van Atten, The Development of Intuitionistic Logic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Wikipedia's Intuitionism
Rosalie Iemhoff, Intuitionism in the Philosophy of Mathematics in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
W.W. Tait, Gödel's interpretation of intuitionism (pdf)
I only checked such
secondary sources to the extent that I could ascertain that nothing in them
seemed to contradict my reflections in the present article. It will be
essentially grounded in the text found in Brouwer's own aforementioned late
(1999) article "Intuitionism and Formalism" and in his aforementioned
early (1905) book Life, Art, and
Mysticism including its introductions written by Van Stigt and Perilli,
plus van Stigt's editing of The
rejected parts of Brouwer's dissertation on the foundations of mathematics (1979.)
Brouwer starts his article Intuitionism and Formalism with
a concise definition of science as consisting of the isolation of causal
sequences supplemented by human activity in view of bringing about desired
phenomena, and leading to natural laws that often treat only the mutual
relations between the results of counting and measuring with certain degrees of
mathematical approximation in experimental situations. The latter qualification
of "approximation" was not supposed to hold for the so-called exact
sciences mathematics and geometry, they were "exact". By the
beginning of the 20th century two different schools could be distinguished:
intuitionism (largely French) claimed that mathematical exactness exists in the
human intellect, while formalism
(largely German) claimed that such exactness exist on paper.
In this present essay I
intend later to deepen the question of what is meant and what is to be meant by
the terms exactness beyond what is to
be inferred from my PhD dissertation on the concept of accuracy of information, and
further by the terms in intellect vs.
on paper. All this considering that
ultimately we need to understand what happens today, and why we apparently seek
ultimate salvation in the exactness of computers and related communication
technology.
To understand the clash
between these two currents of intuitionism and formalism we leave for the
moment aside the third current of logicism as suggested in the mentioned article
by Ernst Snapper, The Three Crises in
Mathematics: Logicism, Intuitionism and Formalism. Brouwer starts dwelling in what he calls an old
form of Kantian intuitionism that had already been completely abandoned, in
which time and space were taken as forms of conception inherent in human
reason. The axioms of arithmetic and geometry were "synthetic a
priori" judgments, i.e. independent of experience and not capable of
analytic demonstration, maintaining their exactness in the world of experience
as in the abstract, because of their proof or disproof was simply unthinkable.
Brouwer goes on illustrating
the opposed view of formalism that negates the human mind's capacity of
containing inherent judgments or exact images of geometric or number axioms.
From simply assumed axioms we can deduce other relations between mathematical
entities by means of logical reasoning, they having no significance except for the possible efficacy of their
projection into nature. Modern philosophers of science often
addressed this latter question by studying Galileo Galilei, as Alexandre Koyr does e.g. in Études d'histoire de la pensée philosophique
(1961/1971, pp. 348ff.) and in his Études
d'histoire de la pensée scientifique (1966/1973, pp. 186ff.). Brouwer
recalls that the common attitude to that question is exemplified by what
appears to me as irresponsible:
"To the philosopher or to the anthropologist but not to the mathematician, belongs the task of investigating why we believe in certain systems of symbolic logic and not in others, in particular why we are averse to the so-called contradictory systems in which the negative as well the positive of certain propositions are valid"
which is an intuitionistic
tenet of the rejection of the excluded middle. The article continues
explaining why the latest developments of mathematics at the turn of the
century as well as the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry seemed
to contradict the Kantian conception of the "a priori" on which relied intuitionism, and was an apparent confirmation of
formalism. The a-priori question is didactically explained also in certain
system philosophies as expounded in West Churchman's The Design of Inquiring
Systems (chap. 6). Brouwer,
however, does not yet intuit the systems problem that, as we will see below, he
touched upon in the context of his pioneer attack on the
environmental-ecological problem at the beginning of his earlier book Life, Art and Mysticism. Brouwer concentrates instead upon what is most
important for us here: the basis for mathematical and logical thinking that is
embodied in computers.
The contradiction of the
early Kantian a-priori fundaments of intuitionism, did not convince Brouwer
about the rightness of formalism but rather about the need of revising
intuitionism by abandoning Kant's apriority of space while concentrating on the
apriority of time in the human intellect. And this is the intuitionistic heart
of the matter that involves the conception of the human intellect in its relation to mathematics and logic. Later on
shall we dwell on the question of the structure of human intellect in the light
of Carl Jung's psychological conception
of intellect, mind or psyche. Here I will refer Brouwer's
"neo-intuitionistic" – as he calls it - elaboration of the workings
of an intellect that is taken as given:
"This
neo-intuitionism considers the falling apart of moments of life into
qualitatively different parts, to be reunited only while remaining separated by
time as the fundamental phenomenon of the
human intellect, passing by abstracting from its emotional content into the
fundamental phenomenon of mathematical thinking, the intuition of the bare
two-oneness." [My italics.]
Brouwer continues with
calling this two-oneness (cf.
bi-unicity) as an individual's primordial
or basal intuition of mathematics in which the connected and the separate,
the continuous and the discrete are united. In this present paper of mine I
wish to expose how, in the context of analytical psychology, this very same basal intuition of mathematics can
be connected to basal conceptions of the human mind: Marie-Louise von Franz
dedicates the chapter 5 of her book Number and Time (Northwestern Univ. Press, 1970/1974) to the "The Number Two",
including several explicit references to Brouwer (pp. 70n, 71. 87, 96n). It
represents psychological research that borrows some additional scientific
respectability from the involvement of the renowned physicist Wolfgang Pauli. It indicates the
potentiality for future research (later reported here) to establish a bridge to
both computers and psychic processes beyond "small unimportant parts of
the brain" or of the "head" (cf. later, below), along the lines
of the present paper of mine. And this with due regards to the historical roots
of false equation Psyche=Mind=Head=Ego, alternatively Skull=Brain=Mind=Psyche,
as recalled by James Hillman in his The
Myth of Analysis (Northwester Univ. Press, 1972, pp. 153-154, 245.)
These considerations may ultimately explain the reasons for the ultimate
failure of Brouwer's attempts to keep mathematics ethical and
"clean".
The article considered here, on intuitionism and formalism, goes observing that
the so called primordial or basal intuition mentioned above is not only of
mathematics but also of geometry because since Descartes we can reduce all
geometries to arithmetic by means of the calculus of coordinates. Brouwer
continues noting that all mathematical sets can be developed out of the basal
intuition, and that in the construction of these sets neither the ordinary
language nor any symbolic language can have any other role than that of serving
as a non-mathematical auxiliary, to assist the mathematical memory or to enable
different individuals to build up the same set.
Formalism is instead
compelled to presuppose the existence of a world of mathematical objects, and
independent of the thinking individual, obeying the laws of classical logic and
whose objects may possess with respect to each other the "relation of a
set to its elements".
By applying technically the
above to the concepts of finite and infinite sets, Brouwer sees that the
intuitionist can never feel assured of the exactness of a mathematical theory
by such guarantees as the proof of its being non-contradictory, the possibility
of defining its concepts by a finite number of words, or the practical
certainty that it will never lead to a misunderstanding in human relations.
For our purposes in this
present paper, however, it is enough to note that there is the use of the term intellect, intuition, abstraction from emotional content, unification of the continuous and the discrete, individual, independence of thinking, understanding, and human relations. In doing so Brouwer calls into question problems
that also belong to philosophy, psychology and sociology. In particular, the
remarkable need of abstraction
from emotional content is also mentioned in the context of the history of mathematical notations, as represented e.g. in the classical work by
Florian Cajori. At Brouwer's time (1913) such areas were not so sharply
distinguished and there was no depth psychology that I relate to the analytical
psychology of Carl Jung, or of systems thinking that I relate in particular to
aforementioned work of West Churchman. They would have stood in contrast to the
formalist idea still alive today of mathematical systems and computer systems
as sets and relations between elements or components of sets. In particular,
Carl Jung started at the time immediately after the turn of the century to
elaborate his own psychology that to a great extent incorporated the
above-mentioned terms used by Brouwer, something that obviously is necessary
for evaluating the need and the consequences of trying to "abstract from
emotions". Brouwer had implicitly already questioned formalism in science
and techno-systems by his early perception of systemic ecological problems,
implicitly suggesting the need for a systems theory . In view of the poverty of
his contemporaneous psychology he had based his more psychological stands in Life, Art, and Mysticism (published 1905
but with positions maintained until the end of his life) upon Christian,
Buddhist and Hindu thought as perceived at that time in the German cultural
sphere.
As an important curiosity
regarding to abstract from
emotional content, as well regarding the difference between
intelligence as smartness or wisdom, we may recall what Plato famously writes
in his Republic VI (§491e):
"[...] shall we not similarly affirm that the best endowed souls become worse that the others under a bad education? Or do you suppose that great crimes and unmixed wickedness spring from a slight nature and not from a vigorous one corrupted by its nurture, while a weak nature will never be the cause of anything great, either for good or evil?".
The continuation of the
present paper will then consist in considering details of the above as they can
be found or deduced in Brouwer's Life, Art and Mysticism. This will show that he was a precursor of the
elaboration of the concept of systems, and it will allow us to revert from his
references to Eastern conceptions of mind or intellect to their Christian and
Jungian correspondents. This will also explain the paradox of the success of
intuitionistic ideas in algorithm theory, and the fateful hegemony of formalism
(David Hilbert, John von Neumann, Alan Turing), allowing for the intrusion of
military, commercial and industrial interests in the development of, and
applications to computation.
That is, many issues that
today are masked by a-philosophical and a-ethical talks and neologisms as virtual reality without understanding
reality, digital materiality without
understanding neither materia nor digits nor number, nor compositional design without realizing (and therefore ignoring)
that it deals with systems thinking, and such. Among other things, as a
"bonus" or byproduct, it should also become clear that Brouwer's
apparently misogynistic, problematic, and paradoxical attitude to womanhood in
the above mentioned work has serious historical antecedents in the Christian
tradition (cf. "habet mulier animam"), and at the sources of modern psychology as exemplified by Juan Luis Vives and their further treatment by Carl Jung. It can also be the result of a misunderstanding based on a sort of
Jungian introverted thinking-intuition
attitude, and an identification of his psyche with elements of the
unconscious in the form of the concept of anima
(anima obsession, or possession, popularly and roughly illustrated on the Internet).
Earlier examples of applications of Jung's psychology in my work can be found
in my texts The illusion of
communicative information, Political Correctness, and Ethics in Technology.
In particular it will be
necessary to deal with the meaning of the intuitionistic hypothesis of "the fundamental phenomenon of the human
intellect, passing by abstracting from its emotional content into the
fundamental phenomenon of mathematical thinking, the intuition of the bare
two-oneness" (my italics.) It could mean that despite its apparent
"acrobatic" complexity, mathematical
and logical thinking is a sort of minimal thinking. It engages the most simple,
primitive a-priori level of the so-called intellect, sparing psychic
energies for acrobatic performance and consequently aggressive, attractive
"success" in all fields and for all simpler purposes that do not
require other higher functions of the so called intellect. Obviously, however,
this does not prevent that attitudes and functions of the psyche in contact
with the unconscious, such as introversion, extraversion, thinking, feeling,
sensation, and intuition will later interact with the psychologically,
intellectually flawed results of applying computer operations or
communications. This will in turn influence, for instance, the dynamics of
language, the apprehension of graphic images, and aesthetic or ethic
dimensions. These issues are observed, for instance, by Richard Stivers in Technology and Magic: The
Triumph of the Irrational (e.g.
pp. 26 and 63) and accords with the philosophy of technology that was addressed
in my essay on Trends in philosophy of
technology.
Ultimately the application
of "Jungian" analytical psychology may uncover also the reasons for
the failure of Brouwer's intentions with intuitionism, non only in replacing
formalism but mainly in guaranteeing the connection between mathematics and
ethics. On the contrary, the aforementioned work by Zellini suggests how some
ideas of intuitionism could be kidnapped for the development and consequent
misuse of later algorithm theory.
REJECTED PARTS
OF BROUWER'S DISSERTATION
The meaningful resemblances
with the case of another doctoral dissertation on "realistic computing" (cf. virtual reality) that I mentioned above have to do with what
is mentioned in The rejected parts of
Brouwer's dissertation on the foundations of mathematics. They are about Brouwer pleading passionately with
his doctoral (thesis) advisor prof. Korteweg about the latter's suggestion that
he remove the "philosophical" first part of his draft.
The Rejected Parts published year 1907 have a very tight connection
with the controversial book Life, Art and
Mysticism, published a couple of years earlier, in 1905. Its controversiality
is evidenced by the comments that are bestowed by van Stigt and partly borrowed
from others, as follows: a generally solipsistic philosophy (as I understand
it, nearly epistemological solipsism) and a rather pessimistic and misanthropic outlook
on and attitude to life, an extreme view on life science and his fellowmen, a
passionate involvement in a romantic revolt against intellectualism and
industrialization, Brouwer fulminates against all things human and singles out
the human intellect as the cause of all evil, pessimistic views, appreciation
of mysticism and Eastern philosophies, and low regard for women, pessimism and
a mystical attitude to life, bizarre flavour, etc.
I purport to show in the
course of this article that most of this pessimism is motivated as a contrast
to the extreme optimism in the viewing of science in general and formal
sciences in particular by the turn of the century. Most if not all the other
judgments above can be clarified by enframing Brouwer's psyche in Carl Jung's
typology (his Collected Works, vol. 6) as an "introverted
thinking-intuitive type whose attitude to women is indeed an attitude to, or
influence from unconscious femininity as represented by the Jungian image of anima, which, by the way, may have been
the positive source of his uncommon insights. Brouwer had not recourse to what
today is depth psychology since Jung, following Freud, was starting working at
it at about the same time. Furthermore, the perceived bizarre mysticism or
mystical attitude to life would be explained and incorporated in Jung's
psychology and its integration with Eastern philosophies. Most objections to
Brouwer's "mysticism" are, for instance, based on Western
misunderstandings of mysticism that are unraveled in Harold Coward's chapter on
the issue in his book Jung and
Eastern Thought (1985, chap. vii, reprinted from Philosophy East and West, vol.
29, 1979.) All this complication was necessary for Brouwer in order for him to
affirm, on the basis of his time's philosophical and psychological knowledge,
the relevance of a moral value judgment for the practice (rather than
"application") of mathematics and what we nowadays might call the use
of computers.
The apparently successful
projection of mathematical structures into the natural world since Galilei,
depending upon what it to be meant by success (cf. earlier reference to Koyré)
may be the result of forcing nature into preconceived ways of exploitative use
of natural resources, and of prior knowledge. The "success" in form
of forced consistency of various areas of modern physics may portray the
commonality of interests in its applications. Its maintained consistency by
means of a plethora of esoteric "mathematical tools" and
"thought experiments" (cf. the mind-blowing context of so called EPR-paradox) may be analog to the
forced consistency obtained in the past in Ptolemaic astronomy by means of
gradual patchwork-adjustments of computation of orbits of celestian bodies,
until the serendipitous advent and posterior rationalization of the Copernican revolution.
In presenting The rejected parts of Brouwer's dissertation,
Van Stigt refers to Brouwer's interpretation of causality as essentially
mathematical: the ability to link events in the mind, to see sequences and
repetition of sequences in time, to link sensations as the immediate source of
awareness of time and discreteness. It is the source of man's power to predict
the future and interfere in the course of events. This "intellectual or
mathematical" way of looking at the world is not only a one-sided concentration
and interpretation of reality: by
ignoring and will fully removing aspects which deviate from the expected course
of events, man supplements and creates more regularity than exists in nature,
he makes the world linear or "one-sided". The regularity observed
in nature is due to the nature of the measuring instruments and physical
science has value only as weapon, not concerning life. It is clearly inferior
and has nothing to do with religion or
wisdom. More in detail, in Brouwer's own words:
"Man has the faculty, accompanying all his interactions with nature, of objectifying the world, of seeing in the world causal systems in time. The primordial phenomenon is simply the intuition of time in which repetition of "thing in time and again thing" is possible, but in which (and this is a phenomenon outside mathematics) a sensation can fall apart in component qualities, so that a single moment can be lived through a sequence of qualitatively different things. One can, however, restrict oneself to the mere sensation of theses sequences as such, independent of the various degrees to which objects are perceived in the world outside are to be feared or desired. (The attention is reduced to an intellectual observation.) The human tactics of "acting purposively" then consists in replacing the end by the means (a later occurrence in the intellectually observed sequence by an earlier occurrence) when the human instinct feels that chance favours the means."
This description by Brouwer
recalls the famous problem of technological "creep" or unforeseen
applications or consequences, good and bad, of particular technologies. It
characterizes most advances of technology and also falsely legitimizes the
eventual benefits (possibly rewarded by Nobel prizes) of basic research that is
seen as motivated (but not financed!) by "curiosity". Its
"unforeseen" also recalls modern decision and systems theory in that
it suggests how "probability" that he calls chance, in practice, is
misunderstood and misused in the minimal thinking with the most primitive
a-priori level of the so called intellect (e.g. in evaluations of risks
involved by nuclear power plants). This in contrast to the recommendations and
deeper problems framed by modern systems theory (Churchman's Design of Inquiring Systems, chap. 3 on
"the anatomy of goal seeking", and chap. 10 on "basic models of
inquiring systems".)
From all this follows
Brouwer's disapproval of applied mathematics
that today we see in computers: it promotes man's rule (i.e. not God's rule)
and lack of wisdom that will spoil environment making it intolerable. And this
was written at a time when there was no relevant environment consciousness
except for the intuitions of a beginning consciousness of environmental
systemic aspects of "nature" in the work of Alexander von Humboldt, George Perkins Marsh, and John Muir that Swedish readers can appreciate in the summary by Tomas Öberg in Svenska
Dagbladet (18 October 2016.) Van
Stigt continues mentioning a glimmer of hope and optimism in that Brouwer
believes that pure "mathematics practiced for its own sake can achieve all
the harmony as found in architecture and music. ..."
It is my experience that
this recourse to architecture and consequently "design" as a main
modern expression of the hope of being able to integrate art with science has
appeared in an unfortunate destructive way in Western society in general and
university research in particular, because of intuitions much less sophisticated
than Brouwer's. It appeared through the bizarre sudden shift of emphasis from
the sixties' logical positivism (in Sweden B. Langefors inspired by Y.
Bar-Hillel) and the following Marxist systems development, over to the concept
of design while forgetting the
eighties- and nineties's pragmatist dialectical systems. This motivated me to
write down several reflections, some of them in
"telegraphic-powerpoint" style, such as Ethics and Politics in
Design and Systems Cultures, and in a
more readable structured way in my The Systems Approach to
Design and Inquiring Information Systems. At the time I
could get some inspiration from Christopher Norris' What's
Wrong with Postmodernism (1990) but I could not yet avail
myself of the insights of works relating more clearly socialism to
postmodernism, such as Stephen Hicks' Explaining
Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault
(2004, expanded edition 2011).
It is symptomatic that the
USA domination of Western university research ignores such thoughts that are
egregiously common in e.g. the French cultural sphere. One example is Alain Gras' writings (in French) that
include references to Galilei and others, such as about Abatement as spiritual fact (in Entropia,
No. 11, Autumn 2011, pp. 30-44.) Heidegger's bombastic "standing-reserve" in his The
Question Concerning Technology echoes Brouwer's early clear and
simple insights. This may also be gradually obvious in the field of HCI (human-computer interaction) when considering that ongoing progressive
computerization of society and of social interaction violently forces humans to (attempt
to) adapt their more or less unconscious mental models and behavior to preconceived computerized
structures. Such phenomena can be exemplified and perceived as problems in the
use of computers, particularly in problems of human-computer interactions. Swedish readers can appreciate one best description of how computer
technology "rapes" the minds of citizens in Anna-Lena Laurén's
article "App, app, app - det börjar likna Bolsjevism!" [App, app, app - it begins to resemble
Bolshevism!" (Dagens
Nyheter 14 October 2018) and the follow-up by Ylva Hasselberg
"Hejda digitalbolsjevismen" [Stop the digital Bolshevism] (Dagens Nyheter 23 December
2018). See also the description of bugs such as in the ticket system of
Stockholm's public transportation, (En bugg i SL:s biljettsystem, i.e. A
bug in the ticket system of Stockholm's Transportation, in Swedish
language, Metro-Stockholm, 22 Dec.
2015.) It becomes more a question of forcing
human thought, trust and behavior, relinquishing self-reliance, into anonymous
structures that are required for the functioning of computer software and
hardware as much as supposedly for humans' purposes. This is the
kernel for understanding why the issues of this essay are relevant for the
field of HCI and consequently also for AI (artificial intelligence).
In the long run such forcing of human thought, trust
and behavior for the functioning of computer software may gradually extend in
the form of police surveillance of the whole society seen as dependent upon
integrated computer networks. As such, the phenomenon will be analog to what
happens with basic infrastructure of electric and associated nuclear power
plants. In a French book Grandeur
et Dépendance: Sociologie des macro-systèmes techniques
(PUF, 1993, pp. 248ff.), the author Alain Gras,
also a student of man-machine
interaction, has indeed a section dedicated to generalized
surveillance seen as remedy to human danger in technical systems. Ultimately
all this stuff, in the absence of a valid religious "infrastructure",
overflows politically in bizarrely advanced anarchist analyses such as Tiqqun's The
Cybernetic Hypothesis.
Phenomenologically, in the
sense of dealing with the description and classification of phenomena, this
kind of forced thinking and behavior, at its extremes in industrial
techno-science including computer applications, may be related to the savant syndrome, i.e. a "success" obtained in narrowly
defined tasks, paradoxically enframed in complex computer systems, adapted to
very narrowly focused brain-psychic activity, and having to be mitigated by an
in-depth study of reports of broader mathematical minds such as portrayed in
the book Fascinating Mathematical
People. Or in the stories
involving Benoit Mandelbrot with his unconsciously “divine”
interest for “the uncontrolled element in life”, celebrated in the book on Life in Many Dimensions, associated to the unending speculation-games of the
type Mandelbrot Set with Fibonacci, unconsciously related to recursiveness or functional recursion (Fibonacci again) and to the philosophical and theological Eternal Return. Or exemplified by physicists like Isaac Newton, Wolfgang Pauli whom I survey in another essay, and Werner Heisenberg. These are not matters of
small importance. They are often building blocks in theological matters, as
well Mandelbrot is adduced in discussions about evolution and “design”, as in
the case of Jason Lisle’s video on “Atheists cannot explain the secret code seen in
creation” (see also here).
At the same time this might
explain the parallel aversion in certain quarters against systems thinking in
general and social-humanistic thinking such as in West Churchman's systems
approach and Carl Jung's psychology. Time-sequential thinking, and in
particular logic linear thought cannot by definition be envisaged to take in
account events outside the immediate time sequence that are then perceived as
irrelevant (to the linear logical chain.)
I will continue here
excerpting and occasionally commenting words taken from the text of The
Rejected Parts (of Brouwer's dissertation) emphasizing Van Stigt's observation
that the final version of Brouwer's dissertation on the Foundations contains much of
his negative appreciation of applied mathematics and logic and remains of his
moral disapproval. The Rejected
Parts, van Stigt writes "are important for the clear statement
they give of Brouwer's motivation for his fundamental theories, for the
expressed positive valuation of pure mathematics, and for providing a further
context of what, in cryptic form, still exists in his Foundations." Now over
to the text of the Rejected
Parts that I edit together with some of its notes (in parentheses),
and reproduced in italics while my own interspersed comments are written in
normal font.
All human life originated in a one-sided constriction of nature [literally: "making one-sided -- human concentration on one single aspect of nature and adapting nature accordingly] and has protracted its existence in an "externalization," man impregnating nature with the human self and repressing other one-sided developments. This externalization by man, making his environment subservient to the full development of his humanity, appears to us (if we knew the world intellectually, i.e. with a mathematical causal eye) as a process whereby nature itself becomes linear and regular and all other life repressed or adapted to mankind. (Since the adaptation of the environment leads human life further and further away from the natural state which originally supported man, this conquered and adapted environment will ultimately become intolerable to mankind.)
The above observation by Brouwer can be seen as a
premonition of the environmental crisis of our time, including pollution,
global warming and the rest.
We find linearity and regularity, for example in bees; there it does not result in any sort of special power. But man has the faculty, accompanying all his interactions with nature, of objectifying the world, of seeing in the world causal systems in time. (This "seeing", however, is a human act of externalization: there is not real e x i s t e n c e.. of objective natural phenomena as can be ascribed to nature itself: the seeing originates in man, is an expression of man's will alone, independent of nature which itself exists independent of man's will.)
The process that Brouwer calls objectifying and
externalization recalls what Carl Jung considers when discussing the process of
extraversion in his conceptualization of extraversion vs. introversion. This
text shows how Brouwer could be accused of solipsism when focusing on his claim
that there is no real existence (his own italics) of objective natural
phenomena as can be ascribed to nature itself, if one ignores his following
qualification that nature itself exists independent of man's will. Such an
accusation seems to me to follow from lack of understanding for what he calls
an act of externalization, which turns my attention to what much later Jung
would come to name projection,
pending the question of whether it is willful or not which in turn requires an
understanding of the act of willing. The unravelling of this psychology under
the keywords extraversion and projection is scattered
around in Jung's Collected
Works, CW, volume 6, Psychological
Types. An analysis that recalls Brouwer's reasoning above is to be
found in CW vol. 8 The
Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, (p. 451 , § 864), as in West
Churchman's The Systems
Approach and its Enemies, (the whole chap. 3 on "Logic:
General, and p. 147), but our and Brouwer's focus is now upon the role of
mathematics. Brouwer continues:
The primordial phenomenon is simply the intuition of time in which repetition of "thing in time and again thing" is possible, but in which (and this is a phenomenon outside mathematics) a sensation can fall apart in component qualities, so that a single moment can be lived through as a sequence of qualitatively different things. One can, however, restrict oneself to the mere sensation of these sequences as such, independent of the emotional content, i.e. independent of the various degrees to which objects perceived in the world outside are to be feared or desired. (The attention is reduced to an intellectual observation.)
This last observation required that the reader is
attentive to Brouwer's use of the adjective intellectual
as related to intellect, which in turn requires a recourse to
psychology where intellect would probably correspond to Jung's thinking on the basis of the
perception or rather sensation
raised by the object-thing.
The human tactics of "acting purposively" then consists in replacing the end by the means (a later occurrence in the intellectually observed sequence by an earlier occurrence) when the human instinct feels that chance favours the means. However, since the link between end and means is observed in the intellect without the control of more central instincts (a restriction which will make the process even more intensive and more generally applicable), the reliability of the human conviction that the parts of the sequence belong together in reality is far from absolute and can constantly be disproved; this is experienced by the intellect as a discovery "that the rule no longer applies".
Brouwer also observes that the "tactics" in
general is the source of human power, to discover regularity in a limited
domain of phenomena independently of other moments and other phenomena, which
therefore can remain completely concealed from the intellectual observation: to
maintain the certainty of observed regularity as much and as long as possible,
one tries to isolate systems, i.e. exclude observations which disturb this
regularity. When one fails or has the courage to not exclude these observations
may appear the so-called serendipity that characterizes breakthroughs. One
example I suggest with some reticence is the Nobel
prize in physiology or medicine awarded in year 2018 for
the "discovery of cancer therapy by inhibition of negative immune
regulation". The serendipity was expressed at the award ceremony as being
that instead of concentrating on the direct causal chain of destruction of
cancer cells, the wider immune system was taken into account. My point is that
a still wider approach may be required, without necessarily entering into the
controversies of so called integrative
medicine as it is understood today, as it relates to Asklepian
medicine and cultural studies of the archetypal
image of physician's existence by Károly Kerényi.
Brouwer's observation above is consistent with the
principles of modern decision making where the mentioned "chance that
favours the means" corresponds to probability as conceptualized e.g. in
West Churchman et al. Thinking
for Decisions: Deductive Quantitative Methods (1975), where, furthermore, the
ends are supplemented with the individual worth or value of the ends. To
counter or compensate for the above mentioned attempts to "isolate
systems" was in turn what motivated the later development of systems
theory. But, we repeat that our focus here is the role of mathematics as it is
embodied in computers where such mathematics is necessarily disembodied from
its applications, raising the question of the meaning of its success or
"successful application":
The process of objectifying the world through the primordial intuition of "repetition in time" and "following in time" gains in generality by the construction of mathematics from the same primordial intuition, without reference to direct applicability. In this way man has a ready-made supply of unreal causal sequences at his disposal, just waiting for an opportunity to be projected into reality. One should bear in mind that in mathematical systems with no time coordinate, all relations in practical applications clearly become causal relations in time; e.g. Euclidean geometry when applied to reality shows a causal connection between the results of different measurements made by means of the group of rigid bodies. Needless to say, in the application of a mathematical system, in general, only a fraction of the elements and substructures finds their correspondence in reality; the remainder plays the role of and unreal "physical hypothesis." Similarly, even with a limited development of method, the observed sequences no longer consist exclusively of phenomena evoked by man himself (acts without any direct instinctive aim, but carried out solely to complete the causal system into a more manageable one). The simplest example is the sound image (or written symbol) of number as a result of counting, or the sound image (or written symbol) of number as a result of measuring (this example shows how infinitely many causal sequences can be brought together under the viewpoint of one single law of causality on the basis of a mapping the numbers through mathematical induction.) [My boldface.]
I hope to not exaggerate the importance of this
section that for the first time gives me the impression of understanding the
comments about Galilei's famous mathematization of science. My intuition is
that this contributes to an explanation of the "success" of the
mathematization of modern science that, to take only one example from the
mathematized field of quantum mechanics, is the explanation of its
(mathematical) success as suggested in the story of the famous physicist Paul
Dirac as related to the earlier mentioned Wolfgang Pauli.
If his atheism did not approach him to God then it approached him to perceiving
that he became gradually godlike by means of mathematics as described in
Wikipedia's excerpt from an article he wrote in the May 1963 edition of Scientific American:
"It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it. You may wonder: Why is nature constructed along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe."
Then, Dirac claims that, instead of asking why,
"we simply have to accept it" and in the bargain that we have to
accept that man (beginning with Dirac himself) becomes more godlike the more he
mathematizes his conception of the universe. Dirac's colleague Wolfgang Pauli
summarized all this by his famous remark (also in Wikipedia, later applied by
others to Richard
Dawkins in his evolutionism) that "Well, our friend
Dirac has got a religion and its guiding principle is 'There is no God and Paul
Dirac is His prophet.'" This is part of the great but limited discussion
of Eugene Wigner's article "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics
in the Natural Sciences" in Communications
in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13, No. 1 (February 1960). It
is as inconclusive as Richard Feynman's quotes
about mathematics, or Roger Penrose's video on
"Is mathematics invented or discovered? Wigner's article is anyway
summarized in context by Krister Renard in an essay written in Swedish with the
analog title of "Matematikens
osannolika användbarhet" (lecture in English for sale here). A
more superficial
summary with further references is found in Wikipedia.
Brouwer's approach suggests instead man's distancing
himself from God and it seems consistent with later detailed discussions of the
matter such as in the historical context of Galileo Galilei, in Alexandre
Koyré's Études d'Histoire de
la Pensée Scientifique (1966, especially p. 189f., 211f., 258.)
Contrary to Koyré, however, Brouwer does not stop at affirmations such as
considering mathematics (and geometry) as a-priori bases for modern
experimental science. He goes further and questions the a-priori base of
mathematics itself (in the apriority of time, and its relation to the so far
undefined intellect). What is remarkable, however, is Brouwer's early
observation, (on the basis of what Koyré inadvertently acknowledges in the
ultimate necessity of "experience"), of the environmental impact of
mathematized industrial science at a time when environmental issues had not yet
made a societal impact. And it is now a so far undefined
"environment" that must include people who get affected by the computerization
of the world.
The strategy of objectifying the world forces man even more to eliminate the "deviating" influences and thereby to abnormalize his environment. The nature of the phenomena within a certain domain changes not only through the elimination of the influences which deviate in this domain itself, but also through the degeneration of the environment of these phenomena because of the removal of influences which deviate with respect to another quite different group of phenomena. [...] In this way science, in a process of increasing self-perfection, will strengthen its power to obtain results but debase the value of these results.
We observe in this context that "mathematical viewing" is only instinctive, i.e. justified insofar as it is directed to a world which is considered to be external; to try and direct it to inner perception is a serious error (moreover, there would never be any agreement between the results of mathematical viewing from different viewpoints). What Kant describes as "Transcendental analytic" can only be described as idle play.
Compare the above with what Jung writes in his
foreword to the I Ching (CW 11, §
967) at a time when climate
and apocalyptic global warming was not yet a societal issue but
Brouwer already had noted the environmental problem:
What Kant's Critique of Pure Reason failed to do is being accomplished by
modern physics. The axioms of causality are being shaken to their foundations:
we know now that what we term natural laws are merely statistical truths and
that thus must necessarily allow for exceptions. We have not sufficiently taken
into account as yet that we need the laboratory with its incisive restrictions
in order to demonstrate the invariable validity of natural law. If we leave
things to nature, we see a very different picture: every process is partially
of totally interfered with by chance, so much so that under natural
circumstances a course of events absolutely conforming to specific laws is
almost an exception.
Jung's words may need to be qualified but the issue is
bravely studied and explained in West Churchman's The Systems Approach and its Enemies (starting in chap. iii, "Logic: General", p.
54). It is related to power (and politics
and even war) for enforcing "incisive restrictions". Brouwer
combines this process of degeneration and devaluation with a consequent
observation that the
passionless language (also reason for creation of mathematical
notations, cf. the earlier reference to Cajori) of objectification of the work
in mathematical systems allows the emotional
content to be completely different (and ignored) for different
individuals. It this way the resulting agreement between mathematical systems
of reality in different individuals allows the enforcement of a particular will
over all others "out of fear or desire associated with certain elements in
the system." Fear and desire are basic categories in Brouwer's analysis in
several other contexts.
A
FEMINIST PARENTHESIS ON QUANTUM MECHANICS
Quantum
mechanics or quantum physics will be repeatedly mentioned in
overlapping reflections in this paper. Hereafter in this section it will be
referred to as QM. It is a described
as a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical
properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic "particles".
I mean "particles" in quotations marks because it is a theory that it
is formulated in various specially
developed mathematical formalisms. This relates in turn to symptomatically
muddled connotations and relation between mathematical
physics and physical
mathematics.
What is interesting in this context
is then that QM does not deal with particles
as they are understood in common language but with specially developed
mathematical formalisms. It is also interesting to note that QM has been
"kidnapped", and in my view misused in a way that happens to give
credibility to other areas of speculative research. One of them is represented
by Karen Barad's
feminist theory, which challenges "individualist metaphysics" by
building upon quantum physics in order to show the "entanglement of matter
and meaning" in phenomena which are "the
ontological inseparability of intra-acting agencies".
More on this language below.
I think that Karen Barad has a point in remarking the
complexity of what an object and a measurement is, but the impact of her
message is due to her adduction of the scientific prestige of QM or rather
logic and mathematics. It is beyond the grasp of common people and most
academicians who, consequently have no opportunity to follow her arguments. My
own point is that her message is a logic reconstruction of the problems that
were already considered by Brouwer in the above text. I will not fall into the
trap of attempting to build-up a network of arguments in order to convince the
reader about all this. It would be the same kind of trap as to try to use logic
in order to criticize abuses of logic as I claim that critics of Immanuel
Kant's model followers are tempted to do in questioning the actual trends
towards of computerization of society. I
will rather suggest to those who are receptive to criticism, how the
misunderstanding of logic and mathematics outlined by Brouwer enable their
misuses and undermine arguments. The more so for those who, contrary to
QM-physicists do not have special aptitude for formal science as explained in
my essay on The Meaning of Human-Computer Interaction. The conclusion will also be in harmony with my view
of feminism as advanced in my contribution to Reason and Gender.
In Quantum
mechanics and the paradox of mutual exclusivity (Social Studies of Science, vol. 41, No. 3, June 2011, pp.
431-441), Trevor Pinch
offers a critical but basically respectful review of his colleague (in the
sociology of science) Barad's book Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the
entanglement of matter and meaning. (Observe: matter and meaning, not matter and human psyche). In his text, however, one finds
passages that properly interpreted expose the problems announced by Brouwer in The Rejected Parts above, continued in the next section after this
parenthesis. My point below will be
that the apparent "mystique" of QM is the result of a defective
psychology with its origins in
philosophy and its later derailments, in its attempts to grapple
with the relation between mathematics and reason, which I develop further in
the above mentioned paper on computerization. I must also contextualize the
whole issue by emphasizing that the connection to feminism appears to be due to
its eagerness to focalize upon and to relativize the human (cf. woman's!) body to the point of problematizing the human by conceiving a post-human. And this is done by
simplifying the conception of the human psyche by reducing it to a supposed materiality. In the following I will
reproduce in italics excerpts from
Trevor Pinch's review, followed by its page number in parenthesis, and by my
occasional comments:
Quantum mechanics is a peculiar theory because it is used routinely by
physicists, is the basis for much psychology, and the consensus is that its
predictions have, up until now, always been verified - on all accounts it is a
vastly successful theory. Yet what the theory means, its foundations, are
notoriously obscure. What we might call the "big issues" of quantum
mechanics - its completeness and correspondence with reality, the nature of the
fundamental entities it describes and what they mean for our conceptions of
space, time, and matter, and the relationships
between measuring instruments and system being measured - used to be much discussed by leading
physicists when the theory was formulated in the 1930s. The famous debate
between Einstein and Bohr and Einstein's dislike of the theory for its
statistical basis are the stuff of legend. The "Copenhagen Interpretation"
of quantum mechanics, in homage to Bohr's influence, became the accepted wisdom
and physicists were happy to stay in
their labs and increasingly not worry about foundational issues - after all
they could still calculate, make predictions, make technologies (including
atomic bombs), and get funding for their work. Increasingly, worrying about
foundational issues passed to the terrain of philosophy. Philosophy, as all
physicists know, is good for you in small doses but ultimately can be dispensed
with. [p. 432, my boldface]
Yes: "happy and not worrying about foundational
issues - after all they could still calculate, make predictions, make
technologies including atomic bombs"?
Not even now, in the middle of the hyped apocalyptic
global warming of climate, people do seem to realize that this could be said of
each one of the hundreds or thousands of technologies which contribute to such
global warming. A global atomic third world war would already, if yet too late,
made us understand the problem of being so happy in not caring for foundational
problems, if they were indeed only "foundational". The hope seems to
be, to remediate with "more of the same", new "unfounded"
technologies that will offset the global warming, continuing with the not
caring for the ethics in
technology.
For the rest, Brouwer himself addresses the question
of measuring instrument below. It is
to be compared with The Design of
Inquiring Systems where the issue of measurement is addressed in a special
chapter on "Singerian inquiring systems" and is preceded by a
treatment of what is ignored here, the question of what a system is to begin with. Concerning the "statistical
basis" it is correct to note that statistics is far from implying theory,
as correlation and mathematical relation are far from implying causation. An
appreciation of statistics requires an in-depth understanding of the meaning of
probability, and in turn it requires the kind of discussion that precedes the
discussion of systems, as done in Churchman's books Theory of Experimental Inference, and Prediction and Optimal Decision. The feeling of powerlessness and hopelessness that
invades the reader in being directed to such references is the same that should
invade the enthusiasts of quantum mechanics prior to their becoming its
enthusiasts and upon their asking for its foundations. For the rest it is interesting to note that the progressive
disregard for foundational issue reminds that it is the same phenomenon has
occurred with the foundations of mathematics itself. It is that same
mathematics or mathematical physics that also stands at the core of quantum
mechanics and constitutes the object of our whole article.
She [Karen Barad] advocates nothing less than a new metaphysics for the
field. Unfortunately…when outlining her agential realism approach her writing
changes from the crystal clarity of dealing with the physics to a series of
dense assertions about such matters as agency intra-actions, becoming,
phenomena, causality, dynamics, materiality, and the role of the post-human
…[L]et me simply say that sections of this book contain some of the densest
prose I have recently read in the field.
[433]
In another essay
on computerization and elsewhere (here, and
especially here) I
did already address the phenomenon of "bombastic" language, the low level of philosophical
argumentation, the deliberate obscurantism of the prose, the wildly exaggerated
claims, and the constant striving to give the appearance of profundity by
making claims that seem paradoxical…also
observable among enthusiasts of AI (artificial intelligence) and in references
to quantum physics. Pinch's language is,
however, exemplary for the restrained and elegant style in its criticism of the
language that other would have described as bombastic and revealing problems of
rather obscure argumentation.
Also of great historical significance is the small
number of physicists who explicitly rejected the Copenhagen consensus and who thought that
the business of interpreting the quantum theory was too important to be left to
philosophers. David Bohm [was one such physicist. [434]
Regarding the Copenhagen consensus, see how the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy writes about it: "The Copenhagen interpretation was the first general attempt
to understand the world of atoms as this is represented by quantum mechanics.
The founding father was mainly the Danish physicist Niels Bohr, but also Werner
Heisenberg, Max Born and other physicists made important contributions to the
overall understanding of the atomic world that is associated with the name of
the capital of Denmark. -- In fact Bohr and Heisenberg never totally agreed on
how to understand the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, and neither
of them ever used the term “the Copenhagen interpretation” as a joint name for
their ideas."
It is remarkable that two founding fathers did not understand what they had founded. Or
did not agree on "how to understand" the mathematical formalism that
was supposed to represent the relations in the empiricism of the experiments.
My explanation is that the human Spirit when it does not relate to theology and
religion seeks its expression in a religion renamed into a muddled metaphysics, or
reduced to aestheticism as I claim in discussing
computerization, or reduced to politics as I claim in another
theological context. And the two trends coalesce in one if one tries to
understand how Marxist thought relates to postmodernism as addressed by
Christopher Norris in What's Wrong with Postmodernism. It also addresses trends in my own discipline of
informatics as I comment the concept of design in the so-called Work-oriented design of computer artefacts in
the context of human-computer
interaction. Indeed:
Bohm found allegiance with physicists in the Soviet
Union who also had the temerity to question quantum mechanics at the time. The
story of these physicists and their struggles has never been fully told... When
I interviewed Bohm in 1975 he told me that he had written his 1951 textbook -
regarded by many physicists at the time as the best account available - in
order to try to understand the theory, and the
more he delved into it the more he realized he didn't understand it. He
rejected Bohr's idealistic metaphysics…[and] produced his rival materialistic interpretation of quantum
metaphysic. [435, my boldface]
Pinch notes Bohm's times in the U.S. as being related
to Free
Speech movement, and I perceive in turn it being further related to New Age. At the time,
Bohm's work environment was characterized by speculations about extra-sensory
perception, telepathic powers, parapsychology and such, until the eighties when
as Pinch notes, physicists took on other, newer realities: the "quantum
entanglements became further entangled with military and corporate funding,
giving birth to quantum computing, quantum cryptography, and quantum teleportation".
Wikipedia remarks that the New Age is said to employ terminology and concepts
borrowed from science and the New
Physics, having a number of prominent influences from professional
scientists such as just David Bohm, and Ilya Prigogine. The name of Carl Jung was
also "kidnapped" in diverse speculations. That happened because it
was sensed that his (misunderstood) work had references to perceived
"mysterious spiritual" phenomena that were the focus of Eastern
thought and could explain the unexplainable.
A core of the unexplainable considered by Barad in her
musings about the mysteries of QM is the so-called wave-particle duality, (cf.
"mutual exclusivity") which
is in turn summarized under the label of interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the latter reference appears a terse statement of
the present state of the art: "Despite nearly a century of debate and
experiment, no consensus has been reached among physicists and philosophers of
physics concerning which interpretation best represents reality"; whatever reality is, (more below), beyond
the mind-blowing theorizing about "virtual reality". I perceive that
there is something paradoxical and comical in wondering about reality in an
extremely mathematized context: for instance, as Wikipedia reports, in
October 1993, a Scientific American's article with the title "The Death
of Proof" observed that the growing complexity of mathematics was
undermining traditional concepts of mathematical
proof.
It is seldom noted that the "core of the
core" appears in the idea of "representing" and
"reality" or in what can be denoted as representationism.
Wikipedia relates this to the "philosophy of perception and of mind and
the debate about the nature of conscious experience" and further to what
is included in epistemology vs. reality (non-mentioned ontology) and neuroscience.
What is opportunely not mentioned is the
role of mathematics that happens to make all this discussion abstruse for most
educated readers, and the role of the unconscious mind,
which is the reason for all my interest for Brouwer and for Jung.
But Barad does not recur to Jung, to whom I myself
arrived through a series of serendipitous references in The Design of Inquiring Systems (pp. 203-205, 244, 261, 272, 277,
280). She (and perhaps even her
reviewer Pinch) does not understand the relation between the practice of
science and her own discipline of science
studies, as well as her musings over Bohr's question of repeatability of
experiments as related to "extrapolation from agreement over outcomes of
measurements to some sort of knowing mind" (in the absence of God):
Bohr and indeed Einstein, were committed to a form of
humanism whereby they gave priority to humans and how humans agree over
measurements. According to Barad, this is a mistake and leads to a subjective
trap whereby it is easy to extrapolate from agreement over outcomes of
measurements to some sort of knowing
mind which recognizes the measurement as such. It is a short step to views,
such as suggested by Wigner and von
Neumann, that quantum phenomena only actualize when they encounter the
consciousness of a human. … Barad's extension of Bohr's position into what she
calls agential realism seems to rely on three major points. First, she argues
that Bohr's notion of language as
being about linguistic concepts shared between humans is too narrow, and that a
more sophisticated notion of language is needed. Here she draws upon a materialist reading of Foucault to
ground language in what she calls material discursive practices. Second, she
extends the rather limited notion of
apparatus that Bohr (and most scientists) share… Third, Barad argues, that
humans themselves are produced by nature. She focuses upon bodies, and drawing
upon Monica Casper's work on fetal parenthood and STS [Science & Technology Studies at Cornell University?] on ultrasound technology, she
offers a materialist critique of Judith Butler's overly human-centered performative approach to the
body.
Barad's own performative approach of agential realism
is heavily indebted to Bohr in the key aspect that phenomena…are instantiated
by the material agencies found in pieces of [measurement] apparatus. Her notion
is that the world is a place of becoming. Intra-actions (interactions between
two entities, not only a human and ad non-human) occur everywhere and these
produce phenomena… Her major point is that we as humans are not outside observers, but we are part of
the world in its ongoing intra-activity…[A]t the same time she wants to claim
that agential realism should be the basis for doing science studies and also as
a new basis for ethics. [p. 437f, my boldface]
I allow for such a long quotation in order to open for
the insight that it is the breakdown of reason in the context of communication
and their consequent divorce from mind and spirit that leads to the questioning
of what is human consciousness and what is human
including language itself. Not to
mention logic that Brouwer conceives
as abstracted from it. All this while there is a startling oblivion of the possible if not probable problems with the
"language" of mathematics. Not to mention that repeatability
seems to be often conceived as precision instead
of accuracy, as I have been striving
to explain in my doctoral dissertation on Quality-control
of information.
While discussing the difference between doing science or writing about it as a scientist vs. as observer-student of scientists she does not seen aware of the
problems of Hegelian philosophy's central tenet that every observer is
observed. (We meet here also the insight of the earlier referred work on The Design of Inquiring Systems). Being so, Barad does not build upon
the historical struggle about how agreement is reached and why conflict arises
in science (and politics, cf. Bohm and Soviet Union and Barad's materialism). It is significant
that mentioned physicist Eugene
Wigner with his work that is a cornerstone in the
mathematical formulation of QM, approached the core of the problem but failed
in his famous and inconclusive The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the
Natural Sciences. It is
also significant that Pinch and Barad do not generally acknowledge that the
earlier mentioned David
Bohm came even closer to the core of the QM-problem in
that with his interest for consciousness and thought he entered in extensive
interaction with the philosopher Jiddu
Krishnamurti. This appears to have been thoroughly studied by David Edmund Moody whose research
focused on overcoming misconceptions in the sciences, and certainly would have
opinions on our issues. It is interesting and symptomatic that interest for
Eastern thought and religions also characterized another avowed atheist and
"founding father" of QM, Erwin Shrödinger.
I claim that we arrive here at a crossroad, since
"consciousness and thought" is more than consciousness and thought if
it is to be completed with the problem of the unconscious, leading to Jung's psychology. It parallels
Krishnamurti in that it related Western philosophy, including philosophy of
science, to Eastern thought. In doing so, Jung also warns for the
"autonomy of the unconscious". In the foreword to Suzuki's Introduction to Zen Buddhism, for
instance, in the context of psychotherapy he warns: "[A] direct
transplantation of zen to our Western conditions is neither commendable nor
even possible" (Collected Works,
CW 11, §905). The only alternative I see
is the challenge of analytic psychology unless the scientist happens to strive
for something like the following, expressed towards the end of Barad's review:
Barad states that feminist science studies is about
gender and science in the making,.. and although she does emphasize a new
ethical framework that stems from her post-humanist viewpoint, and claims that
understanding how bodies are made materially has important consequences for
gender, I failed to see how this understanding impacted the version of the
entanglement experiments as she presents them. Perhaps having science on your side is the right political move,
and she is also right that we need to think about how we engage with the people
we study and at the same time study them. But I do not think the solution is to
reproduce the paradox of mutual exclusivity between science and science
studies. [p. 440, my boldface]
Yes: "having science on your side is the right
political move", (as having phenomenology on your side can be a right
philosophical move when taking care of the body
in philosophy
of technology). I perceived this when a feminist senior student at
my university department of informatics enthusiastically referred to Barad's
work. My intuition is that the problem met in QM is best understood as an
analog to the teachings about the history of alchemy. In an essay about The psychic nature of the alchemical work, Jung
writes
But,
just because of this intermingling of the physical and the psychic, it always
remains an obscure point whether the ultimate transformations in the alchemical
process are to be sought more in the material or more in the spiritual realm.
Actually, however, the question is wrongly put: there was no
"either-or" for that age, but there did exist and intermediate realm
between mind and matter, i.e., a psychic realm of "subtle bodies"
whose characteristic it is to manifest themselves in a mental as well as a material
form. This is the only view that makes sense of alchemical ways of thought,
which must otherwise appear nonsensical. Obviously, the existence of this
intermediate realm comes to a sudden stop the moment we try to investigate matter in and for itself,
apart from all projection; and it remains non-existent so long we believe we
know anything conclusive about matter or the psyche. But the moment when
physics touches on the "untrodden, untreadable regions," and when
psychology has at the same time to admit that there are other forms of psychic
life besides the acquisitions of personal consciousness - in other words, when
psychology too touches on an impenetrable darkness - then the intermediate
realm of subtle bodies comes to life again, and the physical and the psychic are once more blended in an indissoluble unity.
We have come very near to this turning-point today. [CW 12, § 394, my
boldface].
Yes, blended in the indissoluble language(s) of
mathematics in QM and computer science, if yet without the support of
Christianism. Does this blend have
the same meaning as in Barad expression: "the entanglement of matter and meaning"? And are there any conclusions? Perhaps there
are: conclusions about the blending of the psychic and physical in
spiritualized psychic or mathematized science in the communities doing research
on quantum physics and feminism:
[T]he
unconscious, being unknown, is bound to coincide with itself everywhere:
lacking all recognizable qualities, no unconscious content can be distinguished
from any other. This is not logical sophistry but a very real phenomenon of
great practical importance for it affects the problems and identification in
social life, which are based on the collective (and indiscriminable) nature of
unconscious contents. These, once they have taken possession of certain
individuals, irresistibly draw them together in mutual attraction and knit them
into smaller or larger groups which may easily swell into an avalanche. [CW 12,
§ 431]
Carl Jung does not muster much more than the
following, written in 1936:
The
power of science and technics in Europe is so enormous and indisputable that
there is little point in reckoning up all that can be done and all that has
been invented. Quite another question begins to loom up: Who is applying this technical skill? In whose hands does this power lie?... Western man has no need of more
superiority over nature, whether outside or inside. He has both in almost
devilish perfection. What he lacks is conscious recognition of his inferiority
to the nature around and within him. He must learn that he may not do exactly as
he wills. He does not know that his own soul is rebelling against him
in a suicidal way. -- Since Western
man can turn everything into a technique, it is true in principle that
everything that looks like a method is either dangerous or condemned to
futility. [CW 11, § 869-870, my italics and boldface]
That is: "He
must learn that he may not do exactly as he wills." If the question is
"why and how" to (not) do it, the answer may be: religion and God's
will, which for many is not more volatile than QM has revealed to be even for a
founding father. "God's will" can also be read into the Kurt Gödel's
study on incompleteness and undecidable propositions: a cursory
reviewer of a late biography of Gödel, Journey to the Edge of Reason, suggests to celebrate his proof as "that
even the most rigid numerical bureaucracy contains the tools by which a higher
truth will always be able to effect an escape". A preparatory answer may
come from reflection over how man has already been splitting the atom with
ensuing explosions, but also the living
cell and the family, with their
potential analogous "explosions" or consequences for mankind. And
Schrödinger's book What is Life? is
claimed to have inspired others to research the gene, which
led to the discovery of the DNA double helix structure and how genetic
information might be stored in molecules. But please observe: all this was
paradoxically done without really knowing
what information is, to begin with, as shown in Churchman's The Design of Inquiring Systems.
Finally: in the first quotation of this section,
above, QM looks indeed like a "method" when "physicists were happy to stay in their labs and increasingly
not worry about foundational issues - after all they could still calculate,
make predictions, make technologies [including atomic bombs], and get funding
for their work". Or see what professors of physics and colleagues are
quoted to say below at the beginning of the
concluding exercise of this whole essay. And now, having in mind the
problem of the "startling oblivion of the language of mathematics" expressed above, we may better
understand the rest, below, about the rejected parts of Brouwer's dissertation.
Rhetorically: if esoteric mathematics is a language,
the QM-folks do not know what they are
talking about, and why they do it
if it is not for getting knowledge that is power to make it work, including for
money and terror weapons of mass destruction.
NOTE:
Early in the year 1996 I obtained a copy of an
extremely relevant Swedish
doctoral dissertation at Uppsala university (Dept. of History of Science
and Ideas, ISBN 91-506-1140-2) by Suzanne Gieser involving the
physicist Wolfgang Pauli, Nobel-prize
winner in year 1945 (cf. lecture
1946, esp. the next to last paragraph), as pioneer of QM.
I cannot discuss here this forgotten dissertation but can recommend it for its
depth and coverage. It ends in mind-blowing complexity that, however, does not
include the problematics of abuse of esoteric mathematics and logic at the
interface between philosophy of science and theology. Such problematics,
however, can be read in the mentioning of psychic distress and life-crises of
some of the scientists. There are no comments (Gieser, pp. 21-36) on how Pauli left
the Roman Catholic Church and later may have tried Jung's psychology as a
substitute, instead of as a bridge back to it. The dissertation was edited and
translated into English as The Innermost Kernel. Depth Psychology and Quantum Physics: Wolfgang
Pauli's Dialogue with C.G. Jung. (2010, hard
cover 2005). Springer Verlag. Berlin and Heidelberg, (ISBN 978-3-642-05881-3).
The issues in the present text are discussed mainly in (in the Swedish
edition's) part 1, chap. 3, and part 3 chap. 5. I have commented Gieser’s text
in a separate
essay on quantum mechanics, computers and psychology.
For the rest, after writing my text with the final
quotation, and making a browser-search on technics, science and Jung, I
happened to find the following improbable reference: Carl Gustav Jung, Quantum Physics and the Spiritual
Mind: A Mystical Vision of the Twenty-First Century [found also here], in Behavioral
Science (Basel) 2013 Dec; 3(4): 601-618. I find it focused upon QM in its
relation to (again) mainly Eastern thought, but it cannot address the abuses of
mathematics and logic such as those related to QM. My text is focused upon the
mathematics and logic that else is taken for granted and abused, and upon
religion as Christianity whose doctrine also can be logically abused.
RECOGNIZING
THE PROBLEMS IN THE "REJECTED PARTS"
In my attempts to understand
Brouwer's reference above to the Transcendental
Analytic as "idle play" I also tried to understand something of
the intricate field of philosophy of mathematics, and in particular the philosophically
"canonized" Immanuel Kant's philosophy of mathematics where, Philip Kitcher notes (in Kant and the Foundations of Mathematics), that pure mathematics includes geometry,
arithmetic, algebra, kinematics, "pure mechanics" and, he thinks,
analysis. Encouraged by the example of colleagues who had studied Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (F.
Max Müller's translation, Anchor Books, 1966) as a step for understanding
information systems I dwelled in its treatment of mathematics in its Transcendental analytic, such
as its mentioning of "counting" (p. 61, A76f., B102f.) or
"number" (p. 65, A:83f., B:112f.) in the section III of Book I, about
"Pure concepts of understanding, or of the categories." Not finding
anything that recalls Brouwer's problem (and this may be the reason for his
description of "idle play",) I went over to what is considered as the
explicit basis for his famous philosophy of mathematics, in the Critique's Transcendental Dialectic, "The
discipline of pure reason in its dogmatical use" (pp. 465-479, A710ff.,
B742ff.). I found there something that may be consistent with Brouwer's
message, namely the following (p. 471f., A725f, B:749f.):
"The great success which attends reason in its mathematical use produces naturally the expectation that it, or rather its method, would have the same success outside the field of quantities also by reducing all concepts to intuitions which may be given a priori, and by which the whole of nature might be conquered [...] Nor there seem to be any lack of confidence on the part of those who are masters in the art of mathematics, or of high expectations on the part of the public at large, as to their ability of achieving success, if they only would try it."
Further summarizing comments about all this can be
found in the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and its intricacies become
mind-blowing in a thesis by Gary Martin Seay on Kant's Mathematical Synthesis, but for me it is still an open question whether
Kant's reasoning implies or is consistent with Brouwer's conceptions and his
condemnation of "idle play" and consequences for the application of
"mathematical machines" to human activities rather than to phenomena
of natural science.
Brouwer continues exposing the difference between the
mentioned "passionless language" and the language of mysticism which
may convey contemplative thoughts that are independent of superficial human
collusion and animal emotions of fear and desire, appearing as meaningless to
those who seek communication of mathematical systems. In this way he tries to
foster the understanding of the remarkable book he had written some years
earlier, Life, Art and
Mysticism, already mentioned above.
Is it surprising that not only do we succeed in observing sequences which repeat themselves again and again, but that so many groups of phenomena affecting our naive senses in totally different ways can be brought together under a few general aspects which are covered by simple constructible mathematical systems? This really would be a miracle, were it not for the simple fact that the physicist concerns himself with the projection of the phenomena on his measuring instruments, all constructed by a similar process from rather similar s o l i d bodies. It is therefore not surprising that the phenomena are forced to record in this similar medium either similar laws or no laws. For example the laws of astronomy are no more than the laws of our measuring instruments when used to follow the course of heavenly bodies
This last sentence is indicated by van Stigt as having
been crossed out by Brouwer himself, and this may be an indication that Brouwer
had overstepped his own intentions in an improper expression that would give
the impression of sheer solipsism. On the other hand, however, it may be question
of interpretations of the meaning of "solipsism" since for all
practical purposes the important thing is the relation between human observers
and so-called reality, rather than philosophical reality per se that can be
cheerfully neglected as it already is in computer science in its dealings with
"virtual reality". But indeed, Brouwer may touch here one aspect of
the measuring instrument that seems
to have been ignored in the context of quantum mechanics (cf. the above section) when
differentiating it from the observer.
Namely, the instrument already
incorporates in itself a theory that is chosen and accepted by the observer
himself. That is, if not also initially conceived
and constructed by him. Observations
of nature and environment are important in that they point to the mysterious
and seldom addressed question of the strange, not to say mysterious capacity of
mathematics to act "humanly", i.e. to foster human understanding or
rather prediction and manipulation of nature as if it, mathematics, were the
"language" of nature. What both Brouwer and we ourselves are trying
to do here is to understand what happens to our conception not only of nature,
but also of anything partly falling outside nature such as humans when we apply
that sort of eyeglasses constituted by the mathematical machines, in the broad
meaning of mathematics. And this, besides the already mentioned Design of Inquiring Systems, may
be of utmost importance for understanding the import of late developments of so
called artificial intelligence (AI), exemplified by the reseach laboratory
OpenAI (see here and here), on "Deep learning"
or applications of the type "Xiaoice" or "AlphaGo", or the Generative Pre-trained Transformer GPT-3 used to create
prose, poetry and AI-journalism
(Swedish review here), not
to mention "Emotional AI" as well as some of the criticism directed
against it, such as "What
emotional AI fails to grasp about emotion".
A basic distinguishing faculty of humans with respect to nature is free will,
despite many people including scientists are trying today to
"deconstruct" it in terms of determinism and atheism. Our discussion can
be seen as touching the question of free will as related to nature, while free
will is coerced and cast into predetermined forms by imposed structures of
human-computer interaction, and thereby also mediated human-human interaction
such as so-called social media. I am not sure to which extent one has to deepen
a proper understanding of the conundrum of free will in
order to understand what is happening and its consequences, including computer
addiction as a result of playing havoc or gambling with the degrees of freedom
of the will. I see, however, that such an understanding is absent in dealings
with so called artificial intelligence - AI - that eschew teleology in favor of
mechanism, as in mathematical speculations on "infinity
and the mind" exemplified by Rudy Rucker. They have not yet
incorporated the lessons from e.g. West Churchman's The Design of Inquiring Systems. Humility in
face of this matter may in due time be fostered by an in-depth study of Kant's
discussion of free will in his Critique
of Pure Reason, second division: Transcendental Dialectic, Book II,
chap. II, section 9 on "Explanation of the cosmological idea of freedom in
connection with the general necessity of nature" (pp. 371ff., A:538ff.,
B:566ff.). Nevertheless such a discussion will probably not take place because
of the inaccessible complexity of this type of literature and of Kant in
particular. Many modern philosophically and technically sophisticated
researchers still dwell in the sixties' analytic
philosophy or cultural
Marxism, and many have swiftly moved over to phenomenology, post-structuralism, post-phenomenology, post-humanism and
such. Some move
to anthroposophical
criticism, all of them apparently avoiding evaluation of variants of pragmatism that
otherwise is praised in the Western USA-influenced culture.
Science, therefore, makes sense only when man in his struggle against nature and his fellow men, uses the calculations of counting and measuring; in other words, physical science has value only as a w e a p o n, it does not concern life - indeed it is a disturbing and distracting factor like e v e r y t h i n g in any way connected with struggle.
In this way Brouwer continues touching upon
controversial issues which require a deepening of the philosophy and theology
of technology that I have otherwise considered in my earlier mentioned Trends
in Philosophy of Technology. Theologically
it is a matter of the relation between man's and God's will that to my
knowledge is programmatically considered in Carl Mitcham and Jim Grote's (eds.)
Theology
and Technology: Essays in Christian Analysis and Exegesis.
Theological discussions seem to be centered on the meaning of Genesis 3:19
"By the sweat of your face You will eat bread" as related to human
reason as a gift of God in Genesis
1:27 "God created man in His own image, in the image
of God He created him", supposing the legitimacy of using reason for at
least partly redeeming himself. Besides common knowledge that much if not most
technology derives from military needs Brouwer is also known to have been since
early youth interested in theology, which he took very seriously, as shown in
his profession of faith (see below).
But mathematics practised for its own sake can achieve all the harmony (i.e., an overwhelming multiplicity of different visible, simple structures whithin one and the same all-embracing edifice) such as can be found in architecture and music, and also yield all the illicit pleasures which ensue from the free and full development of one's faculties without external force.
Brouwer suggests here the source of all speculations
associated in later years to the treatment of computer applications in terms of
aesthetics as in architecture, which I tried to problematize in my The search for a
theory of hypermedia, and
music, whose "mystical" relation to mathematics is known since
antiquity and Brouwer implicitly suggests by his reference to the
"primordial intuition" of time that is common to both mathematics and
music. In the computer age all seems to have started with Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher,
Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, which
does not seem to eschew secular "mysticism" when properly described
in Wikipedia as "not about the relationships of
mathematics, art, and music, but rather about how cognition emerges from hidden
neurological mechanisms. In that book Hofstadter presents an analogy about how
the individual neurons of the brain coordinate to create a unified sense of a
coherent mind by comparing it to the social organization displayed in a colony
of ants." Brouwer forestalled the misuse of the ant-analogy by
pointing out the "illicit pleasures" in the last quotation of his
above, something that would come to be the object of justified controversy
about Herbert Simon's ant-analogy in
his book The Sciences of the
Artificial (reviewed by West Churchman in Contemporary Psychology, vol.
15, 6 June 1970, pp. 385f.) In pursuing the question of illegitimacy Brouwer
continues referring to the mathematician Henri Poincaré in his La Valeur de la Science [The
value of science]:
Poincaré [...] is inclined to reduce all aesthetic affections to such an affection of harmony. Perhaps his notion of aesthetic affection is simply an affection of harmony; but even according to him it is more: he says "outside science and aesthetic there is nothing but "le pur néant" [The pure nothingness]. He therefore seems to believe that it may be this aesthetic affection which is referred to as the highest good for mankind, preserved with such great difficulty. This shows the blinding effect which the immoral, free and full development of human faculties has also on him.
This is what I recalled in other computer-contexts,
often associated with the turn towards "Design", as being the well known but seldom recognized popular version
of aestheticism, as paragraphs with this keyword are found e.g. in my
East
and West of Information Systems,
The
Systems Approach to Design,
Whither
Computers and Systems?,
Trends
in Philosophy of Technology, and
Ethics
and Politics in Design and System Cultures (seminar
notes)
This represents a particular thread in European
culture during at least the last 200 years and whose immense potential for
mind-blowing confusion is illustrated in the discussion of moral aestheticism and
of the early mentioned books on postmodernism. Van Stigt's edited Rejected Parts of Brouwer's dissertation
continues with a discussion of the creation of mathematical systems
in the exterior world as a moment in the process of externalization, i.e.
"of holding out against the exterior world." It is followed by
considerations about Kant's Transcendental
Aesthetics, about objectivation, language in philosophy, causality
and free morality. The discussion, however, becomes gradually more intricate
also because rejected paragraphs require for their understanding to be related
to other paragraphs that were not rejected and do appear only in Brouwer's
dissertation. Such discussion falls therefore outside the limits of space and
purpose of my present text. It is enough to acknowledge that externalization is coupled
to processes considered in analytical psychology.
LIFE,
ART, AND MYSTICISM
A presentation and commented summary of Brouwer's book on Life, Art and Mysticism is
not necessary since, supplemented with a description of its historical-cultural
context, it is available on the net, in the previously mentioned Dirk van Dalen's Mystic, Geometer, and Intuitionist: The Life of
L.E.J.Brouwer, (pp. 63-74.) An appreciation is also found in Walter P. Van Stigt, Introduction to Life, Art
and Mysticism. My purpose here in to highlight some particular
thoughts that may show to be relevant for the conception of computers as
embodiment of mathematics, and of logic as understood by Brouwer.
Anticipating many later and modern issues in philosophy of technology, Brouwer
starts noting problems of environmental destruction while apparently influenced
by the Rousseau-like "theory
of the natural human", meaning, as Wikipedia expresses it, that
Brouwer "looked to a hypothetical State of Nature as a normative
guide". This does obviously mean that there are important theological
presuppositions for the bases and the consequent understanding of the purposes
of his work. It does not require that Brouwer should have borrowed the rather
confusingly convolute theological
presuppositions of Rousseau. Dirk van Dalen in chapter 1, "Child and
student" of the first volume of his book Mystic, Geometer, and Intuitionist, concludes (p. 20),
possibly on the basis of Brouwer's early profession of faith in the early 1900
in the Dutch Remonstrant
Church (summary here, theologically related to Arminianism), that in his philosophical views he
"had adopted a rigorous, Schopenhauer-like, view of the world, religion,
and his fellow human beings." He states that his profession of faith in a
rather "liberal" brand of Protestantism explains, his critical stance
on certain forms of established religion as expressed in chapter 3, "Man's
Downfall, Caused by the Intellect") such as his statement that "Art
and religion in this world are only grand morphine industries" (p. 398.) I
myself find that the theological analysis of Brouwer's thought would certainly
require a deeper and more correct understanding of this issue, on the basis of Arminianism.
In the book's chapter 2 on Turning
into Oneself, Brouwer talks about the need of withdrawing from the
attitude that causes environmental destruction by "turning into
oneself". Van Dalen explains how this must be interpreted theologically
and psychologically in that Brouwer had very early focused his attention of the
essence of the ego as related to "given" perceptions, rather
independent upon the objective world out there, and therefore he appeared
rather "solipsistic". Here we have, again, a connection to Jung's
psychology in the sense of introverted ego-thinking supplemented by intuition,
i.e. (in Jung's conception) unconscious perception.
The reach of Brouwer's psychological ambitions would
be reiterated so late as in 1948 when he is reported (by van Dalen, pp.
832f.) to have reiterated his views about the inverse part
of the "turning into oneself", i.e. the original fatidic "exodus
of consciousness from its deepest home", which would consist of three
phases: the naive phase (creation of the world of sensation), the isolated
causal phase (where causal acts take place), and the social phase (in which
cooperation with the individuals finds its place.) In the causal phase I
understand that also mathematical projection takes place, regardless whether
mathematical patterns are developed in the social phase.
In this way Brouwer was also touching the problem of consciousness, which eludes
the most modern discussions of artificial intelligence. In order to understand
the immense problem that Brouwer was trying to address, starting in his youth
and at a time when most mathematicians (and psychologists) had neither the
interest nor the knowledge necessary to grapple with it, we can point out Erich
Neumann's The
Origins and History of Consciousness, (1954, German orig. 1949.) In
Neumann's terms Brouwer seems to be concerned with a spirituality that had lost
touch with reality and the instincts: "The form which this kind of
degeneration usually takes in the West is not spiritual inflation, but
sclerosis of consciousness where the ego identifies with consciousness as a form
of spirit. In most cases this means identifying spirit with intellect, and
consciousness with thinking" (p. 386.)
In the rest of chapter 2, in two pages (393f.),
Brouwer repeatedly mentions the term "self" at least 15 times,
including the "you" of "yourself" corresponding to the
"ego", without attempting to define it. As far as I can see this self
may correspond, in Jung's terms to both his own concept of self and,
especially, to what is as yet unconscious. This is so because the self as an
empirical concept related to the psyche designates the "whole range of
psychic phenomena in man". As expressed in Jung's Collected Works volume 6
or CW6 (Psychological Types, § 789 and 797), this is almost identical to the
definition of the psyche as "the totality of all psychic processes,
conscious as well as unconscious". The editors of CW6 add, however, that
the inference from this comparison would seem to be that every individual, by
virtue of having a psyche, is potentially the self. It is only a question of "realizing"
it. But the realization, if ever achieved, is the work of a lifetime, possibly
under the guidance of a spiritual adviser that once would have been a priest
or, in later times, a "therapist". That is, under the guidelines for
a sort of yoga
master or, in our Christian tradition, according Loyola's
spiritual exercises and Clorivière's guidelines
for prayer (also in Swedish
translation) or, in our modern times, a "gnostic"
analytic psycho-therapist. In this case Brouwer is only ignoring the lifelong
work that is necessary for the "return to the self" and seems to be
assuming the it can be done, albeit requiring an "effort" to
"overcome an inertia", as an act of free will for
"self-reflection" that "can withdraw from the world of causality".
This optimistic attitude of Brouwer may be attributed to his feeling of
identification with the experiences of the mystic Jakob Boehme, his
main inspiration in these thoughts: Brouwer must have needed to use the words
of Boehme for describing his own early experiences.
For our purposes in this essay it must be finally
mentioned that Brouwer offers in this essay an indirect clue about the reason
for the fascination exerted by computers. Among the difficulties met for the
"return to the self" he mentions the downfall caused by "fear
and an obsession with saving, born from the illusion of time", and
"the desire and lust for power, born from the illusion of space."
Considering that on several occasions he refers to the need to free oneself
from the shackles of worldly fear and desire, it follows that the computer,
especially in the form of mobile smartphones with their instant spatial
communications paradoxically offers an illusion of freedom from the illusions
of both time and space.
In chapter 3 about Man's Downfall, Caused by the Intellect Brouwer
can be seen as presenting a criticism of science. He dwells upon the downfall
caused by the intellect chained to fear and desire. Man is chained to its
"intellect", and he is incapable of lifting itself in
self-reflection. Unfortunately, in the whole argument,
Brouwer leaves "intellect" as undefined as the earlier self, and one
of our purposes here is to relate this intellect to what especially later
psychology would come to name as psyche, with
due regard to former Greek philosophy and Christian conceptions of spirit, soul and body, such
as e.g. described in a CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) entry.
Anyway, in Brouwer's own words:
This highly valued intellect has enabled man and forced him to go on living in desire and fear, rather than from a salutary sense of bewilderment take refuge in self-reflection. Intellect has made him forfeit the amazing independence and directness of his rambling images by connecting them with each other rather than with the self. In this way the intellect made him persist with apparent security in the conviction of a "reality", which man in his arrogance has made himself and had tied to causality, but in which in the end must feel totally powerless.
In this life of lust and desire the intellect renders
man the devilish service of linking two images of the imagination as means and
end. Once in the grip of desire for one thing he is made to strive after
another as a means to that end [...]. Brouwer goes
on explaining that the act aimed at the means, however, always overshoots the
mark to some extent - the means has a direction of its own, diverted at an
angle however small from that of the end. It acts, therefore not only in the
direction of the end, but also in other dimensions that we could call
unforeseen consequences while many perceive as an end what was originally [and
for others, we may add] only a means. Brouwer notes that if this
"deceptive jump" from end to means is repeated several times, it may
happen that a direction is pursued which not only deviates but opposes and
counteracts the original one. Brouwer applied this insight to the development
of industry and the consumption of natural resources including the balance of
nature, expanding his reasoning to the production of industrial tools and
therefore to the essence of technology. Unforeseen consequences lead repeatedly
to the uncovering of hidden assumptions and consequent anxiety about the
future, craving for the power to predict its course: that is, requiring a
science to support technology. Or:
Science, which in its original form was wholly subservient to industry, has made up all kinds of general assertions in and about the world of perception. These come true as long as it pleases God; but one day they will suddenly be contradicted by facts and then our scientists will claim, "O yes, of course, we always made this or that tacit assumption." In their incompetence they then set about complicating the issue even further and making so-called corrections and improvements.
[And, continuing:]
But science does not confine itself to serving industry: again the means becomes and end in itself, and science is practised for its own sake. Bodily awareness has strayed so far away that it is all concentrated in the human head, ignoring and excluding the rest of the body. At the same time man becomes convinced of his own existence as an individual and that of a separate and independent world of perception. At this stage there are radical changes in the direction of man's attention, and these constitute scientific thinking. For scientific thinking is nothing but a fixation of the direction of will within the confines of the head, and a scientific truth no more than an infatuation of desire living exclusively in the human head.(My emphasis.)
We can see here a possible source of modern
phenomenological approaches with emphasis upon the body, such as those that
were considered in my essay Trends
in philosophy of technology with special focus on information
technology. The interest for the "body" as a attempted contrast to
the "head" can also appear in queer forms of "feminist
techno-science", partly based on feminist interpretations of
(pdf) "quantum
theory". A problematic feature of the analysis above is
that in face of the lack of an appropriate psychology the ego of the psyche is
equated with the "head", paradoxically further contrasted to the
"body" as if the head including its implicitly considered and often
emphasized "brain" did not belong to the body. In some
late phenomenological approaches the body is further differentiated
from the "skin" in the context of "touching",
as if it were a sort of metaphysical differentiation between the
("its") body and the environment or "the other", apart from
or based on the logical Aristotelian
considerations of sense of touch. In view of analytical psychology,
however, the basic problem that Brouwer encounters in his analysis is the
inability to analyze the situation of the ego itself with its consciousness and
will. This is the source of innumerable analytic difficulties including lately such
as in debates about the philosophy of free will among analytic philosophers
such as Harry
Frankfurt and David
Widerker, which has wide implications for informational
decision theory. We find there a systematic and unreflective use of the
apparently unproblematic concept of (a unique) "agent" corresponding
to one "head", after it having been widely problematized in
Churchman's systems approach (The
Design of Inquiring Systems, chap. 3) by means of the split between
researcher, manager and client, not to mention the problem about their
"head" or "intellect", mentioned above. Back to Brouwer:
Every branch of science will therefore run into deeper trouble; when it climbs too high it is almost completely shrouded in even greater isolation, where the remembered results of that science take on an independent existence. The "foundations" of this branch of science are investigated, and that soon becomes a new branch of science. One then begins to search for the foundations of science in general and knocks up some "theory of knowledge". As they climb higher and higher confusion grows until they are all completely deranged. Some in the end quietly give up; having thought for a long time about the elusive link between the intuiting consciousness (which develops from the perceptional world) and the perceptional world itself (which in turn only exists through and in the forms of the intuiting consciousness) - a confusion which arose from their own sin of constructing a perceptional world - they then plug the hole with the concept of the e g o, which was self-created with and at the same time as their perceptional world; and they say, "Yes, of course, something must remain incomprehensible, and that something is the ego that comprehends."
The above has direct implications for the whole of
computer science, especially
the quagmire of AI, its neologisms such as "neuro-morphism", and the
phraseology associated to its already mentioned "deep learning", machine
learning and data mining, which are built upon the concept of mathematical
computing machines and presupposes the view of (theory of) information as a
theory of knowledge. Brouwer explains further how this in turn is a temptation
for the assumption of an incomprehensible and therefore unchallenged monolithic
concept of ego. In doing so, however, Brouwer ignores both the need and the
possibility of an analysis (and synthesis) of the ego as related to
consciousness and to the unconscious as proposed in analytical psychology or
exemplified in the earlier reference to Erich Neumann. From these shortcomings
originate also affirmations that have raised the suspicion of solipsism in the
context of a construction of the perceptional world.
Brouwer continues describing and foreseeing results of this state of things as
reflected in environmental destruction, menaces to human physical and mental
health with consequent rise of the medical and entertainment industry (that
today culminates in computer-supported "edutainement"). They imply
behaviors that, at Brouwer's time, can be seen as presaging the new
age hype, accompanied by the "myth of drugs"
and followed by its repeated disappointments. Sometimes it is perceived (e.g.
by B. G. Rosenqvist in Svenska
Dagbladet, in "The
drug that formed the ideal society", in Swedish) how the concept
of "drug" salvation appears in Aldous
Huxley's late utopic book The Island
(1962). It seems to be the result of his reflections upon Huxley's (related to
George Orwell) earlier famous dystopic book Brave
New World (1932), recalling the European cultural environment of
the early Brouwer who, however, had the insight of preferring Christian
salvation.
In a chapter 4 dedicated to "atonement"
Brouwer, in a preaching prophetic tone that characterizes the whole book,
recommends a sort of mystical attitude to life that borrows even words from
Jacob Boehme and resembles both Buddhism and Christianity in the spirit of
Thomas à Kempis' Imitation
of Christ. It is easy to guess that such an attitude in the
ambit of Western science could only be possible in dedication to mathematics
for its own sake. The step from there to mysticism is natural and is portrayed
in the chapter that follows:
Chapter 5 is dedicated to "language" and I have already used some of
its argument in my earlier essay on Information
and Debate. In this chapter Brouwer criticizes logic for being
"life in the human brain" using here the term brain instead of the
earlier reference to "head" indicating the he uses them as synonyms.
Among other things he states that:
[R]idiculous is the use of language when one tries to express subtle nuances of will which are not part of the living reality of those concerned, when for example so-called philosophers or metaphysicians discuss among themselves morality, God, consciousness, immortality, or the free will. These people do not even love each other, let alone share the same subtle movements of the soul; sometimes they even do not know each other personally. They either talk at cross-purposes or each builds his own little logical system which lacks any connection with reality. For logic is life in the human brain; it may accompany life outside the brain but it can never guide it by virtue of its own power. Indeed, if there is a harmony of will, logic may well fall by the wayside ...
Ridiculous [...] is the use of language when there is an argument and people try to come to an agreement by means of reasoning. [...] In everyday life language only makes sense as a means of holding the already harmonious will of two people together on one path. [...] Language can accompany man's will to dominate the will of others or his will to keep the movement of wills together; for example, the war cry of Red Indians accompanies the will to break the will of others.
Yes, language as the source of logic can be used, in
the absence of mutual love or friendship, for "man's will to dominate the
will of others", the more so with a science embedded in abstruse
"mathematical tools" that disregard not only the meaning of
mathematics but also the difference between tools and theory-based instruments.
Such tools insulate the scientific communities from a shared democratic
understanding and criticism by the general public and other narrow scientific
specialties who do not share knowledge about the particular mathematical tools.
Let us also remind that this may be illustrated by what happens in the
Internet's social media's logically structured communications when clusters of
people, including children in schools, get to bully other clusters or,
especially, individuals, or start revolutionary gatherings, today always with
supposedly democratic aims. The question about language was part or the
polemics of that time regarding the relation between logic and mathematics
where Brouwer saw mathematics fundamental and originally individual, and
independent from logic seen as based upon the need for (necessarily imperfect)
language communication. The implications for computer communications beyond
logic and along language are then clear. For example, Facebook, Twitter,
group-blogs and so-called search motors have already been noted for
facilitating the pooling together of people in sub-cultures with similar
convictions and for achieving what Brouwer mentions as "language, which
presumes a harmony of will, may well be used to accompany strife and
combat." It is possible
to figure out the import of it all for the filtering implied in the process of
peer review and publication in established influential scientific journals.
This touches upon cultural aspects of
"rhetoric" that I have previously (1997-1998) considered in a paper
on The
East and West of Information Systems. In
the context of a Swedish blog debate
about climate and global warming I have seen a member (pseudonym
"Nils G") of one dominant sub-culture irrupting into the community of
another deviant sub-culture and requesting that they turn more
"objective" and hoping to be allowed to start including further
opposing arguments. This attitude reveals a misunderstanding of the
"Hegelian inquiring systems", in West Churchman's
conception of The Design of
Inquiring Systems, since they presuppose a recognition of the fact
that the most important debates are indeed "objectively" driven by
the participant parties' passionate conviction that they are right in very
important matters. This implies a recognition that all people are in different
degrees legitimately influenced by feelings, intuitions, unknowns or
unconscious factors. One can claim either to be "objective" or to
require necessary additional arguments, but others can legitimately refuse to
agree about such a requirement, as it is indeed the case regarding the
legitimacy of e.g. the Holocaust, pedophilia or, earlier, atheism itself. In
the best case, a synthesis of opposing views is supposed to be obtained by a an
"external" observer of the opposition (having another related
parallel passion.) This may include the case of the creation of a special,
"theory-laden" communicative language such as in pastoral counseling
or psychoanalysis. Hegelian approaches to language not to mention logic,
however, were not within the horizon of Brouwer at the time, the less so for
mathematics based on a "primordial intuition", despite his
acquaintance with Hegelian philosophy through his early contact with Gerard Bolland.
In the context of "ridiculous use of
language" which in my mind recalls the modern Western phenomenon of "political
correctness" Brouwer refers in two occasions in this chapter
5 to the "brain" in the context of language as
Only in the very narrowly restricted domains of the imagination such as in the exclusively intellectual sciences—which are completely separated from the world of perception and therefore touch the least upon the essentially human—only there can mutual understanding be maintained for some time. There is little scope for misunderstanding notions such as “equal” and “triangle,” but even then two different people will never feel them in exactly the same way. Even in the case of the most restricted sciences, logic and mathematics - a sharp distinction between these two is hardly possible - no two different people will have the same conception of the fundamental concepts on which these two sciences are constructed; and yet their wills are parallel, and in both there is a small, unimportant part of the brain which forces their attention in the same way.
[...]Once someone is imprisoned in the belief of a logically coherent (i.e. conceived without pain in a certain region of the brain) complex of externalities, which he calls "reality", it becomes rather difficult to follow him in his folly, and even more difficult to try to evoke in him a particular emotion or state of mind be means of words which he can only interpret in accordance with his reality. [My boldface]
These latest
considerations indicate that the diffidence of people towards mathematics needs
not be a result of their identification with the fox in what Aesop means in the
fable of the fox
and the sour grapes, as rarely gifted mathematicians and rationalist
sympathizers may be tempted to have it. It may be even the other way round,
regarding diffidence towards whatever recalls religion, mindfully cherished and
respected by a majority of world's population. Mathematics and logic can even be a preferred opportunity
for young gifted individuals to excel in them since it is natural that their
figuratively "small unimportant part of the brain" is the main part
of the brain that is available to them: other "parts of the brain"
and their interactions have not yet become active in "important"
adult matters such as work-life, love, suffering, death and religion.
This is something to think about when praising children and youngsters for
their "brainy" superiority to elders in intuitive proficiency
(Brouwer's "primal intuition in time sequences") in handling new
computer gadgets that are "fingered" in the spirit of Richard
Stiver's Technology
as Magic that is "it works but have no idea of why - what
happens" and do not know what "works" means. Similarly,
individuals gifted with a mathematical mind may be perceived as being polymaths
or universal geniuses in numerous intellectual fields thanks to their mental
reduction of the fields to mathematical or logical form, as they appear in the
perspective of mindless human-computer interaction (HCI). During a late
revision of this present paper, an economic-financial example that was
highlighted in the press in November 2022, is the case of 30-years old Sam
Bankman-Fried and FTX, once the third-largest cryptocurrency-trading platform. The reports in
The Economist and Wikipedia
(should) say it all, reminding also
cases of analog analytical logical-mathematical giftedness such as of Adam Neumann and the related business WeWork . and Sam Altman as related to general
artificial intelligence (Open AI, ChatGPT, etc. as per April 2023) and its financing, or sheer analytical financial genius of a Bernard Madoff. The matter, however, is more serious than that, inasmuch examples such
as of Ben
Shapiro and many others in the field of science
(exemplified by
Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli) suggest the effect
of inborn giftedness for mathematical-logical thinking as related to the famous
controversial question of superior Ashkenazi
Jewish intelligence (see also here and here).
My own annotations on my copy of Carl Jung's book Memories, Dreams, Reflections recorded
by his associate Aniela
Jaffé, indicate that I first bought and read it
in April 1975 but happened to definitely relate it to this essay of mine in
July 2023. The book is interesting especially because it tells about the
author's psychological interpretation of his understanding and feelings in
meeting mathematics. Such feelings, when experienced by common educated people
can easily be dismissed for being caused by lack of giftedness or sheer
stupidity. The complexity of Jung's account requires literal quotations (cf.
pp. 43 ff., 340 ff):
[…]
I felt a downright fear of the mathematics class. The teacher pretended that
algebra was a perfectly natural affair, to be taken for granted, whereas I
didn't even know what numbers really were […] they were nothing that could be
imagined, mere quantities that resulted from counting. To my confusion these
quantities were now represented by letters, which signified sounds, so that it
became possible to hear them, so to speak. […] No one could tell me what
numbers were, and I was unable even to formulate the question. […] But the
things that exasperated me most of all was the proposition: If a=b and b=c, then a=c. even
though by definition a meant something other than b, and,
being different, could therefore not be equated with b, let alone
with c. Whenever
it was a question of equivalence, then it was said that a=a, b=b, and so on.
This I could accept, whereas a=b seemed to me a downright lie or a fraud. I was
equally outraged when the teacher stated in the teeth of his own definition of
parallel lines that they met at infinity. […] My intellectual morality fought
against these whimsical inconsistencies, which have forever debarred me from
understanding mathematics. Right into old age I have had the incorrigible
feeling that it, like my schoolmates, I could have accepted without struggle
the proposition that a=b, or that sun=moon, dog=cat, then mathematics might have
fooled me endlessly – just how much I only began to realize at the age of
eighty-four. All my life it remained a puzzle to me why it was that I never
managed to get my bearings in mathematics when there was no doubt that I could
calculate properly. Least of all did I understand my own moral doubts
concerning mathematics.
In a later section of the book, in the chapter "On life after death",
Jung introduced some exceedingly complex ideas about the relation of human
death to the realm of consciousness vs. the unconscious or "the
intermediate stage between unconscious and conscious cognition". It would
take us too far in this our context but the following extracted comment (p.
341) may give a taste of the relation to mathematics:
Ideas
of this sort are, of course, inaccurate, and give a strong picture, like a body
projected on a plane or, conversely, like the construction of a four-dimensional
model out of a three-dimensional body. They use the terms of a
three-dimensional world in order to represent themselves to us. Mathematics
goes to great pains to create expressions for relationships which pass
empirical comprehension. In much the same way, it is all-important for a
discipline to build up images of intangibles by logical principles and on the
basis of empirical data, that is, on the evidence of dreams. The method
employed is what I have called "the method of the necessary statement".
It represents the principle of amplification in the interpretation of dreams, but can most easily
be demonstrated by the statements implicit in simple whole numbers.
My point with these quotations is to suggest that mathematics because of
its very nature introduces unconscious processes in the human mind while
surreptitiously merging them with ordinary conscious ones. It all recalls what
has been considered in this essay about both the aforementioned Brouwer and
Zellini, as well giving a hint of the ultimate mysteries of quantum physics
(more on this above and below) in the relation between psyche and matter. An
alternative equivalent conception presented
in my Information
and Theology is the balance between the inner knowledge of human psyche vs. natural
science and knowledge of the outer world. This role of the unconscious and
inner knowledge of the human psyche related to (the aesthetics of) mathematics
and logic also explains the problems of addiction (not only of children, but
also of “childish” adults), including computer
addiction, the overhype of virtual
reality, and the success of mathematical-logical
minds in all sorts of modern endeavors including mathematized technoscience or white
collar crime. The latter is most brilliantly
exemplified by the genius of Bernard
Madoff and by the fact that “Internet AI personalities” such as Tom Bilyeu at Impact Theory and Emad
Mostaque: see here a
logical conversation between them with the ambitiously alarming title How
Ai will disrupt the entire world in 3 years - Prepare now while others panic. The latter have strong opinions about AI there is a penchant for bold
entrepreneurship and/or interest in “volatile” activities, financial and
others, as hedge
fronds. And
much entrepreneurship with empty talk about AI may be conscious or unconscious
attempt to commit “white collar crime”. Who is capable to discuss the degree of
consciousness vs. unconsciousness in order to determine culpability and whether
it will be considered as financial
crime?
The technical mind has been colorfully exposed in studies of the
philosophy of science in the tradition of Jacques
Ellul. Some of the deep approaches in the
latter’s “anarchist” tradition (examples here, here, and here), however, have sometimes missed the point when they lose the
connection to broad Christian theology, philosophy and its derivate (Carl
Jung’s analytical) psychology. This appears in the following de-contextualized excerpt
from one of the deep approaches (to Cybergnosticism, further explained here), followed sometimes by my notes in italics in square brackets in order to
not leave everything in the general “Comment” at the end:
[J]ust like alcoholics and drug addicts, game-addicted children are now
regularly treated by psychologists and psychiatrists in order to get rid of
their addictive behaviour, [Yes, but how effective in this treatment on what
grounds, and why, since it may by then used for treating all “addicts”, and how
should they be defined and identified, since they may be even scientists?]
[M]any videogames take advantage of techniques similar to those used by
the military to harden people emotionally. [Yes, but what kind of the
treatment of these hardened people would be allowed and recommended by the
military leadership vs. ex-post by e.g. the “Veteran benefits fof PTSD” or equivalent organizations?]
As
the driving force of la Technique is, according to Ellul, the crave for
absolute efficiency in all human endeavours. [Ellul himself is quoted in
Wikipedia from his book “The Technological Society” as writing: “Not even the moral conversion of the
technicians could make a difference. At best, they would cease to be good
technicians. In the end, technique has only one principle, efficient ordering. What about
the difficulty, to begin with, in defining “efficiency” vs. “effectiveness”, the more so when it is not even recognized that the
difference lies in the conceptualization of the systemic boundaries of (whose?)
craves.]
It was Eric Voegelin’s intriguing and much-debated thesis, that there is
a deep-seated disorder in our civilisation rooted in a ‘gnostic’ sentiment of
alienation and discontent with reality perceived as evil, in the con-
sequential ‘gnostic’ turn away from this reality [Psychologically, or how
else, is a “sentiment” to be defined, compared with, say a thought, intuition
or perception?]
Arguably, we cannot get at the real motives and ideas behind the
computer phenomenon in general, and the cyberspace and virtual reality
sub-phenomena in particular, nor arrive at a proper understanding of their
roots and future direction of growth, unless we take into account these mighty metaphysical driving forces and
motivations […] [How about metaphysical forces and motivations, if not
within the frame of a religion’s theology?]
It is my thesis that the roots of cyberspace and cybergaming must be
investigated in a much wider context than is done in these and other similar
works so as to clarify and make comprehensible the motive background and
worldviews of the key personages of the field. [What about the difference
between (here) “roots” vs. “forces and motivations” in the previous paragraphs].
They rest ultimately only upon the criticism by Gnosticism and
overworked erudition and rationalism (paradoxically, an apparently own “gnosticism”)
of the one “political philosopher” Eric
Voegelin. Wikpedia
summarizes, as
it follows some of his critics’ opinions, which match my own impression from my
readings and comment of Voegelin in another context of Information and Theology:
[C]ritics have proposed that Voegelin's concept of
Gnosis lacks theoretical precision. Therefore, Voegelin's gnosis can,
according to the criticis, hardly serve as a scientific basis for an analysis
of political movements. Rather, the term "Gnosticism" as used by
Voegelin is more of an invective just as "when on the lowest level of
propaganda, those who do not conform with one's own opinion are smeared as
communists.”
That is, “smeared as gnostics”, as I heard one of his followers smeared
Carl Jung, based on Voegelin’s readings of second hand texts on him (as
contrasted to e.g. Jordan
Peterson’s practice as first hand reader of
original texts). Until further notice I assume that the Jung's attitude
mentioned above is motivated by his psychic inclination to watch upon the unique (psyche)
instead of "playing God" or suffering an “Ego inflation” by imagining
oneself as understanding mathematics seen as God’s language, and searching
general "laws" of nature where the human being himself tends to be
“abstracted from” or is regarded as only an object of an undefined or
pantheistic "Nature". A concretization of these thoughts is suggested
by problems and the history of debates on the world’s first societal
introduction of personal
identification number - PIN in
Sweden (as
a number = “John Smith”), followed by national
identification numbers all over the world as I explain in my essay on The
Meaning of Man-Machine Interaction. It
is meaningful to remember the practice of tattooing a number on the skin of
prisoners in Nazi concentration camps, followed today by the increasing use of
PIN’s, not the least for (who’s?) control of the
population by means of face recognition systems and biometric
identifiers. All
facilitated by alleging a struggle against “terrorism”. And all this while
never reflecting upon the meaning of or relation between identification
and individuation, and
never reflecting upon the phenomenon, in certain corrupt political regimes, of
governmental production of false “identification” documents, including vehicle
registration plates.
When faith and allegiance is rested on an assumed Democracy and technology
instead of on God, then the unavoidable failures of democracy imply a
dependence upon anonymous human power whose policing of citizens offsets the
loss of judgment caused by the computerized technological logical bypass of the
network of multiple human judgments.
The extension of these problems reaches the import of the whole issue of
my text on the consequences of the computerization of society which follows the
conclusions of the present essay, and that I rhetorically named Computerization
as Design of Logic Acrobatics but somebody else could have called On
the Digitalization of Society.
It is the case of late science dominated by people who
are especially highly proficient in applying the "small part of their
brain" (really, their psyche) dedicated to mathematical-logical
manipulations, and consequently develop extreme self-confidence if not outright
arrogance that guides them to worldly managerial or professional success.
This phenomenon seems to be common particularly in the
area of computer science as exemplified by computer scientists such as Herbert Simon, or
lately in the case of luminaries in climate research and global warming, such
as climate research such as Hans
Joachim Schellnhuber. It is gift that also enhances the capability to win
debates cheaply by reducing complex systemic issues to oversimplified linear
logic sequences of computable apparent "arguments" (most often using
undefined concepts) as I illustrate in two other texts on "debates"
and on "climate
change and global warming". Nevertheless, depending upon the
particular personality of the thinker, it can also enhance the capability to
unravel complex issues to the point of legitimately bedazzling the reader or
the listener. It may be the case with a remarkable essay by Olivier Rey on Que
faire des différences? [What to make of the differences?] where differences
concern also those between citizen and foreigner, or man and woman, a sore
point in the issue of equality or of radical feminism.
After further considerations that include the drift
from defective language to a consequent philosophy based on a supposed meaning
of language Brouwer foresees a rude awakening in front of perceived
deficiencies and contradictions or a flight from the "world of
intellectual perception with its man-made laws" or to the highly acclaimed
"science" [sic, within quotation marks.] His diffidence concerning
language is echoed by my own considerations about the difficulty if not impossibility
of debate in Information
as Debate, touching matters of major importance concerning
ethics and politics of science. This type of insights motivates Brouwer to move
further into the four last extensive chapters 6-9 of his book with the titles
of Immanent Truth,
Transcendent Truth,
The Freed Life,
and Economics. In
doing so he can be interpreted as entering gradually into the domains of
"mysticism" where the term, however, must not be understood as in the
popular daily secularized verbiage of modern Western languages.
Chapter 6 is dedicated to cultural criticism in those
forms of human enlightenment and communication beyond the aforementioned
limitations of language, as evidenced by worldly arts and literature, which are
in my view erroneously taken by "Nietzscheans"
like Heidegger and Alain de Botton as
estheticist tools for a "religion for atheists": art as religion. The
subsequent chapters 7 to 9 take the necessary further step into the forms
represented by religion or mysticism, a mysticism understood critically as, for
instance, in Harold Coward's book
Jung and Eastern Thought (1985, chap. vii) and echoing some of the
most serious currents of Western philosophy such as in the treatment of "Quietism"
and the contrast between Leibniz and Schopenhauer as
depicted in Émilienne Naert's
Leibniz et la Querelle du Pur Amour [Leibniz and the Dispute of
Pure Love] (1959.) In the chapter on Le
Quiétisme vu par Leibniz et Schopenhauer [Quietism seen by Leibniz
and Schopenhauer], pp. 232ff., the descriptions in the text confirm the
proximity of Brouwer to Schopenhauer's thought. The relevance of the latter for
the philosophy of psychology is indicated by Carl Jung's references to the
latter, which take almost as much space in his Collected Works' General Index
(volume 20) as the number of references to Plato.
It must
be noted that the complexity of the background of the question requires, for a
proper interpretation, the kind of theological knowledge that is advanced, for
instance, in Fr. Raymond Gawronski, S.J. Word
and Silence (1995) as
noted also in my related article
on the hopelessness of communication in debates.
There is no need for me to go deep into the mentioned
last chapters 7 to 9 that need no further explanations beyond the meaning of
mysticism, and are found in the original book in question with the text
available on the net in pdf-format at the link
already specified earlier, above. They are already summarized in the likewise
mentioned introduction to and overviews of Brouwer's book that are the best and
most detailed source for understanding his thought, such as Walter P. Van Stigt, Introduction to Life, Art
and Mysticism (1996, pdf).
The main necessary observation is a reference to a part of chapter 6 that deals
with the repeatedly criticized and misunderstood treatment of womanhood, or
Brouwer's supposed "misogyny". I think that the a key paragraph for
an in-depth understanding of what Brouwer is expressing is the following:
There is a balance between man's burden of guilt and the burden of labor and toil imposed on him. A similar balance is found between woman's wantonness, her inborn capacity for karma burdening, and the measure of femininity which this world offers in temptation. In a world of humble acceptance of given karma there would be no women.
I sense that these thoughts are the author's probably
unconscious attempt to capture the theological meaning of the biblical "original sin",
made by a man with superior intelligence who was struggling, in terms which
later would be conceived by analytical
psychology, to defend himself from a dangerously close contact
with his anima. The
latter, being unconscious, was then projected into womanhood, i.e. "women
considered collectively". It is remarkable that Brouwer reached so far and
deep in his analysis at the turn of the century, without detailed theological
knowledge and at a time when analytical psychology was still being conceived.
This was probably made possible by his understanding and application of
Christian mysticism and Eastern thought. His shortcomings in this respect
probably caused the ultimate failure of Brouwer's program for a supposed
ethical pure mathematics. The failure of the program led among other things to
the purely instrumental (and commercial-industrial) mathematics of algorithm
theory for computers (cf. the reference to Paolo Zellini above). Nevertheless
Brouwer's shortcomings appear to me as incomparably milder than the misandry or
present ongoing and tragic misunderstandings of masculinity corresponding to
the animus. This
goes on in branches of modern feminism, as I suggest in a
writing about the case study of a renewed glorification of
SCUM - "Society for Cutting Up Men", and it is a feminism that is
closely related to the spread in Western societies of a sort of feminization
that critics denominate as cultural
Marxism and political
correctness. An unraveling of the socio-psychological implication
of these problems will probably necessitate a study and development of the
insights of the previously mentioned book The
Myth of Analysis by James Hillman.
We should not forget, however, that for our purposes
of connecting Brouwer's criticism of science to the embodiment of mathematics
and logic (in computers) the most relevant aspect seems to be the phenomenon of
projection in
science, mentioned above in the context of his supposed misogyny. While it can
be said that modern science consists in differentiating the observer's own
projection into nature (cf. astrology and alchemy) from what it is
"actually there", the reader will have observed in the present text
up to here that the term projection used by Brouwer appears in several forms
such as projection into nature of mathematical structures, as (synonymously)
act of externalization, projection into reality, projection of phenomena on
measuring instruments, or mathematical projection. This is also related to the
question of mathematical-logical
isomorphism with "reality", that in my view is the object
of complex misunderstandings as exemplified in a dissertation by Marius Cohen
on Reality
as a Mathematical Structure, in
contrast to ambitious attempts as by Krister Renard in his essay on Predicate Logic and
on (in Swedish) mathematics with
a corresponding video
of a lecture (in English). This will be the object of a future
section.
Continuing our concern with chapter 6, should be noted
that it is dedicated to a rather detailed analysis of various artful, often
false, forms of communication beyond science and ordinary language, as in
literature of epics, comedy and tragedy and music addressing the illusion of
time, and visual arts (that at the time, without multimedia) addressing the
illusion of space, in order to convey what the author calls immanent truth. It
is often not perceived that such an idea has already made its presence felt in
the ramifications of computer science. It has happened, e.g., in the
fashionable recourse to musical "improvisation",
or "architecture" and "design" as a source of inspiration
in the study of applications of late computer technology or multimedia,
prompting my own attention in papers dealing with the Kantian classification of
arts as well as his critique
of judgment.
Chapter 7 on "transcendent truth" follows
the failures of the search for immanent truth in chapter 6 and is said to represent
the Kingdom of God. It also represents Brouwer's courageous confession of the
possibility of moving from the daily world to his realm of faith and his
distancing from the world. This world today, one hundred years after his
writing, is explicitly and visibly dominated by the dogmas of religious
secularization. It purports to show the apparent impossibility to live a pious
and genuine, intransigent Christian life in a modern society where "God is
dead" and all transcendent truths such as in music, visual arts,
literature and poetry are submerged in contrafacts or fake products. The only
solution would be a commitment to sheer mysticism that relinquishes the hope of
language communication. As Brouwer writes, adding later quotations by the
mystic Boehme and the Bhagavad Gita
(that, together, with Hindu and Chinese philosophy, also is symptomatically
referred to by West Churchman in his
The Systems Approach and its Enemies) such a commitment offers the
link to our original question of computation and systems:
It treats the questions posed by metaphysics, such as immortality, freewill, the meaning of art and religion, and the foundations of morality, as riddles hatched by the intellect; in doing so it removes all mystery and yet shows the impossibility of solving such questions by reasoning.
Brouwer could have added questions posed by Chapter 8
on "the freed life". It seems to depict the final result of above
commitment to mysticism: refraining from debate or the preaching the truth, in
terms that recall the commitment to quietism mentioned above, apparently
implying also care in contact with society's current political correctness:
For a man therefore life will move toward absolute solitude [...] he listens carefully and waits patiently for the revelation of inner contradictions of that intellect [...] begins to resent all his links with society; he is forced to exercise extreme care in human company [...] disturbing influences will only help his patient move away from human society...
Brouwer's style of writing shifts thereafter towards
poetry or description of a dream that is sheer mysticism and, for modern
understanding, requires the help of depth or analytical
psychology, especially in terms of the meaning of
"introversion" or, more specifically, thinking-introverted attitude
(as popularly
described on the net) as related to the process of individuation
which required a plunge into Carl Jung's Collected Works, mainly vol. 6 on Psychological
Types.
Ultimately, one could say that the coupling of the critique of language in
chapter 5 to the references to mysticism in the following chapters 6 to 8 may
resume the essence of the "Word" and its connection to philosophical
and theological "Logos", as famously outlined by Thomas Aquinas in
the first lectures of chapter
1 of the Commentary on the
Prologue of the Gospel of St. John (recently
translated into Swedish as Kommentar
till Johannes-Prologen, (Svenska Katolska Akademien, 2015.)
Chapter 9, the last one, on "Economics"
refers to "one more evil", describing the "free life" in
detachment to a fallen world, in terms that most readers will most probably
label as pessimistic and misanthropic. It can also be understood, however, as a
extremely blunt interpretation of the Bible's "fall of man",
as the biblical interpretation of Genesis chapter 3, combined with a
questioning and mocking of modern man's ambition to rescue this world by means
of economic (profitable) technology and own concepts of justice. The text is
hard to grasp against our background of modernity but, for instance, the
concept of a ridiculous justice pending towards the "socialism" of
Brouwer's time, has its counterpart in Blaise Pascal's Pensées (examples: pages of
the original manuscript 69, 165, 169, 453, or, in general, the section V in the
French edition, Nelson Éditeurs, 1955. English translation with introduction by
T.S. Eliot, at
project Gutenberg, here, see
Index, "justice" and "injustice".)
Special importance for the purposes of this present
paper of mine about computers is the example of Pascal's scientific interest as
mathematician and physicist who defended the scientific method and designed a mechanical
calculator as precursor of computers. As he explains in the
preface of the Pensées, however, he relinquished these interests in favour of
the perceived premises for his scientific and engineering work, acquiring the
posthumous status of "Christian philosopher". Throughout Étienne
Périers preface to the Pensées' French edition of year 1955, appear
considerations that recall Brouwer's extremely quietist thoughts, which
permeate this last chapter 9, also recalling the fundamental Christian message
of Thomas à Kempis' The
Imitation of Christ.
COMMENTARY
ON "LIFE, ART, AND MYSTICISM
The Italian translation of Brouwer's book surveyed above includes an erudite
commentary (not yet translated from the Italian) that borrows particular
interest from the fact that it is written by the previously mentioned numerical
analyst, and professor of mathematics Paolo Zellini. He is
widely known in Italian cultural world for books beyond the
narrow understanding of his discipline, relating to
the history, philosophy and essence of mathematics, some of them having been
translated into other languages including English and German.
Zellini starts surveying Brouwer's initial motivations
for the study of mathematics, as they were related to his religiosity and early
commitment to the Remonstrantse
Kerk. He sees that Brouwer perceives that
faith requires the historically famous and controversial sacrifice of the
intellect. Brouwer perceives that the so-called intellect (that
Jung would criticize for being equated to the rationality of the ego,
disregards the whole psyche) deserves suspicion because of its failure in this
human world, a failure that we today would relate to cultural impact of
technology and environmental issues such as climate change. This perceived
failure, apparently disregarding the "success" of science, is
exemplified by the corruption of instrumental science put at the service of
commerce and industry, and, in general, of petty human desires residing in the
"head" as site of this undefined intellect. Such insights would have
led Brouwer to a basic ascetic and solipsistic, misogynous vision of life that
was to be reflected in his lifelong way to conceptualize and do mathematics.
For my purposes here it is important to note once
again the absence of a discussion of what is to be meant by intellect and its
seat in the head that today would be most probably equated further to the
brain, in the spirit of what has been critically called for brain mythology. It
is a term that was duly considered by Jung himself on several occasions
(especially in his Psychological
Types, CW6, §516) and it returns nowadays in other purely
scientific contexts such as in the journal Brain Structure
and Function. It reminds that neuropsychology presupposes
informatics in terms of understanding of what data and information is as well
as understanding of the relation between (space?) structure and (time?) function such as presented
in West Churchman's The Design
of Inquiring Systems (chap. 3, pp.43ff.), a work that indirectly introduces also the
relevance of Carl Jung. Occasionally some few of these
aspects appear in critical articles such as in Jorge Ibáñez, Is
the brain a computer?. All
these considerations seem to be ignored in "strategic neuro-research" or "computational
brain science", as suggested in modern or postmodern
mathematical dreams and speculations recalling brain mythology. It is a
worldwide network also exemplified by key names such as Florian Markowetz and
it can be seen as sort of trendy computerization of old basic ideas of
mathematical biology into "computational biology" that merges with
the powerful rhetoric of "artificial intelligence". The press reports
that computers will be developed with an "inbuilt
own will", while I have met engineers who with support of
certain philosophers deny that humans themselves have a free will. This is a
field originally expressed by Nicolas
Rashevsky, and developed later by his followers within a
mathematical-logical concept of systems diverging from Churchman's ideas and
represented by Robert
Rosen and Herbert Simon.
Simon, in particular, is an excellent example of how a mathematical mind can
appear as a polymath or type of renaissance genius by mathematizing basic
knowledge in several different fields of knowledge. It is one example of the
dazzling effect of mathematics (and logic) that today is experienced in its
embodiment in computer technology.
In Zellini's interpretation Brouwer's perspective is
cast in a sort or apocalyptic dress that makes it natural to accept the basic
impossibility of changing or improving the world. It opens only the ascetic
option of silencing desires and sensations that imprison man in the logic of an
alienated world. Zellini remarks vividly how these thoughts of Brouwer
embarrassed his entourage who tried to silence them, starting from the
publication of his dissertation and up to the posthumous publication of his
collected works. This reminds me of society's attitude to analogous
peculiarities such as Isaac
Newton's or Carl Jung's
misunderstood interests for alchemy and, in general, for what is nowadays seen
as occult studies. In
my own experience I met the same attitude in my function as faculty opponent
according to the canons of a Swedish
doctoral dissertation. The event, concerning the relations between computer
science and gnosticism has been well documented and available for the
readers' understanding the dynamics of such attitudes.
Brouwer's quotations from intellectual signposts such
as Meister Eckhart, Jacob Böhme and Bhagavad Gita were considered embarrassing,
despite of their portrayal of what Zellini denotes as the climate of
philosophical introspection that mathematics was going through at the
transition between the 19th and 20th centuries. It was a matter of contrasting
a specifically mathematical thought and the nature of the intellect and human
will, as it was being done for decades in Europe because of uncertainties and
obscurities raised by research on the logical foundations of number and
mathematical infinity. Brouwer's theses of Life,
Art and Mysticism were kept unchanged in his more mature and
creative thought during the following decades. They influenced Brouwer's choice
of theoretical presuppositions and helped to clarify the concept of algorithm that supports all
informatics and scientific calculus since the design of the first big digital
computers around the fifties. Zellini sees as equally important his so called Fixed
Point Theorem that today is a necessary presupposition of all
computational and applied sciences.
Significantly, Zellini concludes a subchapter of his
essay in the Italian book translating Life,
Art and Mysticism musing over that Brouwer would not have welcomed the forthcoming
applications of his achievements that paradoxically both implemented and at the
same time betrayed his deepest intentions. In Zellini's words: "But this
surely was not the only occasion in which the unforeseeable course of history
ended in overthrowing the meaning and purpose of a project." My own
reflection upon that is that this overthrowing or at least the illusion and
delusion are a hint about the defective psychology if not also theology and
consequently politics underlying Brouwer's thought. A symptom may also be the
paradox implied by his obvious use of his own intellect outside mysticism in
order to discuss and counter an undefined or
misunderstood intellect in the practice of mathematics.
Zellini continues, however, showing how Brouwer can be
understood as working out his own intellect in order to free it from those
dimensions that chain it to the external world that is governed by the causal
links of necessity and evil. In this Zellini performs a tour de force by
adducing Plato (e.g. Phaedo, 83 a6-b1), Jakob Böhme, Meister Eckhart, Simone
Weil, H. de Balzac, Bhagavad Gita, Orphic tradition (on the relation between
Time and Necessity), Émile Boutroux, Luther's thought, Augustin of Hippo, and
coupling to Hebrew mysticism as well as to Hegel's philosophy. In this respect
Zellini treats Brouwer's process of developing mathematics in a analogous way
to how Carl Jung treated the development of psychology, i.e. taking into
account the historical records of West, without explaining away philosophy, apparent
"occultism", and religion as background of the obscure modern,
supposedly scientific "intellect". That is: it is a question of
taking in account the concerns and efforts of past generations as much as
today's environmental thought about e.g. pollution and climate change in
supporting claims to take into account the lives of future generations.
Zellini recalls that it is the effort of interiorizing
basic human thought that motivates Brouwer to ground mathematics upon the
intuition of time,
suggested by Immanuel Kant in his Critique
of Pure Reason (p.91, B: 153-156) to be the main condition for the
intuition of ourselves, of our internal state. I suggest that those who want to
muse upon Kantian bases of Brouwer's mathematical thought direct themselves to
the mentioned Critique in the section on
the Method of Transcendentalism, chap. 1, section 1 on The discipline of pure reason in its
dogmatical use (p. 465ff., esp. 471, A:721-725; B:749-753). It is
the intuition of time that when leaves the interiorizing effort and relates to
the intuition of space in the observation of objects in the real world raises
sets of sensations related by an intuition of (chains of) causality. The
extension of the causal nexus into various sets of sensations supplies a
mathematical theoretical repertory of sequences of data that only need the opportunity of being projected into the
real world. It is this projection that justifies the apparent
success of applied mathematics, which, however, programmatically ignores (until
further notice of new problems) whatever is extraneous to the chains that
happen to have been observed and considered. This requires (my note) the
so-called control of the so called "environment" if it is going to
"work", and where such environment includes forced human behavior
including its operation of machines and computers where uncontrolled or
uncontrollable aspects (of behavior) are called "errors". They are
then said to be due to the "human factor" as seen and defined by the
implicit occasional observer who happens to have the interpretative prerogative.
All this includes also the phenomenon of elders having to buy and with the help
of children to learn to use "survival kits" in the form of mobile
phones in order to manage details in their daily lives.
Following the post-Kantian developments with new
non-Euclidean geometries (Bolyai, Gauss, Lobachevsky), Zellini remarks that the
human intellect is organized for the elaboration of various geometries,
independently from our daily empirical reality. Brouwer removed from the
empirical space all connotations of mathematical necessity. Mathematics exists
independently from any external experience and the latter is completely
independent of mathematics. Consequently mathematics as well as geometry with
its Cartesian reduction to arithmetic is independent of externally perceived
Euclidean reality. Mathematics is best developed on the basis of a
space-independent inner
reality and on a willful action deployed in time, displaying succession as the form of
the principle of reason in time. Numeration and calculus would be brought back
to successions (cf. algorithms, below) that could be maintained free from
externally raised necessity or fear, free from ambition and desire and from the
ballast of real object. Compare the symptomatic paradoxical attraction exerted in
computer addiction and
especially by computer gaming [my note]. In all this sort of play
and its mysterious oscillation between internal and external, Zellini
emphasizes Brouwer's attribution of it to the role of the whimsical free will,
and its mysterious oscillation between the knowing and acting Ego, internal and
external, self-conscious or seduced by power. In the context of will, Brouwer's
conceptions seem to be influenced by the philosophy of Schopenhauer and I find
it interesting for my purposes here to note that Carl Jung's psychology in its
unraveling of the concept of will gives due consideration to Schopenhauer: in
Jung's collected works' General Index (CW20) there are more than 80 entries for
references to his work.
For illustrating the question between externa reality
and mathematics it is appropriate to intercalate in this review of Zellini’s
book a quotation from his La dittatura
del calcolo, (2018) [The dictatorship of calculus], pages 87-89. Milan:
Adelphi. (My trans. based on DeepL):
With algorithms we also witness
that systematic reversal of means into ends in which Simone Weil and the famous
mathematician […] Jan Brouwer had seen, from different perspectives, the truest
cause of our existential malaise. The algorithm is also a source of power, like
gold, weapons or machines. Not so much a neutral instrument subject to our will
as an autonomous bearer of a credibility that borders, at times, on divine-like
veracity. As the summum bonum of
capitalist ethics of which Max Weber spoke - "the gain of money and more
and more money, stripped of all eudemonistic or merely hedonistic ends and
thought of in such purity as an end in itself" - so too, the bearer of a
similar purity of purpose, is the algorithm, magnified by a scientific
importance that extends from theoretical foundations to the most unpredictable
material applications, from the simplest digital operations to the boundless
dimensions of large-scale computation.
The aura of prestige of the
algorithm rests on the objective reality of its applications as well as on the
myth fueled by the abstract and universal power of mathematics, in which
Dedekind had placed the most subtle and ambitious abilities of our thinking.
One could repeat here words already used by George Mosse in his analyses of the
dictatorships of the 20th century: "Myth and reality operate
together," and between myth and the real world there is a "dialectic
more materialistic than the Hegelian dialectic," albeit irreducible to the
confrontation between forces or social classes, destined to strengthen both.
The myth might now be summed up in
the formula aeì o ánthropos arithmetízei,
which extends from the world to the human being the famous sentence that has
spanned centuries of philosophy in the West, and which Dedekind did not fail to
add in support of the thesis that the mathematician is akin to a demiurge. That
formula can now be transferred by weight to the computer, of which as well it
can be said, not incorrectly, that it operates with numbers. And it is then the
sharing of an arithmetic thought, inherent in the computer as in the human
being, that prompts us to delegate to the machine not only our calculi, but
also the innermost reasons for which they were devised.
The basis of the algorithm is
mathematical and purely physical in nature, because it cannot disregard the
calculator and an effective computational process. However, computational
efficiency is measured, predominantly, in mathematical terms. Algorithms for
recognizing humans or vehicles, as for countless other images, are based on
machine learning processes: a neural network is trained to recognize certain
figures, giving answers that are compared each time with the exact ones. It
refines the network by degrees-this is what learning consists of-thereby
progressively reducing the error, that is, the gap between its wrong answer and
the exact one. [...]
Yes, please note “the reversal of means into ends”,
“theoretical foundations…to the most unpredictable material applications”,
“objective reality …myth fueled by the abstract and universal power of
mathematics”, “myth a reality”, “thesis that mathematician is akin to a
demiurge”, “delegate the machine…the innermost reasons for which they were
devised”, “effective computational processes”, “answers…compared with the exact
ones”.
But what and why is that “myth” beyond Carl
Jung’s conception in analytical
psychology? What is “objective reality” related to myth (as problematized
in quantum physics)? What is
(computational) “efficiency” compared with the “effectiveness” (of the computational process)? What and whose is the “exactness” of the
answers (compared with precision and accuracy, as in my doctoral dissertation?
Leavin now aside this intercalation, Zellini in the
earlier reviewed book repeatedly emphasizes Brouwer's distinction between
internal and external by means of the original intuition of
"bi-uniqueness". It consists in retaining a first sensation together
with a successive one in order to set up a first distinction between present
and past. Zellini also reminds that the repetition of this mechanism stands at
the basis of the concept of iteration and,
consequently of algorithm, adducing a relevant reference to a classical paper
by A.N. Komolgorov and V.A. Uspensky On
the definition of an algorithm (American Mathematical Society
Transactions, 2nd series, XXIX, 1963.) For our purposes here, and for an
understanding of internal-external with respect to the interiority of
uncorrupted thought, it is also important to recall that the iterative
application of an algorithmic operator presupposes the operator as well as the
applicator, i.e. a stability or permanence that is a sort of "selfhood".
Or, as Zellini expresses it, there is an affinity between Brouwer and idealistic
philosophy. It was evidenced through the mediation of Hermann Weyl (cf.,
inter alia, his Philosophy of
Mathematics and Natural Science) and expressed by Novalis inasmuch
"Selfhood [Selbstheit] is the fundament of all knowledge since it is the
fundament of permanence in what is changing."
According to Zellini, Brouwer seems to have equated
selfhood with the constructional activity of the mathematical (mathematician's)
mind while proving the "existence" of mathematical entities, and
thereby invalidating the logical principle of the excluded
middle. In general Brouwer was proving that the logical
principles in current use cannot be the fundament of truth or of the discovery
of truth. We cannot apply logic in a world that is too complex to be dominated
by logical laws. In this way Brouwer's criticism of the intellect became a
circumstantial criticism of logic. In that context Zellini also shows a
criticism of the mathematical continuum (such as in set theory or
in topology)
that becomes more "digital" and ultimately betrays Brouwer's own
intentions. Ultimately it leads, under the pressure of the military and industrial
establishment, to the abandon the personal constructional element and allowing
itself to be automatized. I wish to complete one of Ludwig Wittgenstein's
sentences inspired by Brouwer and quoted by Zellini: "Mathematical logic
has completely perverted mathematicians' thought, letting go for structure of
facts what in reality is a superficial interpretation of the forms of our
everyday language." I wish to add that it is this fake "analysis of
the structure of facts" that we nowadays gradually embody into the
software of computers in our computerized society.
In following his own thought further, Zellini (p. 176)
adduces Weyl's interest for the subjectivism of G. Fichte's philosophy that
problematizes what is external vs. internal to the observer, recalling in me as
reader what in Jung becomes the relation
between the Ego
and the Self. Fichte in his
The Vocation of Man exposes the principle that exteriority is only
the mode in which things get articulated in our conscience.
All these considerations and Zellini's further
discussion of the concepts of mathematical continuum and infinity indicate their
import in set theory and the attempts to order reality by means of enumeration.
I see this as a reminder of the concept of mathematical systems and, further,
the elaboration of difference between them and the concept of system itself as
exposed by Churchman in his book The
Design of Inquiring Systems. It includes a discussion between what
is internal and external. This is done in
terms of a problematization of the concept of input (p. 107) and, ultimately, by means of
references to Carl Jung (p. 244f., 261-263, 272, 277) and his conceptualization
of the psyche and the Ego vs. the Self. Some clarification of the references to
Jung can be found in Churchman's later work on The Systems Approach and its Enemies (p.
130ff.).
My conclusions from Zellini's valuable commentary of
Brouwer's work is that it indirectly uncovers details of the reasons for its
paradoxical failure with regard to his deep personal commitment - and this
despite its important intuitions about the apparent success of mathematics in
science in general, and computer science in particular. This failure reveals
that the flight from a misleading causality cannot be resolved by a flight into
misunderstood internality. According to developments in psychology conceived
after Brouwer's formative years, the so called internality can also suffer from
irruptions of "external" forces that pervert the quest
for the Self.
If we are to complain for the complexity of the issue,
it must be understood that it is
complex and the fault is ours, in our wishful thinking that it must
and can be philosophically simplified mirroring the military-industrial, social-engineering, techno-science, and
technostructure
frames of mind that often unconsciously dominate our secularized big science
culture. To give a taste of what this all is about I will finally take the
following excerpt from one comment in Amazon's
presentation of Zellini's translated book A
Brief History of Infinity, an infinity that today is perceived as
such in the computerized world-wide-web but is supposed to be solved by means
of an unknown algorithmic power.
"Paolo Zellini's sources are wide ranging, almost intimidatingly so. We readers encounter the philosophical thoughts of the Platonists, Aristotle, the Pythagoreans, Anaximander, the Chaldeans, Duns Scotus, St. Thomas Aquinas, Giordano Bruno, Nicholas of Cusa, Raymond Lull, Descartes, Leibniz, Goethe, Kant, Hegel, Russell, Simone Weil, Quine, Popper, Wittgenstein, and many others. Similarly, on the literary front we meet Cervantes, Kafka, Borges, Musil, and others. Mathematicians are prominent also. Zellini discusses the provocative ideas of Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, Dedekind, Poincare, Cauchy, Weierstrass, Bolzano, Frege, Du Bois-Raymond, Cantor, Russell, Whitehead, Gödel, Von Neumann, Zermelo, Skolem, Brouwer, and many others."
To appreciate Zellini’s valuable intellectual
ambitions I recommend to perceive the difference between his and other's range
of interests and corresponding possible insights, in the alternative approach
represented by Rudy Rucker in (on the net) Infinity
and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite
(1982-2005), and published by Princeton
Science Library (2004).
Several years after writing the above in the first
version of this present paper of mine I happened to read the Italian original
(published 2016, whose pages I refer to) of Zellini’s later book The Mathematics of the Gods and the Algorithms of Men:
A Cultural History (2020).
It convinced me that Zellini did not understand the most important in the whole
Brouwer, and in particular his earlier quoted:
They
either talk at cross-purposes or each builds his own little logical system
which lacks any connection with reality. For logic is life in the human brain;
it may accompany life outside the brain but it can never guide it by virtue of
its own power. Indeed, if there is a harmony of will, logic may well fall by
the wayside ...
I think that this happens because Zellini, relating logic and mathematics,
reaches back more than 2000 years in selected parts of philosophy but never
enters into the conquests of psychology or what “brain” stands for, psyche,
intellect, reason, will, perception, feelings, love and whatever. In fact, he
mentions the most important philosophical and theological term of logos
(pp. 26, 46, 58, 78, 81, 83), but not a single time the often
associated term of eros as in Neoplatonism and Analytical
psychology. And despite many references to “gods” never with
reference to meaning of the meaning of logos
in Christianity as I remark in my
essay on theology. Despite Zellini’s reference to the “laws of thought”
(p.156), and to Purusha (p.44) that are extensively discussed in analytical
psychology, Zellini sees mathematics as only related to physical reality (never
entering, however, into the morass of quantum physics),
but having a reality of its own that extends to its use even in social science
represented, however, by (unmentioned: mathematized) economics well
beyond econometrics (p.
169). This limitation is never reflected upon, not even when touched upon as in
the reference to Henri
Bergson (p.137). I see the case of Zellini as an example of
the tragic limitations and failure of a brilliant mathematical mind in the
passionate search for ultimate truth, and at the same time as an example of the
failure of democracy in its impotence in evaluating the import of modern
mathematized science and technology in human affairs, such as in the “game theory” of
the cold war or
in the mathematics of computer simulations of climate warming.
This section is based on Miriam Franchella's article
"On
Brouwer and Nietzsche: Views about Life, Views about Logic".
History and Philosophy of
Logic, 36:4, 367-391 (2015). The article consists of a comparison
between Brouwer and Nietzsche regarding in their views in five respects:
attitudes to life, science, mathematics, and logic. It relies heavily on
original works including several other studies of Brouwer and Nietzsche. I will
not dwell more deeply into the matter except for stating my conviction that the
whole complex issue is related to the historical division of
logic between formal and material logic.
Nietzsche is seen by Franchella as well aware, as
Brouwer is, of the suffering in human life. Nevertheless he declaimed a joyful
positive conception of it "with an aim of enhancing and defending the
disruptive nature of life in its originality and creativity, from those who
wanted to downgrade it to mere survival, scheme, rule." He would observe
mathematics and science including physics within this life-promoting and
survival framework. Because of this, and differently from Brouwer, Nietzsche
sees it important to dominate the world. For him it is important that the
"intellect" sets a "subject" before "objects"
that are generated or named by its metaphors, connecting them to one another
with causal links. Metaphors mediate between physiological perception and
imagination, from image
to sound to word. Language maintains a useful yet fictitious
"reality" in daily life, (that for Brouwer consisted in maintaining
two or more wills cooperating in a single direction.) What we perceive is only
some part of the continuous flowing of reality. "Causality is appearance.
Our belief in causality is due to our faith in strength that we experience when
we do something, yet force moves nothing; the force we feel does not 'put our
muscles in action'. Causality is only created by thought, which introduces
constraint in the process of succession."
So, Nietzsche is seen as criticizing the alleged truth
of science in a way that has similarities but also differences with respect to
Brouwer.: the scientific world is made up of "fictitious entities
interrelated in a fictional way for the sake of survival", while truth (the
thing-in-itself) would be the absolute, the non-perspective, the non-anthropocentric.
For Nietzsche the content of science is an epistemological lie regulated by
society, and such knowledge or lie, like mathematics and logic, is finalized,
the result of perspectives. In its claim to truth science is a faith, and as such,
it can be likened to religion. From Franchella's relate it seems obvious that
Nietzsche abhors religion mediated by priests. I see that he rather adopts
science itself as his "religion" where survival (until further notice?) is his sort of
god. I am tempted to regard postmodern or smartly denominated "non
modern" (with the purpose to escape critics of postmodernism) scientific
intellectualism as being influenced by these Nietzschean thoughts, as
represented, for instance in France, by studies in the tradition around Bruno Latour,
about the social construction of science. It would explain the puzzling
de-emphasis on the question of truth in science and on normativity, on why and
how to do or not to do science, in favour of a dazzling brilliance in
aestheticizing descriptivity, celebrating creativity and survival in the form
of career success. It is here we find the basic difference between Nietzsche
and Brouwer.
Nietzsche is seen as not devoting much attention to
mathematics. What is interesting is that for him it was based on the concept of
the "Ego" which is configured as a unity, and on the existence of
identical objects. This is so because Nietzsche as quoted from this Posthumous Fragments notes
that we have borrowed the concept of unity from our "I" concept, our
oldest article of faith which, as seen earlier in this text, has been
definitively questioned by later analytical psychology. And in his Human, All too Human:
"The invention of the laws of numbers is made on the basis of the original
error that there are several similar things (but there is in fact nothing
equal), at least that there are things (but there is no 'thing'). The
presumption of multiplicity always presupposes that there is something which
manifests itself in many instances, but the error here is already being felt,
already there are beings or units which do not exist." Nietzsche is quote
again stating the our feelings of space and time are false for they lead to
logical contradictions, despite of the results getting perfect certainty in
their relationships: "One can build on them - until the last end, when
erroneous basic assumptions get in contradiction with the results, e.g. in the
theory of atoms." [My translations from the German quotations.]
Not having read Nietzsche's whole original text and
not fully understanding the reasoning behind all this, I happen to think about
quantum physics. Several physicists colleagues of mine have confessed that it
"works" but that they do not understand it and believe that nobody
really understands, whatever understanding really means. A popular review that
is appropriate for the general reader of this paper of mine is found in "Relativity
and quantum mechanics: the battle for the universe" in The Guardian, 4 November
2015. An overview is also to be found in sections of Wikipedia's entry on
"Physical
paradox" where there are references about piecemeal
ad-hoc mathematical manipulations "conveniently sidestepping the
philosophical issue of what actually occurs". So, truth has been relegated
to philosophers or, rather, to conflicts between philosophical schools in the
name of the idea that "it works", possibly meaning that e.g. nuclear
bombs really explode, i.e. far from the scientific, pragmatist meaning of
"implementation"
that depends upon mutual understanding.
Franchella goes on noting that Nietzsche extends the
earlier mentioned insights to geometry that "is also based on an untruthful
leveling of sensory experiences: we introduce them into reality to make it
static, predictable and controllable so that it becomes reassuring" or, in
Nietzsche's own words (still in Human,
All Too Human): "The same is true of mathematics, which would
certainly not have arisen if one had known from the beginning that there is no
exact straight line, no real circle, no absolute quantity measure in
nature."
So the difference from Brouwer can be inferred by what
was shown above about his reliance on Kant's view of foundations of
mathematics, but like Brouwer Nietzsche is seen concerned about the morality of
mathematics as part of human knowledge. Nevertheless it is not judged so
negatively since, like science and logic, it requires honesty and discipline in
introspection in its practice, and is a useful
lie which is regulated by (a trusted!? - cf. Marxism) society,
becoming acceptable to be transmitted as truth. What I do not see discussed is
the problem of the endorsement of utilitarianism that
is implicit in the appeal to usefulness.
Regarding logic Nietzsche notes that since its
Aristotelian conception it assumes the identity of (self-identical) objects,
that things dealt in logical sentences are or remain equal in the course of
reasoning and application of its conclusions or, as I understand it, that they
are stable even if we perceive that they are in continuous change. This means
that the will to logical truth can only be carried out after a fundamental
falsification of all happenings. Nietzsche sees that from this follows that
there is an "instinct" which is capable of both means, first the
forgery and then the implementation of a point of view: logic does not come
from the will to truth.
I see the mention of "instinct" as an
implicit reference to concepts that would later be developed in analytical
psychology, justifying that references to Nietzsche occupy more than a whole
page in the Index volume (CW20) of Jung's collected works. This is emphasized
further in Franchella's quoted German text: "The course of logical
thoughts and conclusions in our present brain corresponds to a process and
struggle of instincts, which in themselves are all very illogical and unjust:
we usually only experience the result of the struggle, so quickly and so
hiddenly is this ancient mechanism now playing within us." My translation
of Nietzsche's quoted German text goes on considering the origin of the
logical, suggesting that it had a survival value in the course of evolution, in
the sense (as I understand it) that for survival it is better to shoot first
and think later, i.e. to assume likeness and oversee details, or practice trial
and error rather than to hesitate in doubts and subtleties. Franchella quotes
and expands on a sentence in German: logic soothes and gives confidence.
"It does not emerge from objective data in our possession but it is a
pattern that we sneak into the continuous flow of perceptions in order to
control it. It is, like science and mathematics, a useful simplification to
avoid drowning in uncertainty or anxiety but it is not 'true' in the profound
sense of the term." In the course of academic debates about which I did
write a particular debate-essay, I
have sensed this all in terms of an unwillingness of people with logical minds
to question definitions of
fundamental terms they happen to use, which often amounts to an unwillingness
to question the basic assumptions of their logical trains of thought.
---
Perhaps this is the place for making a pause in order
to see how presuppositions of logic, like "instincts" or
"struggle of instincts", also appear in the now academically popular
field of phenomenology such as in the discussion of the "Origins of
Geometry" found in Edmund Husserl's famous The
Crisis of European Sciences (1970). Let us disregard for the
moment that geometry after Descartes belongs to mathematics rather than logic.
Husserl writes (p. 377) about intersubjective meaning and "the same merely
factual presuppositions of understanding":
It is a general conviction that geometry, with all its truths, is valid with unconditioned generality for all men, all times, all peoples [...] The presuppositions of principle for this conviction have never been explored because they have never been seriously made a problem. But is has also become clear to us that every establishment of a historical fact which lays claim to unconditioned objectivity likewise presupposes this invariant or absolute a priori. Only [through the disclosure of this a priori] [interpolation by phenomenologist Walter Biemel] can there be an a priori science extending beyond all historical facticities, all historical surrounding worlds, peoples, times, civilizations; only in this way can a science as aeterna veritas appear. Only on this fundament is based the secured capacity of inquiring back from the temporarily depleted self-evidence of a science to the primal self-evidences. - Do we not stands here before the great and profound problem-horizon of reason [...] a root in the essential structure of what is generally human, through which a teleological reason running throughout all historicity announces itself [...] grounded upon the foundations of the universal historical a priori [...] leads further to the indicated highest question of a universal teleology of reason. [My emphasis.]
For purposes of honesty I must account for the fact
that after the appendix on origins of geometry it is Eugen Fink
writes in Husserl's book a critical appendix on the Problem of the "Unconscious" that,
however, I do not know whether Husserl himself would have approved despite his
original mathematical mind. Fink himself considers initially an objection to
his text that follows, that is tries to interpret the "un-conscious"
according to the methodical means for understanding consciousness. But he
inverts the objection observing the ever growing tendency of "depth-psychology"
(a term used for gathering the theories and therapies associated with the names
of among others Sigmund Freud, William James and Carl Jung) to conceive of
consciousness as a mere stratum of the concrete man and to oppose to it other
dimensions of life not traceable to consciousness.
Fink does not comment the philosophy
of the unconscious but states that the above study of the unconscious is
philosophical naïveté
consisting of an omission, because
one thinks that one is already acquainted with what the "conscious"
or consciousness is and dismisses the task of first making into a prior subject
matter what consciousness is. This would show our illusion that consciousness
is something immediately given, while the "intentional analysis"
of phenomenology destroys this illusion and leads one into a science of a new
sort "where one gradually learns to see and grasp for the first time what
consciousness is". As an account of intentional analysis puts it:
"The researcher mentally examines the object or state-of-affairs by taking
different imagined perspectives and making modifications, like adding or
subtracting or changing different features, to determine what is essential to
the meaning and what is not." For a "naïve" layman this sounds
like a mixture of ideas in introspection and meditation or,
for me, this looks as a paradoxical naïve attempt at an individualization of
the "Hegelian
inquiring systems" as expounded and finally published in the
earlier mentioned The Design
of Inquiring Systems. The main difference from Nietzsche's talk
about struggle of instincts is that the phenomenological approach is a search
for the universal historical a priori and a universal teleology of reason by
means of a so-called intentional analysis through the imagining of perspectives
and such. Further comments on phenomenology impersonated by Husserl's main
heir, Martin Heidegger, are to be found in an earlier essay of mine on Ethics
in Technology.
---
Returning to Franchella, another quotation from
Nietzsche's German text (translated by me) that illustrates his conception of
the essence of logic, which in turn has had such a large influence on modern
western thought, including views on religion:
"As far as the logicians are concerned, I will never tire of underlining a little brief fact which is disinclined to be accepted by these superstitious people, namely, that a thought comes when it will, and not when 'I' want. So that it is a falsification of the fact that the subject 'I' is the condition of the predicate 'think'. It thinks: that that this 'it' is precisely that old celebrated 'I' is, mildly speaking, only an assumption, a claim, above all no 'immediate certainty'".
I see this sentence as a clue to Nietzsche's cultural
contribution to the deconstruction of the Ego and its reconstruction" into
the concept of psyche or mind that is illustrated further along Franchella's
quotations. The purpose was to put the concept of Ego in its proper context, as
it is the purpose of so-called depth psychology and, in particular, in
analytical psychology. Unfortunately Nietzsche's approach and limitations,
including his treatment of religion as it appears in Franchella's chosen
quotations of Nietzsche, opened the way for its derailment in the direction of
postmodernism and nihilism.
Franchella goes further in considering inadequate
Nietzsche's criticism of logic as presupposing the existence both of objects
and subject as in ordinary language, since "from Frege
[considered 'father' of analytic philosophy] onwards, the way in which logic
expresses the sentences of ordinary language is in terms of function-argument,
borrowed from mathematics and certainly neutral from an ontological point of
view." I think that here Franchella, despite of her familiarity with
Brouwer's work, misses his main point in that mathematics also distorts reality
in its application to the same. Nietzsche himself thought of solving in Greek
terms the problem of the shortcomings of "rational
Socratic-Apollonian-Sophoclean" logic-mathematics as tools of survival, by
balancing them with the help of the pre-Socratic and pre-Euripides Dionysian
kind of creative art-aesthetics (that today is represented by the trend towards
"design"): "Perhaps there is a kingdom of wisdom from which the
logician is exiled? Perhaps art is even a necessary correlative and supplement
to science?"
Here is not the place to expand on explanations of
these references to Nietzsche's thought that can be overviewed in e.g. Wikipedia or
in the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy including its entry on Nietzsche's
Life and Works. As already stated, my choice is to refer to
analytical psychology and its process of individuation,
which has incorporated such thoughts and those of the aforementioned Schopenhauer's
who also had influenced Brouwer.
Franchella concludes the essay with a very informative
final overview and comparison between Nietzsche and Brouwer who partly agree
about science, including applied mathematics and logic, seeing it as a biased
human product with problematic "sinful" morality. This is so because
for both of them it consists in projecting a "useful" pattern of
causality onto the world or in fostering survival and human control of other
humans and environment. Nietzsche, however does not consider it sinful as
Brouwer does because of its luring us into the sinful world. And yet can be
said that also Nietzsche sees it as "sinful" in its one-sidedness, in
its wanting, for purposes of survival, to "keep everything under control"
at the cost of suffocating creativity as the booming of the vital, the
individual, the unique, the special. Brouwer solves the sinfulness by means of
abstention or retreat from the world and from any "useful"
application of mathematics. He sees doing mathematics as a sort of
"introverted" intuitive and in this sense artistic activity.
Nietzsche solves his own brand of sinfulness by advocating an
"extroverted" balancing of scientific with artistic activity, which
recalls a vague resemblance to the idea of "bicameralism",
which I prefer to see as a balancing of psychological functions in the process
of individuation.
SYMPTOMS: SYNTAX, SEMANTICS, PRAGMATICS
In
texts about language it is typically stated that the study of language
is often divided into syntax, semantics and pragmatics. A similar division except
for pragmatics appears in computer science where the construction and
application of computer programs are investigated. The distinction between
syntax (sentence form) and semantics (word and sentence meaning) is said to be
fundamental to the study of language. Syntax is seen as the collection of rules
that govern how words are assembled into meaningful sentences.
Despite
of the frequent "dogmatic" use of these terms it is seldom mentioned
what is the source of this classification and the symptomatically confusing
interrelations it implies are exposed in the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy under the ambitious label of "The Structure of Scientific Theories". An understanding of
the source is found in the study of semiotics and its history, relating
the whole matter to Charles Sanders Peirce as exponent of a branch of the
philosophical pragmatism that through William James and Edgar Singer Jr. influenced the formative
years of the previously mentioned system theorist West Churchman. It is
interesting to note how syntax, syntax, semantics and pragmatics are more
systematically defined by the "father" of semiotics, Charles Morris (1901-1979)
as rendered in Wikipedia:
(1) Syntactics/Syntax: relations among or between signs in
formal structures.
(2)
Semantics: relation between signs and the things to which they refer; their
signified denotata, or meaning.
(3) Pragmatics: relation between signs and sign-using agents or interpreters.
What
I wish to show here is how the vain search for truth in these contexts
evidences what Brouwer objects to regarding the merging of mathematics with
logic in syntax, which is the most common concept
mentioned in computer science, and consequently the shortcomings of the
"secondary" problematic talk about semantics that is the subject
treated below, while pragmatics is left completely vague. Consequently the
whole division and construction of the
tripartite syntax-semantics-pragmatics can be suspected for anonymously doing
away with or relativize the concept of truth under the label of
"semantic theory of truth".
The
Polish-American logician and mathematician Alfred Tarski who dedicated to
mathematical logic felt the necessity to try to clarify the concept of truth
that evades the typical syntax studies of the computer field. For this purpose
he wrote a noteworthy and symptomatic paper that in the English translation has
the title The Semantic Conception of Truth: and
the Foundations of Semantics(in Philosophy
and Phenomenological Research, Vol.4, No. 3, March 1944, pp.
341-376, review in the J. of Symbolic Logic, vol.9, nr. 3, 1944). Tarski
initially defines semantics as a discipline which, "speaking loosely, deals with certain relations between
expressions of a language and the objects (or 'states of affairs') 'referred to' by those
expressions". Without defining language except for presupposing only
formal languages, he then goes on in the following 30 pages circumambulating
around the concept of truth in examples of series of logical sentences. This
includes the use of "recursive procedure" in the definition of
"satisfaction" for the definition of truth, but without some sort (of
Brouwerian?) reflection upon the concept of recursiveness. Before this the
author states that "the problem of definition of truth obtains a precise
meaning and can be solved in a rigorous way only for those languages whose
structure has been exactly specified. For other languages - thus, for all
"natural, "spoken" languages - the meaning of the problem is
more or less vague, and its solution can have only an approximate
character." The conceptual bewilderment of this formal approach to
semantics can be easily overviewed in what is usually considered as semantics in computer science, where pragmatics appears
under the name of "implementation" of the function of the programs -
i.e. that they "work". This prevents from seeing that not only
programming languages
but also particular software products or programs should be considered as
(axiomatic) theories about what (activity) is
being computerized.
We
recognize in all this Brouwer's reservations against the "truth" or
validity of logic applied to this world, which should include computers and
computerization. It is therefore symptomatic that it is difficult to see a
conclusion in Tarski's essay, except for exercises of logical interchanges
between syntax and formal semantics. There are only some final remarks: he
declares having doubts in connection with the evaluation of scientific
achievements in terms of their applicability. He believes "that it is
inimical to the progress of science to measure the importance of any research
exclusively or chiefly in terms of its usefulness and applicability."
Furthermore: "It seems to me that there is a special domain of very
profound and strong human needs related to scientific research, which are
similar in many ways to aesthetic and perhaps religious needs. And it seems to
me that the satisfaction of these needs should be considered an important task
of research." Paradoxically, the author's final words after these final
remarks are a statement that (nevertheless) nothing of this is relevant to the
content of the article itself, showing that the honorific link between science,
aesthetics and religion is just only honorific or, rather, only nominally
ennobling the type of science he represents.
These
early developments that we find in Tarski show up in plenitude how seldom we
come to more elaborate discussions of the ontology
of logic. The problem already appears in what was mentioned above
in the beginning to this essay when we mentioned contributions by Y. Bar-Hillel who was an acknowledged inspiration for defining the concept of data and
information in the original school of Swedish Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems by the grand old man of
computer information systems, prof. Börje Langefors. This affected the latter's conception of what data, information and
systems are or how they should be defined, showing up in the basic phenomena of
how the use of computers is perceived as obliterating the concepts of time and space in terms of simultaneity and ubiquity. In fact, despite of mathematics
and logic being able to manipulate, as in physics, these concepts of time and
space - they are absent in their theory. In this respects they recall the
psychic phenomenon of dreams, and suggest a reason for the
suspension of consciousness as well for the phenomenon of dependency upon
computer gaming as related to virtual
reality and augmented
reality.
In fact, the analytic psychology of Carl Jung was considering such related
phenomena in an essay named "The dreamlike world of India" (Abstracts of the Collected Works of C.G.
Jung, ed. C.L. Rothgeb et. al.,
orig. in CW10, Civilization in
Transition). From the professional point of view of computer and
information science, however, these matters are reflected in the
Tarski/Bar-Hillel/Langefors attempts to work with concepts of information other
than those in mathematics and logic. This was attempted through the
introduction of syntax-semantics (and rather neglected pragmatics), and the
consequent introduction of so-to-say "molecules" of information
(informational elementary "messages") composed of "atomic"
units or terms of an elementary message of information were the object or
entity (identifier) and therefore space, the characteristicum (property part
composed of variable type and variable value), and the time of measurement (or
time during which the object is affirmed or predicted to hold the characteristic).
In the spirit of the Churchman-Singer teleological theory of measurement (cf. The Design of Inquiring Systems) I
supplemented or complemented them (in my doctoral thesis om Quality-Control of information) with the error term. (Details in my
papers "A subsystem in the design of informatics", and "The systems approach to design", the latter in Information Systems Frontiers,
Vol. 3, No. 1, 2001).
Leaving
this aside but subsumed, a review of the ontology of logic will now be
considered in particular in the form of a review of Nietzsche's approach that
we already considered above in Franchella. This is the case of an article by
Steven D. Hales with the title "Nietzsche
on Logic",
in Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Dec. 1996), pp. 819-835.
Hales
starts with a valuable summary of Nietzsche's criticism of logic that is
similar to the summary at the end of Franchella's text surveyed above. His
particular contribution is that he purports to show the paucity of secondary literature
criticizing Nietzsche's criticism and to show that Nietzsche's original
criticism does not detract from the value and necessity of logic. He does so
starting from an unstated position that seems to be well represented by Tarski,
above. This means that in contrast to Franchella he does not consider Brouwer
and his relation between logic and mathematics.
Hales
notes that Nietzsche's own knowledge of logic "seems a bit quirky"
since he was certainly aware of only traditional Aristotelian logic and had
read Kant and Hegel and their followers, criticizing them as
"philosophical laborers" for showing (in "Beyond Good and Evil)
the data of the past into rigid logical formulas. For me this is particularly
revealing since it was also my strong impression in reading Kant, especially
his Critique of Pure Reason.
But
then Hales reveals indirectly his standpoint by noting that Nietzsche (who
lived in the second part of the nineteenth century) seems wholly ignorant of
the "stars of the nineteenth-century logic". All of them were at the
time his not yet famous contemporaries, but are today considered as fathers of
modern logic, Augustus de Morgan, George Boole, Gottlob Frege. Hales mentions
also John Venn and C.S. Peirce without noting, however, that Peirce's most
famous contribution as pragmatics (cf. above) and pragmatism is symptomatically
totally absent in what he calls modern logic.
Hales
notes that Nietzsche in Human,
All Too Human declares that logic rests on assumptions that do not
correspond to anything in the real world, and in The Twilight of the Idols finds
"...science of formulae, sign-systems: such as logic and applied logic,
mathematics. In these reality does not appear at all, not even as a problem;
just as little as does the question what value a system of conventional signs
such as constitutes logic can possibly possess." And in The Will to Power:
"Logic (like geometry and arithmetic) applies only to fictitious entities
that we have created. Logic is the attempt to comprehend the actual world by
means of a scheme of being posited by ourselves; more correctly, to make it
formulable and calculable for us." And "The world seems logical to us
because we have made it logical". Or, further, "Logic is merely
slavery within the fetters of language." This latter remark recalls
Brouwer's observation that logic is deduced from the structure of ordinary
language, as the previous ones recall his noting the mathematical reality of
the world is a projection of our own causal perceptions.
With
a sense of relief Hales observes that despite Nietzsche's obvious reservations
about logic he is aware of its strengths as well, e.g. for drawing correct
conclusions (and convincing others, the problem being their premises). Hales,
however, sees a contradiction between Nietzsche's view that logic opposes life
while at the same time affirming that logic is useful for life. Hales
apparently misses that the one "life" refers to creativity while the
second life refers to sheer biological survival. Hales also sees that Nietzsche
weakens his claim that logic ("and rationality") is necessary for
life when he otherwise claims that it is merely
necessary for thinking,
meaning that one can indeed live without logic and rationality. In
my view all this follows from Hales' lack of stringency in defining thinking as
well as life. He seems to sense this when he subsequently needs to refer to
Nietzsche writing (in On Truth
and Lies in a Non-moral Sense) that "everything which
distinguishes man from the animals depends upon his ability to volatilize
perceptual metaphors in a schema, and thus dissolve an image into a
concept." Hales then reformulates it in his own words that so, humans
engage in a process of abstraction from sensory impressions to form concepts
and demarcate objects, ultimately giving raise to the "great edifice of
concepts" which "exhales...logic". So, despite of trying to
define thinking, without relating it to sensory impressions and images (even
"primordial" ones, as done in analytical psychology), Hales does it
in such a manner to be able to conclude that Nietzsche admits that giving up
logic means ceasing to think. And this thinking is done in opposition to
"mythically inspired people" or "the man of intuition" who
live in a dream where "the web of concepts is torn by art" or
intuition shatters the existing conceptual edifice with new metaphors, myths,
and art. So, to refuse logic would be to refuse (to think under the constraints
of) language.
Hales
considers on one occasion that it is possible to see Nietzsche, as I do, as
attacking formal logic,
but endorsing clear argumentation, rationality and thinking unpolluted by
superstition. Unfortunately Hales does not pursue what clarity, argument, rationality
and superstition ultimately are. He rather goes on giving two reasons against
the formal-logic/rational-thought dichotomy. The first one is that Nietzsche does not
"clearly" separate the issues of formal logic and rational thought.
But, let alone "clearly", at his time there was no express formal
logic, and still today there is not consensus about what rationality is. If
formal logic had already been available to Nietzsche in his lifetime he would
probably have been eager to raise objections against it and about the concept
of "form". What happens here is that Hales unperceived takes stand
for formal logic. And this becomes more evident in his giving the second reason against the
dichotomy: Nietzsche is said to consider the constraint of [natural!] language
to be essential for thinking and
hence for rational
thinking (my square brackets and italics). He also is said to regard logic as
the infrastructure of language (while I interpret Brouwer as seeing language as
the "infrastructure" of logic in the sense that logic is extracted
from ordinary language). And here comes the remarkable conclusion of Hales:
"Thus logic as the formal
semantics of natural language and of thinking is inextricably tied
together for Nietzsche". (My italics.)
So,
in trying to pin down "what exactly is Nietzsche's complaint against
logic, then?" Hales goes on questioning whether it is true that logic
presupposes the existence of things that Nietzsche considers fictitious in
their use in logic. Hales recurs to a sort of rhetorical argument in observing
that Nietzsche with his "imprecise and rudimentary understanding of
logic" used an inappropriate methodology and he would have needed some of
the tools acquired in the past century of logical development. "Ignoring
what has been learned about logic since Nietzsche's time is simply a Luddite
approach to a technical
issue." (My italics, is it a technical issue?). Secondly Hales purports to
illuminate problems that Nietzsche "could indicate only dimly" by
using "the concepts and clarity of modern vocabulary". He claims that
Nietzsche in his claims that logic falsifies reality or makes no claims about
reality ignores that modern
logic is divided into syntax and semantics. Hales notes then that
it is the syntactical aspect of logic that is formally aloof from the world and
that it is not the business of syntax to worry about reality. Its business is
formally aloof from the world: "It provides the rules for the manipulation
of operators, connectives, quantifiers, predicate letters, variables, and
constants of the formal system, how symbols can be moved around, and how
theorems are to be proven from the axioms."
In
doing so he recalls in a reader like me some of the observations we made above
about Tarski, that are to be renewed in what follows.
Hales
reminds that in modern logic the "interpretation" or
"meaning" of the formulas of logic is the business of semantics,
specifying "domains of entities of universes of discourse, along with an
interpretation function that leads us from the symbols supplied by the syntax
to the entities in the domain. The function assigns a unique object in the
domain to each constant, tells us which things the variables can stand for, and
provides an extension in the domain for each predicate letter.
But:
what are these mentioned entities, things or objects if not Nietzsche's
criticized things? And here comes Hales explanation of how the problem can be
explained away in the theory of modern logic. Yes, thingness is a requirement
of logic, we need things but the
nature of these things is a further question, one that is strictly speaking
beyond the purview of logic and more properly the subject of metaphysics or
ontology. (My emphasis.)
In
this way I think that Hales indeed explains away the whole problem together
with the third aspect of language mentioned at the beginning of this chapter,
namely the pragmatics of language as the infrastructure of logic. This is so
because semantic functions assigned to work out syntactic symbols are assumed
to be relating to non-controversial authoritative and objective consensual
observers, reality being "out there" in a "Gods Eye"
"externalist". This is what Churchman's The Design of Inquiring Systems covers under
Lockean inquiring systems, or naive empiricism, raising also the need of
differentiating and relating concepts of
intuition to concepts of postulation
in the philosophy of F.S.C. Northrop (cf. his The Logic of the Sciences and the
Humanities, and its use in my PhD dissertation on Quality-Control of Information). And
Hales feels uncomfortable in discussing this, observing that
"realism and antirealism are the focus of much current debate, and are
notoriously slippery terms." The "current" debate refers to the
advent of used and abused postmodernism in academic America around the
eighties-nineties as considered in an essay adduced in Hale's article, on
"Nietzsche's Prefiguration of Postmodern American Philosophy".
Consequently
Hales goes on into the need of "an investigation into the semantics of
natural language" observing, however, the failure of Rudolf Carnap to
consider Nietzsche's concerns. I direct those interested in such investigation
to acknowledge my attempts to comment the problems of the influence of Rudolf
Carnap and Yehoshua Bar-Hillel upon the field of informatics in Sweden, as
presented in my paper on A subsystem in the design of informatics (1995). It is symptomatic
that in order to make sense of the above talk on semantics and about the
claimed difference between meaninglessness and falsity relies on acrobatic
differentiation between so called grammatical syntax and logical syntax. And so
on, after a series of manipulations it seems that the ultimate purpose of the
juggling with syntax and semantics, and the ignoring of pragmatics is the
attempt to make logic into a tool for discovery or construction of truth, where
the concept of truth itself is
not called into question but, rather, definitionally explained away.
I
think that something meaningful arises in these reasonings when (p. 829) Hales
writes that Nietzsche contention is that "we categorize our sensory
phenomena in a way that suits our ends and purposes." Or (cf. The Will to Power)
"humans have simply chosen those interpretations that allow them to live
and promote their interests. This is how we have made the world logical, and
formulable and calculable for us."
This
is particularly meaningful because it indicates the need to move and enrich the
domains of logic and mathematics with a knowledge of their relation to
teleology. This is what is done in the already mentioned work of Churchman in The Design of Inquiring Systems where
initially, partly in the tradition of C. S. Peirce also mentioned above, the
second chapter on Leibnizian inquiring systems does away with the primacy of
badly understood logic and is subsequently expanded into teleology, naive
empiricism, Kant, Hegel, and the rest. What Hales seems to be doing, however,
is to miss the point by quoting the expressions "our ends and
purposes", "their interests" and "calculable for us".
The core of the problem is instead the question of our, their, and us, that is,
who is we, they,
and us, who is the
(competent according to whom) observer using the logic (and mathematics) and
whose empirical findings for whose and what purposes. Despite of not following
Hegel, Nietzsche is said to have been well acquainted with this work and this
explains his particular sensitivity to the issue as expressed in the emphasis
on the perspectival question. And we have not yet
considered the hypothesis of the observer as one more "thing" among
other things. What about the unity and stability of the observer - considered,
for example, in analytical psychology? There was a time in which the
"atom" also was conceived as a indivisible and stable unit, prior to
its disintegration.
Hales,
however, we have seen seems to solve the problem by relegating it to
"metaphysics or ontology". Even if things are fictitious, then logic does indeed work with these
fictitious things, and (p. 830) " this does not the slightest damage to
logic". He finds that, as Nietzsche is quoted to say, logicians rely on
faith and are superstition (positing as realities all those hypotheses such as
substance, attribute, object, subject, action, etc.), this is a fact about logicians, and not
one about logic itself. It would be a curious experiment to compare
this declaration with another most frequent nowadays that the problems caused
by faith in technology are a fact about the technicians and scientists and not
about technology or science itself. It is interesting to realize that in the
latter case the escape is guaranteed by claiming that indeed the problems are
caused by "the users" of technology, such as politicians deflagrating
atomic bombs or buyers and abusers of computers, not by the technicians and
scientists. But this escape is obviously not available in the case of logic
because of: who are the users of logic?
This
is, again, a core idea in Hales' article. What he is indeed revolting against
is what I myself also refuse in the interpretation of Nietzsche's provocative
declaration quoted from Beyond
Good and Evil, that "it is no more than a moral prejudice that
truth is worth more than mere appearance". I mean that such an
interpretation must be done questioning the meaning of truth, and criticizing
Nietzsche himself including his denigration of theology, instead of only
criticizing his criticism of logic. Nietzsche's denigration of theology in
terms of his stand against Christianity and its relation to Buddhism is a complex matter to be
detailed here. But I think that it is especially symptomatic in giving an
opportunity for understanding a basic shortcoming of his philosophy, which in
turn influenced so many others including Heidegger and "postmodern existentialism". Hales devotes several
lines to expose Nietzsche's illustration of non-identity, or non-persistence of
individuals or objects, by means of an indirect reference to the Torah
commandment "Eye for an eye" (Exodus 21: 23-25), to be hereby
differentiated from New Testament's "Love your neighbour as yourself"
(Mark 12:31). As I understand it the
message is that every action is uniquely tied to one (changing, in flux)
individual and cannot, with "the instinct of the herd" which is
related to the "herd morality" (see also Nietzsche and Morality) or what today recalls political correctness, be
logically attributable to any one in the future, the less so in taking for
granted that an injury will be repaid with a injury. Franchella (p. 383) had
even illustrated this very same matter with a German quotation from Nietzsche's
Posthumous Fragments that
I painstakingly translated for myself but because of its complexity I reproduce
only in the original German for the benefit of readers who understand it:
Der Calcul ‘thue nichts, was dir selber nicht angethan werden soll’ verbietet Handlungen um ihrer schdlichen Folgen willen: der Hintergedanke ist, daß eine Handlung immer vergolten wird. [ . . . ] Dagegen ist der Spruch werthvoll, weil er einen Typus Mensch verrth: es ist der Instinkt der Heerde, der sich mit ihm formulirt—man ist gleich, man nimmt sich gleich: wie ich dir, so du mir—Hier wird wirklich an eine quivalenz der Handlungen geglaubt, die, in allen realen Verhltnissen, einfach nicht vorkommt. Es kann nicht jede Handlung zurckgegeben werden: zwischen wirklichen ‘Individuen’ giebt es keine gleiche Handlung, folglich auch keine ‘Vergeltung’ . . . Wenn ich etwas thue, so liegt mir der Gedanke vollkommen fern, daß berhaupt dergleichen irgend einem Menschen mglich sei: es gehrt mir . . . Man kann mir Nichts zurckzahlen, man wrde immer eine ‘andere’ Handlung gegen mich begehen. (NF=Nachgelassen Fragmente, Posthumous Fragments, 1888, 22[1])
The
problem seems to be that Nietzsche extends this mechanism to the Christian
message of love that, indeed, in order to be genuine love must not presuppose a
retribution with an identical action of love, and consequently it is not a herd
mentality. Hales picks up this question in its implications for the explanation
of Nietzsche's interest in prudential reasoning and claim that it does depend
upon trans-temporal persistence.
In
her article, Franchella mentions Nietzsche's considering in essay II of the Genealogy
of Morals the relation debtor/creditor as responsible for
"instilling memory" in humanity, since the former must remember the
debt and the latter that he is owed the repayment. The debtor must also
remember the he himself is a thing that persists through time or that he is the
same person as the one who acquired the debt. Wish to avoid punishment
encourages his belief in persistent identity and repayment. "Thus this
kind of reasoning leads to a belief in a continuing ego or self, a belief that
gets displaced onto other objects and so creates the concept 'thing'." It impresses me is that in a personal debate with a friend of
mine who does not believe in free will, he still accepts the need of crime
punishment because it encourages the abstention from crime due to fear of
punishment. This seems to imply a paradox in that punishment is supposed to
both encourage persistence of an ego and
the disbelief in the existence of a free
will, at the same time as Nietzsche makes an issue of (whose) Will to Power.
It
also impresses me in Nietzsche's reasoning his paradoxical use of
"he" or "his" belief, which is postulating the persistence
of a not only a "he" but especially an "ego or self". The
latter are important distinct concepts in analytical psychology, not being a
question of ego or self but,
rather ego and self.
I expect to emphasize towards the end of this essay their distinction as the
key to resolving the apparent paradoxes in the discussions up to now.
Disregarding
all this, Hales, however, goes on in a defense of his own position on formal
logic instead of deepening himself into Nietzsche's criticism. Hales goes so
far as to defend truth by means of reference to a need for "plenty of
wholesome multivalent logics" and by claiming that interest for the psychology
of logicians is pure ad
hominem, to be comparable with what would be dismissing Nietzsche's
later work on account of his insanity. And his criticism of identity would be
another manifestation of his "anti-realism" about "things".
After a divagation about the concept of thing and change, in particular about
the bundle theory of objects prefigured by Berkeley and
Hume, Hales concludes that Nietzsche's critique is really about the applicability of logic than
it is about logic per se. He sees it as a critique of semantics and about
Nietzsche's own misunderstanding of semantics as necessarily referring to
objects that Hales resumes under the concept of "realistic
metaphysics". Hales reiterates that ''a realist
semantics is not the only one possible, and the universes of
discourse can just as well be populated with Nietzschean fictions as they can
be with things-in-themselves [whatever they are]." (My italics and square
brackets.)
Consequently
Hales concludes in the last paragraphs of his article that "The charge
that logic or language is misleading is ultimately a criticism of those who are
thereby misled and is not an objection that undermines logic as a science of
thought or as a formal representation of natural language." Questions
about logic are relegated by him to metaphysics and "faith" of
logicians, i.e. to their sort of "religion". While metaphysic(s) is a
word that today is used for depicting something imaginary or fanciful to be
kept out of science and serious discourse, the Webster's Third New International Dictionary
also offers the definition as a system of first principles or philosophy
underlying a particular study or subject of inquiry, and a division of
philosophy that includes ontology and cosmology, treating of the relations
obtaining between the underlying reality and its manifestations.
All
the above may look rather "theoretical-abstract" iit were not for its
consequences in late problematic trends in The Logic of Information (2019), a book with the
subtitle A Theory of
Philosophy as Conceptual Design, authored by the widely promoted Luciano Floridi (also visible on YouTube). In the preface
he introduces the book as being a (third) middle ground between the first two
books in a planned tetralogy labelled initially, as a pun among colleagues, Principia Philosophiae Informationis
(in analogy to Principia Mathematica?) and up to now consisting of
The Philosophy of Information
and The Ethics of Information plus
a planned one on The Politics
of Information. In the preface the book is alternately presented as
(1) A book neither in the
epistemological tradition nor about ontology, rather a book on the logic of
design and hence of making, transforming, refining, and improving the objects
of our knowledge, (2) Asking
what is the conceptual logic of information modeling, i.e. generating a
description of some structural properties of a system, (3) A study in the conceptual logic of
semantic information, (4) A
constructionist study in the conceptual logic of semantic information both as a
model (mimesis) and as a blueprint (poiesis). As Wikipedia puts it
the goal to develop a constructionist philosophy, where design, modelling and
implementation replace analysis and dissection.
In
my own words in the present text I would say that Floridi tries to leave his
early background in analytic philosophy and logical empiricism (in
Wikipedia on Floridi: "analysis and dissection") towards
a teleological systems theory (in Wikipedia
on Floridi: "design,
modelling and implementation"), despite of grounding his philosophy of
technology in the logical positivist Herbert Simon and his pragmatism in C.S.
Peirce instead of William James. But by shuffling around with undefined terms
such as concept and
conceptual), system, structure and structural (without its
relation to function-functional),
design, as well as
epistemology with
related ontology
and semantics
which I touched above in this section, he creates an esoteric quagmire, or as
his writes "this third volume too is not a page-turner, to put it
mildly". Such esoteric quagmire prevents criticism by cultured lay
non-specialist readers, and prevents the understanding of constructivist design
as being related the ethically laden teleology with the consequent ignoring
of ethical-theological issues considered in Churchman's The Design of Inquiring Systems, as
I expound in my essay on Information and Theology. I think that the attraction
exerted by Floridi's work relies on his extreme formal skill in building
logical networks out of disparate esoteric terms, or what Churchman calls
"Leibnizian inquiring systems", which academically seem to legitimize
the troubling chaos of the computerized world. As Floridi himself acknowledges:
"I may be moving out of the shadows of my three philosophical heroes
[Plato, Descartes and Kant?]. Not a plan, but this is what happens when you
follow your reasoning wherever it leads you."
I
add: "apparently regardless of what is that leads and should lead the
reasoning". In terms of analytic psychology, for an extremely logically
thinking and empirical psyche, this means to be "artistically" and
unconsciously led by feelings and intuition. It is an interesting case of
"enantiodromia", which also may characterize the
mind of those who drive the process of computerization of society. The end was
paradoxically postmodernism, and soon post- and transhumanism, trends that are already being studied.
We have now seen various approaches to the relation
between mathematics and logic that are embodied in computer, and the meaning of
their "application" as it is represented by their relation with
reality. I suspect that this may be way of also getting at the "core"
of the issue of philosophy of technology for which I refer eventually
interested readers to another earlier essay of mine titled Trends
in Philosophy of Technology.
We must now pause on what ultimately was referred to
above as the non-controversial authoritative and
objective consensual observer of the reality "out there" in a
"Gods Eye" "externalist" perspective. The reader may
have noted that Nietzsche, for all his insights, claims that all is flux or
change, and there is no truth but only appearances in perspective. But who and
how has paradoxically guaranteed that this claim of Nietzsche is true? And if
things are changing bundles of changing properties, who can observe change from
a changing platform of observation? And if logicians or the "users"
of logical-mathematical computers claim that their guaranteed consensual
competence assures that there is persistence of identity in their own
personality, their own judgment, and in the elements of their logical formulas
or computer-software, then how do they know that this is true?
It seems obvious to me that the first requirement is
the identity and stability of the observer, logician or not. In the course of
this article we have several times already referred to analytical psychology
but there are readers or "observers" that this has already been
superseded by later modern neuropsychiatry or neuropsychology. Others feel that
psychology and psychiatry is subsumed under religion or dharma, including
Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism.
Therefore I could have started by considering an
article by Henk Barendregt on [pdf] "Buddhist models
of the mind and the common core thesis on mysticism" (in One Hundred Years of Intuitionism
1907-2007: The Cerisy Conference. Eds. Mark van Atten, Pascal
Boldini, Michel Bourdeau, Gerhard Heinzmann. Springer, 2008). When compared
with the apparently more detailed and deep-going Buddhist
Epistemology by S.R. Bhatt and A. Mehrotra, it has one great merit
of trying to reach quite far, until comparing Brouwer's and Kurt Gödel's
attitudes to mysticism, reminding of the "mystical" experience of
people getting involved with computers and, in particular, in computer games as
mentioned at the beginning of this article of mine. It is a mysticism that
reveals the price our culture pays in form of computer abuse and dependence,
and meaningfully contrasts with the wholesale disposal of
"metaphysics-ontology" together with real semantics and pragmatics in
formal logic as we saw in Hales, above.
The problem with Barendregt's article, however, is
that in explaining Brouwer experiencing of the essence of consciousness it
refers to an extremely complex body of Eastern knowledge that easily overpowers
us. Western readers who live in a barely understood and often negated
Judeo-Christian culture cannot really expect to understand and intellectually
assimilate a foreign one as represented by what Barendregt, in a rather
eclectic exposition, calls "AM". It is done without any particular
reference to what the letters AM stand for, introducing it as a "model of
conscious cognition inspired by the Abhidhamma and
[or] Abhidharma" (see also in The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The words themselves are said to
mean higher-teaching, and they are said (in Wikipedia) to
have been considered in the West alternatively as "Buddhist
psychology", "Buddhist phenomenology", "Process
philosophy", "Philosophy, psychology and ethics",
"extending into ontology, epistemology and metaphysics", or simply
"among the major achievements of the classical period of Indian
philosophy." Among other things it analyzes six
types of causes (compared with Aristotle's four), reminding Brouwer's
emphasis of causality we have seen earlier in this text. To give an idea,
Barendregt reminds that the work consists of seven volumes comprising more than
5000 pages, leading its students to study commentaries, or commentaries of
commentaries. So much for those who have perceived this present text as too
long, heavy or obscure. It is, then, very relevant to consider that Francisco Varela who,
phenomenologically and problematically in
turn influenced computer scientists, based his position on Eastern thought,
especially Buddhism, as revealed in his book Ethical
Know-how: Action, Wisdom, and Cognition (Stanford Univ.
Press, 1999.)
A book on Philosophical
Issues of Information Systems (1997) which, by the way, does not
cover the issue of this essay, describes (p. 76) Varela as having developed
together with Humberto
Maturana "radical theories from a biological perspective,
concerning the nature of living organisms, their nervous systems, cognitive
capacities [whatever is their definition] and language (my brackets). This is
not to mention "neurophilosophy"
(that could be accounted for, as mentioned earlier, as "brain
mythology"), listed in Wikipedia's article on Maturana. And their findings
have been explored in the field of computer science by researcher such as
(mainly) Terry Winograd.
To get a taste of in what cognitive world does this
"phenomenological Buddhism" operates I will shortly present a
presentation of the Chilean engineer, entrepreneur and politician Fernando Flores who
worked in close contact and dependence upon the computer world, and appears to
be consistent if not harmonious with Varela. In a presentation
of Flores in the issue 57 (2009) of Strategy + Business the journalist and
consultant Lawrence M. Fisher tries to summarize a work that dazzles academia
because its eclecticism and rhetoric does not allow intellectual analysis, and
writes (excerpts):
"More controversially, Flores argues that there is no objective reality: that the human nervous system cannot distinguish between reality and perceptions. In practical terms, to Flores, this means that individuals and organizations are never fully trapped in any situation, even one as drastic as imprisonment — if they remain willing to change the way they think and talk about it. 'We human beings are linguistic, social, emotional animals that co-invent a world through language," says Flores. That means that reality is not formed by objects. [...] One uncontested fact is that the years of imprisonment turned Flores toward philosophy. [...] With endless time, he read and reread, devouring the works of the German philosophers Martin Heidegger and Jürgen Habermas; of the pioneering Chilean neurobiologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela; and, perhaps most significantly, of John Searle, a Berkeley professor and former student of J.L. Austin. Searle had refined Austin's concepts into a practical set of phrases, coining the term speech acts to describe them."
Let's
observe the words, that there is no objective reality, the appeal to
neuropsychology that is aloof from most readers as much as metaphysics and
ontology are, that reality is invented through language [which, remember, was
downgraded by Brouwer, and that is in turn mediated by computer communication
such as in computerized social media], Heidegger and Habermas, Varela, etc.
Putting all this against what else was considered in this text of mine up to now
it is easy to see that it is a patchwork that evidences how a barely understood
"Buddhist" infrastructure does not work, at least in the sense that
it is not understood or understandable, and therefore confusingly mind-blowing
in our Western Judeo-Christian world.
In view of the above difficulties and as a preparation
for further analysis of our main problem I would like to mention also an
earlier related paper of Mark van Atten and Robert Tragesser on "Mysticism
and mathematics: Brouwer, Gödel, and the common core thesis",
in W. Deppert and M. Rahnfeld (Eds.) Klarheit
in Religionsdingen [Clarity in religious questions]. Leipzig: Leipziger
Universitätsverlag (2003). See also on the net some unidentified author's
(alias David Koning <david_koning@yahoo.com>) commentaries
(2006) of the text. Also
published (with and interesting list of similar books and
articles) in In Robert Tragesser, Mark van Atten & Mark Atten (eds.), Essays on Gödel's Reception of Leibniz,
Husserl, and Brouwer. Springer Verlag (2015).
Atten-Tragesser initially recall that the famous
mathematician David Hilbert starts his book Axiomatic
Thought (English version included in William Ewald, From
Kant to Hilbert: Readings in the foundations of mathematics, Vol. 2, 1996) stating that
"the most important bearers of mathematical thought have always [...]
cultivated the relations to the domains of physics and the [philosophical]
theory of knowledge." And that both went beyond philosophy, cultivating
relations to mysticism. Further they add that the distinction between
Philosophy and Mysticism is a matter of degree. To me that means also a
critical instance to the meaning of logic since for most people the difference
between philosophy and mysticism consists in their content of logic (and
empiricism).
The authors continue describing how Brouwer and Gödel
each relate mysticism and mathematics, and make a comparison. They recall what
is for me the ethical dimension in that they see mysticism as a sudden
illumination that makes people to see reality in a different light, given that
reality is good and mystical practice aims to perceive this Reality as Good. In
the details of the article that I will not survey in detail, they claim that
this Good, however, is not objective or the same for all varieties of
mysticism. This is so despite "the somewhat analogous case in the
philosophy of science where scientific realists hold to a common core thesis
with respect to scientific theories through the ages" that show massive
disagreements and still they all try to express the same objective reality.
We will not follow the article's argument except for
some remarks. It reminds Brouwer's observation that the greatest merit of
mysticism is its use of language independent of human collusion and of animal
emotions of fear and desire. Contemplative thoughts may come through without
obscurity since there is no mathematical system that distorts them.
"The mystical writer will even
be careful to avoid anything that smacks of mathematic or logic: weak minds might otherwise be easily
made to believe and act mathematically outside the domain where this is
required either by the community or their own struggles for life and end up in
all kinds of follies." [My italics.]
Gödel, on the other hand, is referred (on the basis of
a book by computer scientist Rudy Rucker's Infinity
and the mind, recalling Zellini's interest for
infinity) as perceiving abstracts objects or pure abstract possibilities by
having "to close off the other senses" and "to seek
actively". "Doing mathematics is one way to get into contact with
that Absolute [...] There is, then, no break between mathematics and mystical
practice." And referring to Husserl Gödel would have said that "At
some point [...] everything suddenly became clear to Husserl, and he did arrive
at some absolute knowledge. But one cannot transfer absolute knowledge to
somebody else; therefore one cannot publish it. [...] One fundamental idea is
this: true philosophy is [arrived at by] something like a religious
conversion." Atten-Tragesser, then, observe that it is likely that Gödel
tried to experience such an illumination or conversion and mention that Gödel's
personal library contained among others books on Christianity, Islam, Buddhism
and mystical-spiritual movements, concluding that in contrast to Brouwer he
believed (as Thomas
Aquinas did?) that the "intellect" (and psyche,
which we shall survey below) has a positive role to play in spiritual life.
In comparing Brouwer and Gödel the authors conclude
that both were looking for mystical experiences in which "openness of the
mind to the Absolute is operative", and that something is disclosed and
imparted to the person. They could have mentioned religion and God or Truth
instead of the Good and the Absolute" but obviously they find it
inconvenient. They state, however, that the imparting is preceded by a preparation or transformation of the
person. The SELF
must be brought into a condition to receive, support, and appreciate what is to
be disclosed. "This preparation we see mentioned by both
Brouwer (the abandonment of mathematics) and Gödel (closing off the senses,
etc.). Atten-Tragesser conclude the whole article with the sentence: "Both
were disgruntled with the materialistic and formalistic philosophies prevalent
at their time; both thought that these philosophies could not do justice to the
Good."
In the perspective of this present paper of mine,
against the background of such conclusions, the computer being an embodiment of
mathematics and logic in a materialistic and formalistic frame of mind cannot
"do justice to the Good". Its formalism programmatically excludes
teleology of "the good", and its mysticism expresses itself in the
infatuation that lies at the basis of computer addiction and feeling of awe for
its sort of spiritual power, recalling the Biblical saying that not all spirits are the Holy Spirit. Awe is indeed the
feeling of reverential respect mixed with fear or wonder that we all have felt
in the interaction with a computer until we eventually become insensibilized,
albeit often addicted.
Finally, let's return to the above mentioned statement
that imparting of higher knowledge is preceded by a
preparation or transformation of the person and that the SELF must be brought
into a condition to receive, support, and appreciate what is to be disclosed.
This vocabulary with emphasis on the Self can be seen as aptly representing a
call to prayer and religion. At the scientific level where the concept of
science itself in is question, it can be seen as closely related to analytical
psychology of the perception of reality, which has been already mentioned on
several relevant occasions in this essay.
ANALYTICAL
PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH
What is left is a better understanding of some key
concepts that have been used throughout our text up to now. As in logic, the
conclusions depend upon both the definitions
and consequently the stability - as we have seen - of the truth of the basic
assumptions. These have been mentioned above in terms of such words, among
others, as intellect,
(exodus of) consciousness
(from its) deepest home,
and (or) ultimately self contrasted
to the ego. To
illustrate and motivate the recourse to analytical psychology let's consider
some dictionary definitions of these terms and show their complexity. In what
follows I will only lightly edit and select the alternatives that are most
relevant for our problem, when several definitions are given. My own comments
are enclosed in square brackets, and those words that are in turn most relevant
within the relevant selections are underlined; readers who already understand
and are in agreement with the spirit of this essay of mine up to now may be
able to draw right away some correct conclusions of it all without waiting for
my further explanations below in the rest of my text concerning the relevance
of analytical psychology as alternative to the related psychoanalysis.
One may start the inquiry trying to be simple starting
with "intellect",
one of words mentioned most often in our discussion up to now, and that today
is often bypassed by the similarly used and misused "cognition",
Wikipedia claiming dimly to encompass a a hodgepodge of "knowledge,
attention, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and
"computation", problem solving and decision making, comprehension and
production of language". A smart engineer colleague of mine who
appreciates simplicity as much as logic challenged me to be logical in
discussions of ethics while he downplayed a supposedly pedantic need of
definitions claiming that one must be able to rely on the intuitive common
sense of daily popular discourse. The next step in complicating the issue would
be consulting the so called Google
dictionary, or rather the definition appearing at the top of the
Google search. The source is reported as per
June 2017 to be the Oxford American College Dictionary. I start
using this Google only for the keyword
intellect and the search gives as the most complex result
INTELLECT (Google - Oxford American College Dictionary)
"the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract matters" with closest synonyms being "mind, brain, brains, head, intelligence, reason, understanding, comprehension, thought, brainpower, sense, judgement, wisdom, wits." And, going over to the etymological question:
INTELLECT (The Online Etymology Dictionary)
The online etymology dictionary states about intellect that it is a latin-based translation of the Greek nous or "mind, thought, intellect, intellect" in Aristotle. A key word that also appears in the etymology dictionary is "discernment" (along with "a perception" and "understanding"). Discernment appears more clearly in the etymology of intelligence and intelligere i.e. from assimilated form of inter "between" (see inter-) + legere "choose, pick out, read," from the Proto-Indo-European root *leg- (1) "to collect, gather", all this suggesting that it is a question of an "art" of choosing or gathering [i.e. for a purpose in a systemic context.] [My square brackets, as they will stand for in what follows. Let us note that there is no mention of logic or mathematics, and that perception stands together with understanding, as well as mind together with head, brain, judgement and wisdom.]
If we choose a more ambitious source such as Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1971) we find, starting with intellect (from intelligere to perceive, understand):
INTELLECT (Webster's Third New International Dictionary)
1a: the power or faculty of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will [this is the typical main source for separation between supposed cognitive knowing functions from feelings and willing.]
1b Aristotelianism (1): passive reason (2): active reason
1d Thomism (1): the receptive faculty of cognition that makes apprehensible the phantasms of intelligible forms -- called also passive intellect, possible intellect, potential intellect (2): the aspect of the soul that is immortal and constitutes the active power of thought operating upon the phantasms of intelligible forms -- called also active intellect, agent intellect.
2a: a person given to reflective thought or reasoning: a person of notable intellect.
Since there is above a reference to the less common word phantasm, let's consider its definition:
PHANTASM (Webster's Third New International Dictionary)
2: a sensuous idea or impression -- compare SPECIES
2b <all of the sensible qualities are but phantasms of the observer, not properties of the object -- Douglas Bush>. [Can relate to archetype in analytical psychology. So over to the mentioned SPECIES:]
SPECIES (Webster's Third New International Dictionary)
2b (1): a mental image, phantasm, or sensuous presentation (2): an idea or object of thought that is the similitude of an object in nature whether in the guise of a modification of sense or of a purely intellectual correlative of the natural object; broadly: FORM, ASPECT, APPEARANCE
EGO (Webster's Third New International Dictionary)
1: the self especially as inside one as contrasted with something outside (as another self of the world): as a metaphysical philosophy (1) in Descartes: the soul or an underlying mental or spiritual substance (2) in Kant: a transcendentally postulated unity either of apperception or of the morally free person -- also called pure ego (3) in Fichte: pure self-determining activity positing itself -- called also pure ego b empirical philosophy (1) in Hume: a complex of ideas or a system of successive mental states (2) in Kant: the conscious subject of experience (3): the consciousness of an individual's being in distinction from other selves c: SELF
2b: WILL
3 [translation of German ich] psychoanalysis: the largely conscious part of the personality that is derived from the id through contacts with reality and that mediates the demands of the id, of the superego, and of external everyday reality in the interest of preserving the organism.
I (Webster's Third New International Dictionary)
1: someone possessing and aware of possessing a distinct and personal individuality : SELF, EGO. [And since awareness has been mentioned several times, and its closest meaningful synonym in our context is consciousness:]
CONSCIOUSNESS (Webster's Third New International Dictionary)
1a awareness or perception of an inward psychological or spiritual fact : intuitively perceived knowledge of something in one's inner self b: inward awareness of an external object, state, or fact c: concerned awareness : INTEREST, CONCERN
2: the state of activity that is characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, or thought : mind in the broadest possible sense : something in nature that is distinguished from the physical
3: the totality in psychology of sensations, perceptions, ideas, attitudes, and feelings of which an individual or a group is aware at any given time or within a particular time span -- compare with STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS [...]
5: the part of mental life or psychic content is psychoanalysis that is immediately available to the ego -- compare PRECONSCIOUS, UNCONSCIOUS 2
It is should be easy to notice the degree of
complication of the issue when one compares the common sense
"engineering" approach to intellect etc., which roughly equates it to
logic-mathematics and empiricism (cf. logical
empiricism, also called logical
positivism, and hidden in Rudy Rucker's computer-oriented
mathematics), with what is implied by the above definitions. In
my experience, however, I have noticed that typical engineering minds of people
who are gifted engineers or logicians-mathematicians have difficulty to notice
this degree of complication, a phenomenon that I will regard as mainly
ethical-psychological beyond the materialism of
psychoanalysis. In fruitless discussions they persist in reducing
the issue to its simplest form, having induced me to write a whole essay on debate and
fruitlessness of debates and discussions on complex matters, already denounced
by Brouwer, when there is no bond of genuine unconditional friendship.
In order to unravel psychologically the relation
between mathematics-logic, empiricism, and the psyche in its totality I will
apply the structuration offered by analytical psychology in general, partly
summarized in Jung's Collected Works, volume 7 - CW7, and
of psychological types in particular, in CW6. A
quite correct overview is offered in Wikipedia's article on
analytical psychology as per end of August 2017. In doing so I will not
enter into a debate about analytical psychology itself, a field that could
expand an almost limitless analysis in secondary and tertiary literature that I
also have consulted in the latest thirty years.
A preliminary taste of what is all about can be
obtained in secondary literature or original quotations on the net, such as in Wikiquotes on Psychological Type. On
the basis of the references given here above I will use analytical psychology's
concepts in order to draft a hypothesis on the problems considered in this
essay, including the shortcomings of Brouwer's approach and the criticisms for
and against it.
We can start, however, with a curious and mind-blowing
philosophically logical analysis of the first definition of intellect above where both reason and understanding side by side,
often recurrent in the whole of our text together with misunderstanding, are given
as synonyms. Reason and understanding, however are terribly complex and to be
differentiated in the most advanced and "canonized" texts of our
modern Western culture. The
Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy (Blackwell Reference
Online) start summarizing the matter "Reason
and Understanding" as follows:
"Epistemology, metaphysics [German vernunft , reason; verstand , understanding, associated with to stand]. The distinction between reason and understanding was first discussed in Kant 's philosophy. Kant claimed that understanding applies its own categories to experience and generates scientific knowledge, while reason moves from judgment to judgment and seeks to go beyond the limits of experience. Reason tries to apprehend the unconditional, but ends with antinomies, in which reason falls into conflict with itself. Hegel offered a different account of the distinction. He considered understanding to be a fixed or mechanical way of thinking, which produces clear analysis and is in general the first stage of logic and science. But understanding isolates things from one another and is partial, finite, and without fluidity. Reason stands in contrast to the absolute fixation of the understanding. It is associated with inference and argument and tries to discover connections among truths. Reason has two forms. Negative reason uncovers and collapses the contradictions implicit in the abstractions of understanding. Positive reason draws positive conclusions from the work of negative reason. The final purpose of reason is to resolve all conflicts and to grasp totality. For Hegel, reason and understanding are immanent in the absolute idea..."
Having tried to understand (with my reason?!) Kant's
all three Critiques, I am sure that the matter is complex indeed and it
convinced me that if one succeeds in understanding what is claimed then one is
stuck in Kant's own framework. The way out for me has been to try to read some
of Kant's historical critics such as the psychologist Carl Jung that appears to
be conscious and respectful of his Kant-heritage. My attitude (cf. positive
reason?) has also been formed by Kant's criticism inbuilt in my doctoral counselor,
often mentioned West Churchman, as represented by his two main works The Design of Inquiring Systems and
The Systems Approach and its
Enemies. They also aim at incorporating Hegel's criticism of Kant
as implied in his own view of the very same concepts, as illustrated by
Nectarios G. Limnatis' book Reason
and Understanding in Hegelian Philosophy. But it does
not prevent "analyzers" to apply understanding
to everything: to the free will, logic, mysticism, Nietzschean philosophy,
(mis)understanding of semantics, etc. So much, then, for intellect seen as
reason and understanding, not to mention seen as only logic and empiricism.
And so on, if we were to return to my text in the
present essay, from the beginning. For example in the discussion about the view
of formalism vs. intuitionism on whether mathematical exactness is to be found
in the intellect
or on paper we
will find that elsewhere the question is expressed as whether it is to be found
in the abstract or
in the world of experience.
And what about the role of understanding in understanding: the intuitional attitude, the
abstracting of emotional content, unity and stability of the observer, mental
image - phantasm and sensuous presentation, the process of objectifying or
externalization, turning into oneself, the exodus of consciousness from its
deepest home, the essence of the ego as related to given perceptions, the self
vs. you and yourself, and the self that must be brought into a condition to
receive. (All this extracted from the text up now.)
I wished to go on now "explaining" the
framework of analytical psychology but it would take excessive space and effort
in this context, while explanations and summaries are easily found in the
literature already referenced in links above, for those who have a serious
motivation to do so. I prefer to approach the question by positing hypotheses
about the psychology or "psychological type" of Brouwer compared to
those who use mathematics and logic, including computers, in the alternative
"modern" way criticized by him. In doing so I eschew the dangers of
being criticized for Ad
hominem by adducing without further analysis two reservations
accounted for in Wikipedia's summary about this issue: "Non-fallacious
reasoning" and "Criticism
as fallacy". As also suggested by several items in
Wikipedia's article on ad hominem in the section "See also"
(e.g. The
Art of Being Right) such further analysis leads
recursively to the type of problems that I already considered in my earlier
essay on Information
as debate.
As mentioned earlier in this essay it is suggested
that Brouwer was a introvert-thinking
type, now to be seen as supplemented with intuition as
auxiliary function. Going for once back to original literature, albeit in
translation from the German, we find the following in Carl Jung's Collected Works, volume 6 or
CW6. Because of my use of my annotated first Princeton/Bollingen paperback
printing with corrections of year 1976, and in order to allow consultation of
German or other originals, the references are given to paragraph numbers
instead of page numbers: § 578 ff. and 628ff.
Jung writes that
"I am fully aware that our age and its most eminent representatives know and acknowledge only the extraverted type of thinking...I will disregard all those sensations and feelings which become noticeable as a more or less disturbing accompaniment to my train of thought, and will merely point out that this very thinking process which starts from the object and returns to the object also stands in a constant relation to the subject...Now, when the main accent lies on the subjective process, that other kind of thinking arises which is opposed to extraverted thinking, namely that purely subjective orientation which I call introverted...The world exists not merely in itself, but also as it appears to me...If we were to ignore the subjective factor, it would be a complete denial of the great doubt as to the possibility of absolute cognition. And this would mean a relapse in the stale and hollow positivism that marred the turn of the century -- an attitude of intellectual arrogance accompanied by crudeness of feeling, a violation of life as stupid as it is presumptuous. But what is the subject?"
The subject is man himself, but later Jung goes into
the relation between ego and self:
"The really fundamental subject, the self, is far more comprehensive than the ego since the former includes the unconscious whereas the latter is essentially the focal point of consciousness...But it is a characteristic peculiarity of the introvert, which is as much in keeping with his own inclination as with the general bias, to confuse his ego with the self, and to exalt it as the subject of the psychic process, thus bringing about the aforementioned subjectivation of consciousness which alienates him from the object."
I understand from this that Brouwer through his study
of Christian (and Eastern) mystics was well aware, and shows it in his
writings, of the difference between his ego and self but most probably had been
struggling through most of his life in order to keep them separate. Then appear
some thoughts that recall the essence of "pure mathematical"
thinking:
"But no more than extraverted thinking can wrest a sound empirical concept from concrete facts or create new ones can introverted thinking translate the initial image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical accumulation of facts paralyzes thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency to force facts into the shape of its image, or to ignore them altogether in order to give fantasy free play...
This kind of thinking easily gets lost in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for their own sake, apparently with an eye to real or at least possible facts, but always with a distinct tendency to slip over from the world of ideas into mere imagery. Accordingly, visions of numerous possibilities appear on the scene, but none of them ever becomes a reality, until finally images are produced which no longer express anything externally real, being mere symbols of the ineffable and unknowable. It is now merely a mystical thinking and quite unfruitful as thinking that remains bound to objective data..." (§629 f.)
I see this as a possible description of the
mathematical mind, indeed as purely mathematical "free play of
fantasy" that allows for the "rich" production of mathematical
products that later are used and misused by "extraverted thinker" (§
584-594) in projections upon external objects in a process that was not
intended by the introverted thinker, such as Brouwer. And this would refer to
the unforeseen application of his algorithmic thinking to automatize numeric
computations and software. And the "mysticism" that is mentioned is
not religious mysticism as identified by the special case of Brouwer, but
rather the mysticism of secularized mathematicians who claim to approach
divinity, becoming semi-gods or their priests, since their god is supposed to
have written cosmos in mathematical language. Alternatively, it is the
"mysticism" experienced in the use and interaction with computers in
general, and in computer gaming in particular. All this happens while some
Christian self-righteous amateur theologians paradoxically criticize and
condemn in brainy analyses Jungian thought, often as they find it in critical
secondary sources, for being "gnostic", despite Jung's express
declaration and explanation of keeping distinct psychology from religion.
Paradoxically these brainy critics can ignore if not their own, at least the gnosticism of modern
science and technology in general, and of computers in particular,
neverthelelss gladly using them daily or, ultimately, becoming addicted to
them.
The more detailed description of the Introverted Thinking Type (§
632-637, see below) contains further considerations of the social behavior of
those who are, always roughly, characterized by it. They remind some of Brouwer's traits as
rendered and as I have understood them in his biographical accounts. Some hints
follow about extreme
traits of the type understood as rather an ideal type, that
in no way should be seen as personal. An ideal type may happen to be better
understood if put into the context of the tradition of the German cultural
sphere connected to other concepts such as Verstehen and Nomothetic
vs. Idiographic. This is not a wholesale endorsement of the
"correctness" of these concepts but mainly to show that their
creation points to an underlying necessity and to the existence of a problem.
And now over to some of the traits of the introverted thinking type who shares
with his counterpart, the extraverted thinking type, the remarkable need or
injunction of "abstraction from emotional content":
"If in his eyes his product appears correct and true, then it must be so in practice, and others have got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially anyone of influence...He usually has had bad experiences with rivals in his own field because he never understands how to curry their favour...In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, headstrong, and quite unamenable to influence...[F]or him the relation to people and things is secondary and the objective evaluation of his product is something he remains unconscious of...In his own special field of work he provokes the most violent opposition, which he has no notion how to deal with, unless he happens to be seduced by his primitive affects into acrimonious and fruitless polemics...The various protective devices and psychological minefields which such people surround themselves with...serve as a defence against "magical" influences -- and among them is a vague fear of the feminine sex."
I repeat that this is a question of ideal type, but it has some
value for imagining the psychic structure and environment of Brouwer, the
motives for his relative isolation and for his attitude to woman as surveyed
above in our earlier text. In order to counteract the wrong impression that introverted thinking is
basically negative, it should be compared with the description of the extraverted thinking type (§
584-594) that typically exploited Brouwer's findings ignoring its motivations,
and on which I shall not dwell here. And Carl Jung, returning to "the
intellect", terminates his work on Psychological Types stating in the
Epilogue (§ 856):
"Whatever we strive to fathom with our intellect will end in paradox and relativity, if it be honest work and not a petitio principii in the interest of convenience. That an intellectual understanding of the psychic process must end in paradox and relativity is simply unavoidable, if only for the reason that the intellect is but one of many psychic functions which is intended by nature to serve man in constructing his images of the objective world. We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only a half-truth, and must, if it is honest, also to admit its inadequacy."
Having dedicated this analysis to illustrate how
Brouwer's supposed introverted thinking explains his insensitivity to how the
outer world would appropriate his results, I wish now to complete with
illustrating how there may exist a flaw in his assumptions about the reason for
the ""exodus of consciousness from its deepest
home", as well as his assumptions about the undefined
"intellect" as in seeing the
human intellect as the cause of evil. In Jung's conception an
undefined intellect is substituted by the whole psyche as constituted by
ego-consciousness and different strata of unconscious with its roots in the
suggestions of Carl
Gustav Carus and systematized by Eduard
von Hartmann. Some basic concepts are presented in Carl Jung's CW7
Two Essays on Analytical
Psychology, exemplified by the all-important, crucial self so much mentioned by
Brouwer (§ 274 f.) In this context I repeat that in this paper, I do not enter
into the possible controversies about different psychological theories vs.
philosophy of science, the least so into those controversies caused by possible
misuses of depth psychology in the New Age movements.
Likewise I do not discuss the misuses of (references to) quantum physics in
feminist theorizing as mentioned later, here below. For the rest there is a
sizeable secondary and tertiary literature on Jung and even critical of Jung
that I have consulted besides all his Collected
Words, and is available to all interested. Some examples are V.W.
Odajnyk Jung and politics: The
political and social ideas of C.G.Jung, E.D. Cohen C.G. Jung and the scientific attitude,
P. Homans Jung in context:
Modernity and the making of psychology, A. Samuels Jung and the post-Jungians,
R. Noll The Jung cult, etc.,
the latter reminding that Jung himself did not want to build a
"school" and still less to leave a cult of personality, he himself
declaring "Thank
God, I'm Jung, and not a Jungian" (found in Barbara Hannah's
biography Jung: His Life and Work, 1976,
p. 78). In this he resembled West Churchman who personally to me repeated to be
happy for not being a "Churchmaniac". As it
has been remarked regarding Jung, however, there is no fault but,
rather, a merit in accepting a legitimate modest leadership.
The most ambitious among many overviews of Jungian
psychology I know is not easily available since it is contained in a an older
book by J.F. Rychlak Introduction
to personality and psychotherapy (Atlanta:
Houghton Miffin, 1st ed. 1973, pp. 132-199, refs. 529-538). At risk of making
some mistakes, missing some terminological and professional nuances, I will use
my own words upon what I remember of my study of Jung's original collected
works, starting about 40 years ago. The focus is to explain that the real
psychic subject is the Self, a psychic component that is supra-ordinate to and
includes the Ego that
in turn interacts with the personal and the collective
unconscious. The subject's or initially the Self-realizing Ego's
interface with the collective unconscious in the external world is represented
outwards by the psychic entity of the persona, as
the aspect of someone's psyche that is externally presented to, perceived,
expected or required by others or society, analog to a role or character
adopted and presented behind a mask as facade, by an author or an actor. The
interface with the collective unconscious of the personal unconscious or shadow,
with the internal world of inborn or inherited common human characteristics is
represented by the "contra-sexual" entities of the anima-animus in
biological men respectively in biological women. They represent respectively
the feminine archetypal image in men and masculine in women, that I see as an
unexplored basis for explaining homosexuality and the ongoing LGBT phenomena,
especially in the Western world. An unconscious identification of the ego with
extraverted persona incurs into the danger of an identification of the ego with
the anima and ultimately of a projection of
unconscious contents upon others and upon nature or work environment. Such a
process may also explain some phenomena of computer
addiction and gaming where the primal intuition in time sequences
typical of mathematical thinking and music is overtaken by unconscious contents
and their automatisms, with the paradox that interaction with a mathematical
tool representing abstraction from emotional contents is overpowered by
addictive passion. Deeper understanding of such interactions between
"musical mathematics" and emotions or feelings may be obtained from
an analytical psychological study of what has been learned about the role of
music in the historical Doctrine
of the Affections, pioneered by Johann Mattheson and
originally suggested by Plato.
Other works seen to concentrate upon only mathematical aspects, such as in Ruth
Tatlow's Bach's
Numbers: Compositional Proportion and Significance, disregarding
the psychological aspects of numbers suggested e.g. in Jung's Psychological Approach to the Dogma of
Trinity (CW 11, p.107-200, §169 ff.) and in
A Self-realization incorporating the God-archetype
from the collective unconscious, or individuation in a
mature psyche is the result of harmonious sort of "negotiations" (cf.
prayer and worse synonyms - meditation, mindfulness) of the Ego with the two
aspects of the collective unconscious through its interfaces, by means of one
of the particular attitudes (introversion
or extraversion) and psychic
functions (rational thinking or feeling, and irrational
sensation or intuition), which are most consciously available to the
individual's (whole psyche's) closest ideal type
mentioned earlier. Immaturity as absence or failure of individuation, and
reliance upon an isolated thinking function corresponds to Brouwer's warning
for that "scientific
thinking is nothing but a fixation of the direction of will within the confines
of the head, and a scientific truth no more than an infatuation of desire
living exclusively in the human head", where the will
submitted to desire corresponds to an unconscious underdeveloped
feeling-function.
At this point it
is necessary to note that the aforementioned psychic components or entities are
not imagined out or thin air as it may appear to people who have never studied
all aspects of psychology, as the discipline has historically emerged out of
philosophy. They and their interactions, in analogy with the entities found in,
say, particle or quantum
physics, are conceptions that had to be postulated in order to explain and make
consistent sense of a wealth of empirical observations of actual human behavior
or expression of convictions, historically such as alchemical
speculations by e.g. Newton, the
personal development of Blaise Pascal, and
clinical observations such as in neurosis or schizophrenia.
THE ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGIST JUNG'S APPROACH
My own annotations on my copy of Carl Jung's book Memories, Dreams, Reflections recorded
by his associate Aniela
Jaffé, indicate that I first bought and read it in April
1975 but happened to definitely relate it to this essay of mine in July 2023.
The book is interesting especially because it tells about the author's
psychological interpretation of his understanding and feelings in meeting
mathematics. Such feelings, when experienced by common educated people can
easily be dismissed for being caused by lack of giftedness or sheer stupidity.
The complexity of Jung's account requires literal quotations (cf. pp. 43 ff.,
340 ff):
[…] I felt a downright fear of the
mathematics class. The teacher pretended that algebra was a perfectly natural
affair, to be taken for granted, whereas I didn't even know what numbers really
were […] they were nothing that could be imagined, mere quantities that
resulted from counting. To my confusion these quantities were now represented
by letters, which signified sounds, so that it became possible to hear them, so
to speak. […] No one could tell me what numbers were, and I was unable even to
formulate the question. […] But the things that exasperated me most of all was
the proposition: If a=b and b=c, then a=c. even though by definition a
meant something other than b, and,
being different, could therefore not be equated with b, let alone with c.
Whenever it was a question of equivalence, then it was said that a=a, b=b, and
so on. This I could accept, whereas a=b seemed to me a downright lie or a
fraud. I was equally outraged when the teacher stated in the teeth of his own
definition of parallel lines that they met at infinity. […] My intellectual
morality fought against these whimsical inconsistencies, which have forever
debarred me from understanding mathematics. Right into old age I have had the
incorrigible feeling that it, like my schoolmates, I could have accepted
without struggle the proposition that a=b,
or that sun=moon, dog=cat, then mathematics might have fooled me endlessly
– just how much I only began to
realize at the age of eighty-four. All my life it remained a puzzle to me why
it was that I never managed to get my bearings in mathematics when there was no
doubt that I could calculate properly. Leas of all did I understand my own moral doubts concerning mathematics.
In a later section of the book, in the chapter
"On life after death", Jung introduced some exceedingly complex ideas
about the relation of human death to the realm of consciousness vs. the
unconscious or "the intermediate stage between unconscious and conscious
cognition". It would take us too far in this our context but the following
extracted comment (p. 341) may give a taste of the relation to mathematics:
Ideas of this sort are, of course,
inaccurate, and give a strong picture, like a body projected on a plane or,
conversely, like the construction of a four-dimensional model out of a
three-dimensional body. They use the terms of a three-dimensional world in
order to represent themselves to us. Mathematics goes to great pains to create
expressions for relationships which pass empirical comprehension. In much the
same way, it is all-important for a discipline to build up images of
intangibles by logical principles and on the basis of empirical data, that is,
on the evidence of dreams. The method employed is what I have called "the
method of the necessary statement". It represents the principle of amplification in the interpretation of
dreams, but can most easily be demonstrated by the statements implicit in
simple whole numbers.
My point with these quotations is to suggest that
mathematics because of its very nature introduces unconscious processes in the
human mind while surreptitiously merging them with ordinary conscious ones. It
all recalls what has been considered in this essay about both the
aforementioned Brouwer and Zellini, as well giving a hint of the ultimate
mysteries of quantum physics (more on this above and below) in the relation
between psyche and matter. An alternative equivalent conception presented
in my Information and Theology is the balance between the inner knowledge of human
psyche vs. natural science and knowledge of the outer world.
Until further notice I assume that Jung's attitude is
motivated by his psychic inclination to watch upon the unique (psyche) instead of "playing God" by searching
general "laws" of nature where the human being is regarded as only an
object of an undefined or pantheistic "Nature". A concretization of
these thoughts is suggested by problems and the history of debates on the
societal introduction of personal identification numbers in Sweden followed by national
identification numbers all over the world
as I explain in my essay on The Meaning of Man-Machine Interaction.
The extension of
these problems reaches the import of the whole issue of my text on the
consequences of the computerization of society which follows the conclusions of
the present essay, and that I rhetorically named Computerization as Design of Logic Acrobatics. A concrete manifestation of the latest problems of
computerization, which at the same time illustrates the psychic derangements of
mathematical thought as suggested in
Jung's account is the open letter Pause Giant AI Experiments: We call on all AI labs to
immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more
powerful than GPT-4. By
August 2nd, 2023 when I accessed it, it had gathered more that 33000 signatures,
upon what I consider as a legitimate fear that is paradoxically based on wrong
premises, reminding an analog "moratorium" that I recall in my essay
on Trends in the Philosophy of Technology. They are wrong "Leibnizian" premises as
explain in my paper on
Artificial General Intelligence and ChatGPT.
Several partial conclusions have been distributed
above in the form of comments along the various chapters. Not all of them will
be summarized below where I will rather focus on formulating some completions
besides the basic resuming tenet mentioned at the beginning: the main message of this article is that
only if we understand what we are doing with the basic formalisms of
mathematics and related logic, geometry and such, we will understand what we
are doing with computers. And now I can add my conviction that
ultimately it all is a theological and religious question - the meaning and
survival of our Judeo-Christian culture in face of techno-science.
I wish also to emphasize that the literature surveyed
in this text of mine will always be insufficient in view of the complexity of
the issues that were covered. I will illustrate this with only one example, an
excerpt from the context of "A blog about religion, science,
philosophy" that introduces many other interesting ideas not considered
here, and is taken from an article I recommend, with the title Zen
and the Art of Science: A Tribute to Robert Pirsig. In
an argument that leads to reflection about the never resolved crisis in the
foundations of mathematics and basic rules of logic, the author (writing under
pseudonym the apparent pseudonym "m. servetus") who else writes
interesting stuff about Knowledge
without Reason tells about Robert Pirsig noting that
[...] the number of hypotheses could easily grow faster than experiments could test them. One could not just come up with hypotheses – one had to make good hypotheses, ones that could eliminate the need for endless and unnecessary observations and testing. Good hypotheses required mental inspiration and intuition, components that were mysterious and unpredictable. The greatest scientists were precisely like the greatest artists, capable of making immense creative leaps before the process of testing even began. Without those creative leaps, science would remain on a never-ending treadmill of hypothesis development – this was the “infinity of hypotheses” problem. And yet, the notion that science depended on intuition and artistic leaps ran counter to the established view that the scientific method required nothing more than reason and the observation and recording of an objective reality.
Consider Einstein. One of history’s greatest scientists, Einstein hardly ever conducted actual experiments. Rather, he frequently engaged in “thought experiments,” imagining what it would be like to chase a beam of light, what it would feel like to be in a falling elevator, and what a clock would look like if the streetcar he was riding raced away from the clock at the speed of light.
[...T]he nature of mathematical discovery is so mysterious that mathematicians themselves have compared their insights to mysticism. The great French mathematician Henri Poincare believed that the human mind worked subliminally on problems, and his work habit was to spend no more than two hours at a time working on mathematics. Poincare believed that his subconscious would continue working on problems while he conducted other activities, and indeed, many of his great discoveries occurred precisely when he was away from his desk. John von Neumann, one of the best mathematicians of the twentieth century, also believed in the subliminal mind. [...]The Indian mathematical genius Srinivasa Ramanujan was a Hindu mystic who believed that solutions were revealed to him in dreams by the goddess Namagiri.
Intuition and inspiration were human solutions to the infinity-of-hypotheses problem. But [...] there was a related problem that had to be solved — the infinity of facts. Science depended on observation, but the issue of which facts to observe was neither obvious nor purely objective. Scientists had to make value judgments as to which facts were worth close observation and which facts could be safely overlooked, at least for the moment. This process often depended heavily on an imprecise sense or feeling [...]
It is a pity that the text does not dwell upon a
quotation from Pirsig which got imprinted in my mind since I read his famous Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance in 1977 (p. 110, my italics):
The cause of our current social crises [...] is a genetic defect within the nature of reason itself. [...] It begins to be seen for what it really is - emotionality hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty.
To return now to Brouwer I mean that his basic error
besides his "introverted" neglect of probable misuse by others of his
method and results, is the assumption that the damage caused by an undefined
"intellect" (paradoxically used by him in his own work) would come
exclusively from diverted attention from a likewise undefined self to the
external physical world. All this while there can be as many intrusions,
including archetypal images besides the basic intuition of time, coming from
the inner world of the collective unconscious. He himself seems to have been
struggling with his anima as most clearly exemplified in his apparently bizarre
attitude to "women considered collectively" in his early book on Life, Art and Mysticism.
On the other hand it is evident from the material
overviewed here and biographical details that Brouwer worked very hard to
achieve a spiritual readiness akin to an "individuation" by means of
a kind of continuous meditation and a familiarization with Christian and
Eastern mystical traditions that imply prayer. This
may be more than the atomic bomb's "genius" Robert
Oppenheimer with his late awakened conscience after the terror
crimes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is said to have done. Despite his rather
introverted attitude Brouwer evidently also struggled to practice some
extraverted activity such as participation in the scientific community, its
conferences, publications and debates. Nevertheless we also saw indications
that he ultimately got somewhat socially isolated even if his results came into
the domain of use by other mathematicians, and ultimately in extraverted
industrial and military activities. His intuitive sensing of the self was
probably not sufficient to allow an integration of his ego with his
unconscious, let alone his negative shadow and anima.
In any case he succeeded in identifying, especially in
the environmental issues of his time, the danger of extraverted thinking
combined with the auxiliary function of sensation that leads to projection of
fantasies of power over nature and human communications. The success he
envisaged, however, would not come from the limitations of his mathematics but
rather from his and especially others' psychological maturity and capacity to
understand and integrate in their own work Brouwer's insights. This would have
implied consequent research by others along his line of thought and their
renouncement to improper applications
of a tempting mathematics with its supported technology and its
supporting formal logic.
Personally I feel intrigued by the necessity of a
better understanding of what may be Brouwer's main insight for our purposes. It
is the essence of isomorphism in
its relation to formalism,
since it lies at a ground to the phenomenon of mental projection and fitness of
mathematical, and consequently logical forms into nature and the whole external
world including humans and their activities that today are the object of
intense computerization. Thereby we might understand why humans find
consistency in their understanding of selected and causally structured pieces
of formalized world whose common characteristic may be to be object of their
often unconscious will to power, "infantile" dreams of omnipotence,
which consequently are projected into the environment including nature,
constituting the psychological essence of scientific technology. Since it is a
question of supremacy of "morphism" or form over content, whatever it is or should be,
it is also a question of understanding its essence. It is supremacy of
fragmented forms over content that leads the trend of computerization, and this
may also clarify the title of this article being the computer as "embodiment",
the form of form, or meta-form. It leads many computer and information
researchers today to abstract from the essence of computation and communication
mentioned at the beginning of this essay, luring them into playing down the
systems approach and dealing instead with the fashionable trend of
"design" with computer graphics, acoustics, haptic technology and
talk about numerous neologisms such as digital materiality being a new
materiality, or virtual reality being a new reality.
One hypothesis could be that such a supremacy of form
over content may be related to aestheticism in
its relation to ethics, already implicit in the role of art in Nietzsche's
philosophy or, as defined in The American
Heritage Dictionary: "An artistic and intellectual movement originating in Britain in
the late 19th century and characterized by the doctrine that beauty is the
basic principle from which all other principles, especially moral ones, are
derived." [My italics]. On an earlier occasion I had already the
opportunity to advise the author Gunnela Ivanov of a doctoral
dissertation on "design" (in Swedish, pp. 303-305) that
Friedrich Schiller had exceedingly interesting thoughts about the matter in his
Textes Esthétiques (Paris,
1998): "Sur les limites nécessaires dans l'usage des belles formes"
[On the limits necessary in the use of beautiful forms], pp. 82-83 and 86-87, (corresponding
to vol. XXI in Schillers
Werke - Nationalausgabe, edited by Helmut Koopmann and Benno von Wiese, pp.
17-18 and 23). If I may guess, a superficial and easy but probably defective
way to convey the complex idea as I understand it, would be that since Platonic
beauty is the form of the good that in Western Christian culture is symbolized
by God, people more or less unconsciously tend to feel themselves exhilarated,
good or "godly", when they are in contact with beautiful forms, in
our case mathematical ones, the more so if this is combined with an additional
feeling of "divine" power thanks to a divinely intelligent mind that
approaches god's own designer-mind. This corresponds to the fake feeling of the
sublime that
I treat in another text
on computerization. For atheists, all the same: "I am best".
The same phenomenon may be active in the overpowering feeling experienced by
different psychic constitutions in composing, performing or listening to
different kinds of music. My criticism of the Wagner-cult, not
to mention modern times' satanic metal
music fatidically related to phenomena like Charles Manson's
cult, exposes paradigmatic examples, whose understanding would be enhanced by
an understanding of Plato's references to music (e.g. Republic III 398 ff., IV
423d ff., Timaeus 47c ff., Laws II 653 d).
The "renouncement" or moratorium mentioned
above is a cultural, moral and theological social matter that is portrayed in
the difficulties experienced in philosophy of technology with its paradoxical appeals
for a "moratorium" in the development of technology.
There are studies (see here, and
here,
recalling Joseph Needham's most famous and pioneering Science
and Civilization in China) of, for instance, why and how
high civilizations such as in China's history did not develop the Western kind
of science. Ultimately it would mean a renouncement to search for certain kinds
of "knowledge" to the advantage of others, to renounce working for
the development of certain kinds of (mathematically) advanced technology, in our
case computer technology, and or a renouncement to the extent of its use. At
the theological level some of these aspects can be subsumed under the criticism
of Brouwer's implicit quietism we
already mentioned, as it may be seen permeating even Kempis'
Imitation of Christ. The
problematic attitudes and life choices involved in these questions, analog to
Brouwer's, are illustrated in the modern world literature, and exemplified in
Thomas Merton's famous partial auto-biography The
Seven Storey Mountain (1948, 1998 ed. especially pp. 304, 310f., 319, 323,
344-347, 361.)
Ultimately it is not an indictment of mathematics or
its usefulness, proudly advocated by those few who feel elect to
"understand" it. It is, rather, an appeal to keep to an ethical
usefulness as implied in genuine pragmatism as I understand it in the tradition
of William James and West Churchman where "use" implies an ethically
justified goal and justified
"tools" or, rather, instruments, far from the supposed
neutrality of techno-science. That means also a mathematics, geometry or logic
that are not confined to the thinking sphere as defined in analytical
psychology but are kept related to the feeling and intuitive functions as also
suggested in, albeit
criticized, anthroposophy. In fact Rudolf Steiner explains this
attitude as I read it in the Italian translation Nascita
e Sviluppo Storico della Scienza [Birth and
Historical Development of Science] (Milano, 1982) of the original Der Enstehungsmoment der
Naturwissenschaft in der Weltgesichte und ihre seitherige Entwickelung,
(Opera Omnia n.
326, 1977, referring especially the third and fourth of the nine conferences
held in Dornach between 24 December 1922 and 6 January 1923).
Naïve as it may appear or even be in the eyes of
present day's established mainstream mathematicians and scientists (just
because they are established), particularly mathematical physicists that were
already challenged by the previously mentioned Clifford Truesdell, we should be
warned by the fact that there are enormous vested interest and a whole
military-scientific-academic "industry" that thrives on the
paradigmatic status quo. It includes the cheap rejection of complex
psychological and social theories on the basis of the requirement that they
should allow their "falsification", while espousing defective
thinking about the meaning
of falsification. The effects of the creation of e.g. metamathematics or metalogic,
although unperceived by the general public, will be analogously mind-blowing as
those of meta-ethics as
seen by those who subscribe to Christian ethics. The
creation and application of the tripartite
"syntax-semantics-pragmatics" will focus on formalistic syntax,
"magically" explain away pragmatics with valued goals of humans, and
tie semantics to extravertedly sensed objects in the spirit of logical
positivism and analytic
philosophy. They also stand at the basis of scientific physical
reductionism that spoils conclusions from the work of quantum physicists such
as Carlo Rovelli (see below). The extent of strange mind-blowing (mis)uses of
such creations is and will be analog to the ongoing general computerization of
life under controlled (cf. police-controlled terror-safe) laboratory-like forms
of user
interface and human-computer
interaction, and to queerly innovative feminist uses of the
abstractly mathematized quantum physics, for instance, in Karen Barad's Meeting
the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and
Meaning, (Duke University Press, 2007). The contrast between
such approaches and studies of relations of quantum physics to psychology can
be appreciated in Suzanne Gieser's ambitious The Innermost
Kernel. Depth Psychology and Quantum Physics: Wolfgang Pauli's Dialogue with
C.G. Jung (Springer-Verlag, 2005, based on her PhD
dissertation, in Swedish, at Uppsala University, 1995, ISBN 91-506-1140-2).
In this context of quantum physics and its
(mis)understandings I must mention more recent publications by the theoretical
physicist Carlo
Rovelli who has become known for his work on and
popularization of relational
quantum mechanics. In the book Seven
Brief Lessons on Physics, and later in The
Order of Time (e.g. in chap. 3 and 6) he popularly relativizes the
concepts of object, time and space, and thereby those of presence and existence. These
complexities undermine in a fruitful way the common lay (and some theological)
objections or considerations about the existence of God. At the same time,
however, they also tend to undermine all certainties, giving a taste of postmodernity that
also encourages the misuses of references to quantum physics mentioned in the
previous paragraph. I have concluded that one if not the main shortcoming in
Rovelli's approach is that he does not problematize the concept of the
observation as being psycho-logical,
i.e. necessarily mediated by the psyche
(not to mention Spirit).
He understandably does not dwell into this, reducing psyche to the
"functioning of the brain", decorated by indiscriminate
"emotions" that are said to include passions and "love".
They are seen as aesthetically giving colour to human life, as he himself does
in his text by means of a rich (but inconsequential) display of erudite, moving
poetic references to philosophy and the arts. Paradoxically Rovelli even
displays, with reference (chap. 12) to Augustine of
Hippo, similar insights to Brouwer's about the nature of
music without, however, relating them to mathematics. Rovelli treats the
observer and psyche of a human being in the light of physical reductionism
(disregarding its controversies),
paradoxically related to his deconstructed observer-"object" that he
sees as constituted by his (its) interactions with the environment. This, without considering
that this observer sees from both the "outside" and the
"inside", as body and a psyche that consists of more entities that an
Ego. Furthermore, the popularizing language he uses in the book hides that the
observations (theoretical physics)
are mediated by an extremely mathematical
reasoning that ignores Brouwer's message. It is a similar shortcoming
undermines the otherwise deep-going work of Arnold Gehlen's Die Seele im technischen Zeitalter
(chap. II, 1-2, Italian
trans.). Consequently Rovelli does not reflect upon his own
account of the misuse of mathematics in commenting the (apparently?) "long
series of successful experiments" supporting physics Standard Model (in Seven Brief Lesson on Physics, p.
32):
It's a theory which looks, at least at first sight, piecemeal and patched together. It's made up of various pieces and equations assembled without any clear order. A certain number of fields (but why these, exactly?) interacting between themselves with certain forces (but why these forces?) each determined by certain constants (but why precisely these values?) showing certain symmetries (but again, why these?). We're far from the simplicity of the equations of general relativity, and of quantum mechanics.
As if "aesthetical" simplicity and elegance
would have solved the question. Ignoring Brouwer's message and the essential
meaning of a mathematics leads Rovelli into a psychological and theological
nihilism, in the spirit of ignored sociopsychological interactionism. It
is extreme mathematical reasoning that isolates from social cultural criticism
and enables mathematical minds to be popularly perceived as polymaths. It
enables Rovelli to create a new synthesis in his relational quantum mechanics,
creating a logically well structured and therefore treacherously convincing
story with a mixture of hypotheses and empiricism, with (atheistic) references
to both buddhism and hinduism, and with e.g. the trivial rediscovery (The Order of Time, chap. 12)
of the concept of "system" that, undefined, is used indiscriminately
as much as "world" or "nature", as much as system is used (in Seven Brief Lessons..., pp.
18, 60, 74), or "objects" are found "only in abstract
mathematical space" (idem, p. 16) but they "work well" (pp. 18
,38) as Brouwer also notes with regard to misuse of causality. All this while
the human "observer" no longer observes (p. 33) or no longer speaks
but a word's meaning depends on "where it is spoken" (or heard? p.
57), and "the information that one physical system has about another has
nothing mental or subjective about it" (p. 68).
In consideration of Rovelli's obvious proficiency it
is motivated to adduce Socrates in Plato's observation (Republic
VI, 491d-e, here trans. by Paul Shorey) that it is "natural
that the best nature should fare worse than the inferior under conditions of
nurture unsuited to it". The stronger impact of misled gifted scientists
can cause more damage, and in this case I do know of only one other
knowledgeable scientist, Kelley
L. Ross, who could review and challenge
Rovelli's "Seven Lessons" on his own professional terms.
If all this is not enough let's recall the announced
advent of additional "mathematical tools" such as quantum
computers. Unfortunately it will not require a better
understanding of mathematical "tools" inasmuch they will be welcomed,
to begin with, for military applications, recalling Brouwer's warning about
scientific methods' basic motivations and their consequent essence. The message
of this article is nevertheless that it is better to ask ourselves how this
squares with the idea of good mathematics without reverting to the old
irresponsible tenet that it is neutral and its goodness depends politically
upon its or "our" supposedly good applications, guaranteed by our own
goodness or explicit commitment to doctrinal righteousness. The problem is
analog to the repeated announcement of advantages of artificial
intelligence, while neglecting the lessons of what it implicates,
as expounded in the already mentioned The
Design of Inquiring Systems. I guess the lessons are that if one cannot create computers that
"think" as well or better than humans, it is possible to teach or
force humans who do not already do so in culturally deprived work environments,
to think and act like rudimentary computers.
Thereafter it will be only logical and natural to
claim that it is better to replace them by genuine modern computers, which can
handle more complex logic and mathematics with faster processing and larger
memory. Much debate about AI is idle play around this sort of tautology while
ethics and morals are reduced to "moral rules" seen as the "core
of our human values", psyche and mind are reduced to "brain",
causal chains are reduced to "goals and means", machine learning is
reduced to induction-deduction, and computers are reduced to "algorithms".
With such a background it is not a question of whether humans will be replaced
by "super-intelligent" machines leading to the absurdities of technological
singularity, since they already are being and will be progressively replaced. The question is
rather which countermeasures can be taken today to offset or meet the cultural
and pragmatic consequences it will bring, reviving the core idea of the Frankenstein
novel. The whole hype of "superintelligence"
and its apparent criticism,
hangs on a basic misunderstanding of the roles of mathematics and logic, and
its consequences in the abuse of techno-science, in particular of
computer-oriented techno-science. Such abuse gets even coarser in the
industrial-commercial fields, an example being in the search of manpower by a Swedish multinational home
appliance manufacturer. The advertising supplement The Scholar distributed
with the main morning newspaper Svenska
Dagbladet (in February, 2022), announces (p. 18) that “Data science and AI”
open up exciting future prospects in the company”. It specifies further that
the company is looking for new competent colleagues for the application of data science and IoT [Internet of
Things] in its manufacturing. It is looking for Data Engineer, Data Modeller, Lead [meaning Leader?] of Data Assets, Senior Azure,
Developer, Senior Data Scientist, and Senior Solution Architect. Most
of the terms being barely known neologisms that suggest a prestigious
occasional “future” for technicians who have learnt or trained certain
momentarily hyped computer-anything.
What about the status of these questions in
contemporary literature about technology, ethics and responsibility? To my
knowledge among the most ambitious approaches there is the already mentioned
Carl Mitcham with his late contribution (2015) Rationality
in Technology and in Ethics. In: Gonzalez W. (eds.) New Perspectives on Technology, Values, and Ethics.
(Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol. 315. Springer,
Cham.) The connection to my present text is, however, better sensed in his
comprehensive article integrally available on the net Technology
and the Burden of Responsibility, where he
refers for once to mathematics and rationality:
"Modern engineering and technology ... introduce into the making activity an engagement with phenomena via mathematically analyzable forces in a sensorium extended through instrumentation into chemical composition at the level of atoms and molecules…In the techno-lifeworld so constructed by the rational taking in account of more than directly experienced phenomena, it is not surprising that moral behavior likewise must move beyond the primacy of anything approaching natural intuitions. Moral conduct too has to become more conscious, more rational, and take more into account."
It is to be noted, then, that what I have been
discussing throughout this present text is the ultimate problem of "via
mathematically analyzable forces" in a "sensorium extended through
instrumentation". All this, as we saw, is related to the meaning of
"more conscious, more rational, and take more into account". In an
earlier paragraph Mitcham quotes from William Akin's Technocracy and the American Dream (1977):
"One influential effort at formulating engineering responsibility led to the technocracy movement and the failed idea that engineers more than politicians should wield political power. Henry Goslee Prout, a former military engineer who became general manager of the Union Switch and Signal Company, speaking to the Cornell Association of Civil Engineers in 1906, described the profession in just such leadership terms: The engineers more than all other men, will guide humanity forward [...] On the engineers [...] rests a responsibility such as men have never before been called upon to face."
What appears in the discussions of this present text
is also that the task reaches beyond engineering and information science that
rely on so-called empirical evidence, mathematics and logic. What is never
(dares to be) mentioned is that "consciousness and rationality" in
engineered computer systems may be framed, as suggested by Brouwer, through psychology and philosophy into basic religious
(in our highly technological Western cultural heritage - Christian) and
theological tenets. They are supposed to regulate humans' values, the
interactions among themselves and, consequently, with nature. Provocatively:
ethics and responsibility may be "follow the Ten Commandments"
(or most or at least some of them?) and the rest, the correctly understood
"conscious rationality", may follow.
Having come this far I must remind the reader of the
reasons for my apparently weird sort of academic writing in this article
written as a summarizing "swan song" in a relative hurry at an
advanced age (80) with a perceived lack of time left for work. If it were not
so, I know how it should have written: e.g. as Jean Guitton
recommends in his Le
travail intellectuel ["A
student's guide to intellectual work"]. I write
with an excess of details, without sufficient revisions for improved clarity of
expression, in a language that is not my mother tongue, with a profusion of
references given in the links associated to the used words, links that are
intended for only those who need them, and are only available to be read for
those who read this text on the computer. I wish to leave a
"heritage" to those few readers who are genuinely interested in
pursuing this kind of research, to confirm or revise it on the basis of further
detail. The general idea of "why I write as I do write" is to be
found elsewhere
in my homepage, (and at the concluding end of other pages), a
version being also found in my blog. I make frequent use of
Wikipedia-references because of their often "good enough"
comprehensiveness and easy overview in terms of standardized layout. This is
done, however, with full knowledge and evaluation of their possible
shortcomings that are partly declared in Wikipedia's own auto-criticism. I have also already accounted elsewhere for my critical attitude to Wikipedia. For the rest I am grateful for any
comments I may get as I am grateful for all contributions that formed me during
during several decades of work. I intend to read and acknowledge all comments,
but I apologize if I will not be able to comment the comments, still less to be
available for discussions or debates about the text because of reasons that I
partly expose in another essay especially devoted to the frequent sterility of debates,
including peer review and publication.
Long after writing the above text a colleague told me
about news in quantum physics as presented in the link (June 17, 2021) "Physicists
bring human-scale object to a standstill, reaching a quantum state".
It refers to details in a scientific paper in Science, 18 June 2021, Vol. 372, No.
6548, pp. 1333-1336. I have only knowledge of mathematics and basic quantum
mechanics from courses in electronic engineering (William Houston, Principles of Quantum Mechanics, New
York: Dover, 1959) I asked for orientation from a couple of colleagues who are
knowledgeable about the state-of-the-art. One of them, professor of plasma
physics summarized his view:
"Quantum mechanics [QM] is very useful, and as you know, can be
used to calculate many new verifiable results. - But no one really understands
why it is so good, so I recommend my students to just count, instead of asking
undefined questions. "
The other colleague commented the above answer of the
first one. I choose only a few lines of his comments, beyond the rest that
mostly lies above my competence:
"[The] professor of plasma physics is exactly on the same line as I
am. Einstein also had about that same attitude. Now, however, it seems that
some experiments in recent years support Bohr's interpretation and do not
support Einstein's view of QM. But regardless of this, one can successfully use
QM without understanding it philosophically. Your plasma physics professor's
view is pragmatic and I do not think you can blame him. Since we do not have a
certain meaningful answer, we must be content with the fact that it works in an
incredibly fantastic way."
What are we to make out of this? I think that it
illustrates how far we travel from the Brouwer's trail, while the
"pragmatic" attitude (verifiable result, successful use, it works)
does not fit what appears to me to be the most thoughtful vein of pragmatism,
the philosophical
pragmatism, of William James. It
is easy to forget that in this meaning of pragmatism, pragmatic truth
"works", but is must work also for enabling of achievement of what is
good, not only of what is profitable, pleasant or exciting without need of
"understand philosophically". Such understanding is seen as a merely
decorative feature of understanding, as, paradoxically, in the analytical
philosophy's facile separation between facts and values
(engineers/administrators and politicians/priests).
As a concluding exercise I propose is to relate the
above to the following thoughts. First, consider the analogy of seeing the
Isaac Newton, pioneer of modern physics, but also interested in prophetic interpretation & escathology, as
well in alchemy that especially today
are downplayed and silenced. This recalls the fuzz about the rejected parts of Brouwer's dissertation and
issues that would have to wait until the twentieth century, as Carl Jung's
psychology and his cultural criticism, as in Civilization in Transition
(1970).
I ask the reader to consider the exercise of
evaluating the possibility of an analogy with a hunter (the pioneer scientist)
that with sacrifices and risk for his own life traps in a cage or kills a
dangerous wild beast, and then others (pragmatic smart technical-mathematical
scientists) follow like hyenas throwing themselves over the cage or the
carcass, doing research on how pragmatically
use it or profit on it. Or then consider the case of the "unsinkable"
Titanic, an
archetype of the technical hubris of "many new verifiable results" in
advanced naval architecture and ship construction. Or, finally, consider the
ending of quantum physics and all the rest of the world if the Cuban missile
crisis had had an unfortunate ending "working in an
incredibly fantastic way" as in the past atomic
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or as in the possible future
following the escalation and spread of nuclear weapons. All this while
disregarding the issue of climate warming, or environmentalism that already
worried Brouwer. The difference between the relevance of these three analogies
for our purposes is the degree to which they illustrate the development,
meaning and application of advanced mathematics intertwined with logic. The
bulk of educated humanity does not understand the meaning of advanced
mathematics, as mathematical pragmatists do not understand Newton's and
Brouwer's understanding. Such reciprocal misunderstanding neutralizes the role
of devout democracy in controlling this issue.