Supporting notes for my THESIS, in its current state, from notes to a friend. I have tinkered with it since 1995-96; first published (web) it on 24.May.2000:

++ BEFORE A=A, HEART WILLS.++

from notes to a friend.

revisions, 07/06/2000 12:40 AM

Willfulness in my view, plays a role equivalent to, or corresponding to that of particularity as a fundamental mathematical notion preceding all that follows and appears to exist in this universe. The things and objects with which math concerns itself emerge [cf. complexity studies] from action’s underlying intentionality expressed. Once extant, the object [whether a planet or a quark] is easily understood via standard mathematics because Will has coalesced -- or self-organized -- into an object.

I consider standard math as it has developed to its present state a spectacular achievement (and most of it exceeds my skills.) But for a complete understanding of the universe it is insufficient: it offers only one of two pillars of knowledge. To use a common phrase from math itself, contemporary mathematics is necessary but not sufficient. The equally necessary pillar of math that corresponds to the math of objects is the math of will / willfulness / intent from which action spings.

If we believe Waldrop's (*link below) excellent summary of the origins of complexity studies as a field, then we accept that it sprang largely from a desire to overcome if not reverse the dominance of reductionism in scientific work. The field as it is today [July 2000], however, depends upon its own reductive reasoning in that it seeks to reduce complex systems to classical particles generically called “agents” that each obey standardized rules of behavior. While this has clearly been shown to have value and offers enormous potential, it nonetheless varies or replicates rather than replaces standard scientific reductionism.

The variation on a theme that sets the field apart from all that precedes it very simply depends upon a presumption: “agents” act. Complexity scholars attribute activeness to agents. Although not completely versed in all the literature, it seems to me that it is a presumption, and that the presumption derives from ordinary observation, and that examination of activeness itself has fallen to the wayside despite the critically fundamental role it plays.

It reminds me of a question I always harbored but shuffled aside about behaviorist psychology: where does “behavior” itself originate? Who cares about the rules and control of behavior without an understanding of the origin of behavior being manipulated? They, like complexitists, [?] begin by assuming random actions are performed which can then be manipulated to control actions. They cavalierly dismiss much action without examination by attributing it to “saturation” and the “novelty effect.” I can forgive them as they truly have no interest in quantum level studies. But the question lingers, and applies broadly to the whole field of complexity studies. If agents obey rules of action, why has no one examined action itself?

It is my intuitively derived opinion that so-called scientific thinking corresponds to mathematical thinking. I feel no urgent need to document and prove it as it is so widely accepted that math is even considered the language of science itself. So I will address complexity’s inadequacy by presenting a challenge to methematics.

A fundamental inadequacy of mathematics invariably leads to reductionistic thinking characteristic of Modern Science. Specifically, all math reduces to "thingness." Math has NO VERBS, except "is."

-Dennis Mannisto (a summer 1998 picture of me) , 24.May.2000. (this page 6.July.2000)

some bibliography