[Mike 5]

Guille - Muchas Gracias! Here is what I felt moved to write after reading you encouragement:

FRACTAL DIALECTICS

ROTATION IS THE KEY TO A THEORY OF EVERYTHING

ROTATION IS FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH EUCLID AND DESCARTES

HOMOGENEOUS SPACE AND TIME ARE NOWHERE TO BE EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED. OBVIOUSLY SPACE AND TIME AND EVERY THING AND BEING DISREGARD ALL CARTESIAN AND EUCLIDEAN IDEALS.

In our education system, we branch off into "arts" or "sciences" and rarely return to bring back our wisdom and training. This is faintly or brightly ridiculous – Da Vinci was a great artist and scientist, the coffee shops of seventeenth century London were meeting places across academic and professional specialisations that spawned great innovations. The Industrial revolution had not only efficiency but occasionally the aesthetics outshone the functionality. Today we are academically compartmentalised.

My theories of Fractal Dialectics are not fully in any academic field. For several years I have contemplated postgraduate research ideally at my former University, Cambridge, but is it maths made analogue? Is it actually linguistics made digital? Is it philosophy made practical? Is it mechanics made well, esoteric? Is it esoterics made empirical?

All of the above.

My degree is in Social Science, specifically the Anthropology of Religion. My career mainly in computing and bureacratics. My heart is in dance, music, and art. My deepest training experiences are in Neuro Linguistics and Ericksonian Hypnosis. And I first developed what is now Fractal Dialectics as a new form of music and audio synthesis, that clearly would revolutionise data processing. But above all I am a cynic. My degree at Cambridge was a huge disappointment to me, for it was simplistic and truly I nearly got a first with only two weeks work just before the exam. After that I turned my back on all intellectuals and academics to learn what is passion and what is pain and what is joy.

Hm. So who, who can I ask to contribute and finalise this new … mathematics. Why do I call it mathematics when it has flavours of so many other fields. Because in my view the people who decide, in all the educational process, I am a mathematician, these people have the precision and imagination to finalise and complete and understand Fractal Dialectics. But I may be wrong. In fact too many "mathematicians" are involve in the worship of Descartes and Euclid to realise, as proven by Goedel, the axioms of mathematics are arbitrary, they give a bias to all mechanics and even political thought. In a way, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were all intellectuals applying a deranged mathematical rigour to bring the messy jungle of people in society into some imagined perfection, and that is the awful truth about mathematics. It has no soul. Logic is everything. Mathematics is about absolutes and absolute truth, and the last hundred years of our species show the terrible suffering and deaths resulting from mathematically perfect weapons, in the hands of people who believe in absolute truth over human life.

Change the fundamental axioms, and you change not only the mathematics, you change the world. So I expect as with all truth, Fractal Dialectics will first be ridiculed, then if it has any value, it will be violently opposed. Finally, if it is in fact truth, it will only be widely accepted after these two phases.

Are you sitting comfortably? Then let us begin.

What is real? What is reality? Fractal Dialectics has a first axiom and that is as follows. All Real Things Rotate.

So here is a definition of material form, that necessarily implies a dialectic, a category that is not material or not formed. There is another version I used for my first book on all this – Discover Speed Intelligence – All Things Are in Motion + Motion is Like The Ocean. OK that book is for ordinary people and so both simplified and sharpened into tools for daily use in a mundane world.

The implications of this simple axiom – All Real Things Rotate – are stupefying. Intellectually, as an exercise, we could play with ideas and say, aha, curious academic research, let’s replace Euclid and Descartes, what possibly would be up to lasting a single round in the ring with these giants?

Well, this is an entrance to a labyrinth that really needs a warning sign BEWARE ALL WHO ENTER HERE.

Assume for a moment something you already assumed, that this planet rotates and every object on the surface is in curving motion. OK. That atoms and neutrinos spin, or have motion that is curving, oscillating, and here is my point. We don’t need Euclid and we don’t need Descartes at all. We can construct a rival theory of what is and what is not.

But clearly, our thoughts seem real. Concepts do not rotate but seem so real. My sense of sky and furniture and my existince within and yet observing all that - my sense of this reality around and within me does not rotate and yet please, please, which now is real? The stillness of what I think, or the motion of mechanical material forms.

My prediction is that through this single doorway, this axiom, we can grow an organic understanding that is inherently dualistic or something that I call analogue dialectic or even analogue recursive binary. Basically the dendritic structure of trees and rivers (or maybe a neural network) that appears to embrace a total space yet topologically remains a skin dividing inside and outside. This skin requires two distinct forms of navigation – internal by left or right branching over and over. And externally by what I call juxtaposition -the leap of a squirrel from branch to branch because they "randomly" are next to each other. Thes two forms of navigation are Fractal Dialectics and Juxtaposition Theory, which resolves the apparent paradoxes of co-incidence.

Of course these structures are not still, in fractal dialectics, but in curving motion that begs the question – why is it that twisting into independent rotation confers separateness? That independent rotation defines the separation of apple from tree? The cut umbilical cord allows separate rotational existence, and we declare, the baby is born, physically, just as a fragment of a meteorite spins independently and is therefore separate until glued back onto some other rotating thing. As humans we clearly perceive that things are separate because they have independence of rotation. But the moment we imagine that could be just our perception in our minds, and from another non-human perspective each thing remains forever connected umbilically to whatever it was previously rotating with... we have an exciting new model of reality that has no possible explanation in terms of Descartes nor Euclid. In fact, it is the "Nombrilic" worldview of some recent French thought and a return to salvage some elements for our Theory of Everything from the tribal witchdoctors of our ancestors, when you run with that flow of thinking until it takes off like a kite.

Duality is the central essence of rotation. Clockwise vs anticlockwise. North and South poles of stillness. Duality may be analogue, but we use language and conceptual thought to digitise and comparementalise all things into this and that, guilty or not guilty, but truly life is not so clear cut at all. Ultimately Nature itself has no need to be digital, and all things just fold back into the pudding of all there is and re-emerge in a complex stuttering analogue flow. To think is to clingfilm this idea from that background of what it is not. That conceptual act of either naming or defining is also a form of conceptual rotation: we wrap conceptual clingfilm around this idea to keep it distinct from other ideas and the background of where it was and is. Rotation defines a skin, here is inside and there is outside. Skin completes rotation whereas the climbing open lattice of a ladder or planetary orbit is rotation unbounaded. So ther DNA helix grabs RNA as it unzips and finally bursts through the walls to become two cells where there was just one.


The ultimate duality, perhaps a subjective guess, but my vote is consciousness and material form.

And that is where and why I think Fractal Dialectics is a seed that will grow and grow and ultimately, as a joint venture of many many minds, it will rival and could even replace both Descartes and Euclid.

And Christ and all the prophets too, I have to say, for the moment you have a single mechanics of consciousness and material form, a better model of their juxtapositions and opportunities than we have today with what passes for science, the moment you have a basis for empirical observation and prediction of what people want and to and think and say, two consequences result.

Firstly we will realise that science was believed, for when we have an alternative, it will be revealed as the matter of faith it truly is in the dimensionless point, in infinity, in zero, in cartesian geometry, in three dimensions, in the flat surface and the straight line and other fictions invented for practical results and comfort and control of a hostile environment.

Secondly we will think at last we have it. That is a joke. We merely have a new set of beliefs, and I should know, if this Fractal Dialectics ever takes off, I invented the axioms myself,. They are not real. They may be effective, and they may stop suffering, I certainly hope so, and allow more people to feel joy. Otherwise why bother. But science is merely the latest and most effective effective religion. And religions were always science to those who devoted their lives to testing their faith.