More than Computing

August 10th, 2006 Fred McVittie

The properties exhibited by inert matter are, for the most part, unspectacular. Matter exists, it displays form, texture, colour, mass etc. It may be reflective, magnetic, absorbent, or even give off radiation of various sorts. What inert matter cannot (usually) do is to compute. In order to perform acts of computation an entity must display a certain level of cybernetic complexity which is beyond inert matter. This complexity is available however, to a large number of systems.

Cybernetic systems, from the simple thermostat to human brain tissue, performs, at various levels, acts of computation, this ability however may not be the last word. It may be that some systems, structures, or materials are capable of exhibiting exotic properties that is a far beyond computation as computation is from the properties exhibited by inert matter.

Posted in Complexity, Computation, Matter | No Comments »

Human scale understanding

September 26th, 2006 Fred McVittie

The fact that, as Dawkins puts it, human beings are ‘medium-sized objects moving at medium speed’, would be banal were it not for the fact that the physical laws which structure reality vary according to scale and velocity. The largely Newtonian physics which applies at human scale are not applicable at a quantum level, and Cartesian spacetime breaks down at speeds approaching that of light. Atoms are not tiny solar systems and one cannot subdivide matter infinitely, as one might cut up a cake, without arriving at wildly different substituents . Modern physics, and science more generally, (unlike naive physics and pre-scientific study), does not restrict itself to investigations only of human scale phenomena, which inevitably requires having to deal with phenomena that do not offer themselves intuitively to our understanding, an understanding which is most determinedly human scale.

Posted in Dawkins, Richard, Matter, Newton, Isaac, Physics | No Comments »

Spirituality as a Relationship to the Immaterial

May 31st, 2007 Fred McVittie

The signs of spirituality vary in detail from one practice to another, but a general set of symptoms might include:

  • A sense of connection with something ‘larger’ than oneself
  • A sense of the existence of a ‘higher power’
  • (Occasionally) the presence of this ‘higher power’ in quasi-human form
  • The feeling that one’s understanding is somehow ‘deeper’ or conversely that one’s consciousness is ‘higher’
  • A feeling of meaningfulness: that one possesses a satisfactory answer to the fundamental questions of existence, even if one could not put that answer into words (unfortunately)
  • A dissolution of the ego, such that one feels the boundaries between self and world weakening or disappearing completely
  • etc
  • etc

Some, all, or more of these symptoms appear in testimony and creed of all the world’s major religions, as well as in the writings of individual mystics (and eccentrics) from Sri Aurobindo to David Icke. Many of the organised practices which religions offer seem to be designed to create the circumstances whereby such symptoms are created, enhanced, and supported.

An interesting feature of these spiritual feelings is that, whilst they tend to be similar across a wide range of belief systems, the actual object of this spirituality can vary enormously. Religious practices have worshipped the Sun, the Moon, one’s ancestors, the Earth, the Sky, the Ocean, a man (in the abstract, and written large), the Stars, etc. and all of these objects seem to invoke the same set of feelings and states. What this implies is that spirituality is best understood not as related to some particular belief or doctrine, but is a relatively specific state of mind, an altered state of consciousness that can be induced by a number of different means and originating in a number of different objects.

The range of possible objects assigned as catalysts for spiritual engagement is not infinite however, and there do seem to be certain criteria that such objects must fulfill before they can be used to invoke spiritual feelings. The primary and necessary criteria for such objects is that they be ultimately immaterial and unavailable to direct access by the senses. Religious and spiritual totems are all deeply abstract and can only be conceptualised through indirect means, primarily through the use of metaphor. Even such apparently concrete religious objects such as the Earth is not worshipped directly in its materiality but in the mental switch from the profane to the sacred is transformed into an essentialist abstraction. Earth worshippers do not worship the earth but ‘The Earth’, a abstract concept only apprehensible through metaphor. (It is paradoxical that in the case of Earth worship, since ‘The Earth’ is abstract and outside the realm of direct sensory embodiment, one must substitute a metaphor for this abstraction, and this metaphor is usually the actual material Earth itself. In this case, Earth effectively stands in for itself.)

Spirituality can therefore be seen as one possible felt relationship between consciousness and those aspects of cognition which are beyond direct experience. This particular felt relationship consists of a set of characteristic emotional and mental states, some of which are listed above.

Posted in Consciousness, Icke, David, Matter, Spirituality | No Comments »

The Fourth State of Imaginary Matter

September 12th, 2007 Fred McVittie

Matter, historically, was divided into the intuitively sensible categories of earth, air, fire, and water. To the medieval mind, this division was sufficient to cover the major distinctions in the properties of the stuff of the world, and associated conveniently with other quaternary distinctions, the bodily humours, the platonic solids etc. at a time when such correspondences were seen as significant evidence for the logical organisation of the world. The development of chemistry and physics replaced this intuitively satisfying but practically useless division with the period table of the elements and atomic theory which together reveal much more fundamental relations between substances and allows for vastly greater prediction and control of the chemical universe.

Outside of chemical practice however, we do still tend to use simpler systems of dividing the substances of the world into broad categories, regardless of their chemical constitutions. We do not usually use the earth, air, fire, water, classification but rather tend to think of ’stuff’ as being either solid, liquid, or gas. This trinity covers all of the material experience we are likely to run into in our daily lives, and maps thoroughly onto the sensorium in which we live. (Plasma has occasionally been referred to as the ‘fourth state of matter’ but since it is never encountered outside of high-energy physics it does not feature in our vernacular or intuitive understanding of the material world.)

Obviously, this classification of substance does not describe all aspects of the world, since much of our experience is not substance-based. We routinely engage with such entities as locations, forces, relationships, processes etc. which have no substantive existence but clearly are as real as the matter which we can see and touch. When we are engaging with substances however, we routinely expect it to fall into one of the three categories or solid, liquid, or gas, and if we learned of a substance which was outside of this classification (as opposed to a mixture for example) we would be hard pressed to find a way to conceive of it.

Let us assume for a moment that such a substance exists. We cannot talk about it easily since our language of substances is restricted to the big three, and even thinking about it ties us in knots. The extent to which we can think or talk about it at all is only the extent to which we can say it is like one of the existing known substances. We can say it is ‘a bit like a liquid’ or ’something like a gas’, or ‘ it has some of the qualities of a solid’. Yet even while we do this, we know that we are not really talking about the substance at all, such expressions are ‘a finger pointing at the moon’. This imaginary substance is neither solid, liquid, nor gas, and yet we can use the properties of these substances to speculate what the 4th state of matter might be like. This substance may be neither more solid than solid, nor more gaseous than gas, but at the same time we can think of it being both these things. Inasmuch as solidity and gaseousness seem to define a spectrum, the ’solidity’ spectrum we might say, then we can imaginatively place substance four on this spectrum, and if we do this we find that it is both more solid than solid and more gassy than gas. On the one hand, the fact that it makes no impression on the sense seems to place it beyond a gas. The spectrum of solidity from solid to liquid to gas seems to indicate a gradual dropping off of the availability of the different substances to sensory awareness; we can touch, taste, smell, hold, and see a solid; a liquid may be less visible, less easy to handle and contain; a gas is more evanescent still and may barely register on the senses at all. This journey from solid to gas is one of increasing removal from sensory contact and a hypothetical fourth substance, given that it does not appear at all, if we are to continue with this logic, must inevitably be placed beyond the gaseous.

On the other hand, we could possibly conceive of this substance taking up a position at the other end of the spectrum of solidity. When we look around at the solid matter of the world, we may be impressed by its apparent solidity, but we are also aware of it ultimate impermanence and transience. A Keats put is, ‘things fall apart’, and this goes for the most seemingly permanent. We see the breakdown of bodies, buildings and coastlines and know in our hearts that all things must pass. We also know that the most solid and fixed of matter that we see around us and inside us does not stay in the same place but is in constant motion. From the stars to our own eyeballs, all the stuff of the world is constantly jiggling and shifting. And while this jiggling seems to be most acute with gasses, and is least in evidence with solids, even the largest rocks fly around the Sun at a thousand miles an hour. Surely there should be state of matter does not perform this wild dance, but is genuinely solid; not just hard to the touch but firm and reliable in its fixity. The logic of the gradient from gas to solid, when extrapolated onward, seem to lead to such a substance. Truly permanent, truly unchanging, truly still.

We could, at this point conjecture on the existence of not only a fourth, but also a fifth state of imaginary matter, one which exists outside the ephemerality of gas and another which is inside the glacially shifting surface of solids. It may be more interesting to consider to what extent these apparent opposites can be reconciled into a single substance. And if such conflation proves to be impossibly paradoxical, we may find that we can learn something from the attempt.

Posted in Liquid, Matter, Metaphor, Sense, Substance | No Comments »

We are the Dead

October 31st, 2007 Fred McVittie

The dead things of the world, the inert and inanimate things that lie all around us, are our sisters and brothers. We are part of an extended family of corpses, all engaged in the processes of the dead which are also the processes of matter. Here is grass and a rock, here is water and the wind through the trees. These are the dead things that are so far from where we appear to ourselves to be. But we also are the dead, and the living of our bodies does not exclude its simultaneous death. Death is not held at bay by life but lies alongside it, like a lover, or the shale under the snow. We are in its midst and it is in ours, and when life has gone we will still have that death. Hello darkness my old friend. Here is grass, the wind through the trees.

Posted in Darkness, Death, Matter | No Comments »

Sublimation

April 9th, 2008 Fred McVittie

In chemistry, a substance is said to undergo the process of sublimation if, on heating, it changes state from a solid to a gas without passing through an intermediate state of liquidity. Observing sublimation in action is a relatively rare experience, confined primarily to chemistry students or, historically, to alchemists, and a prototypical experimental demonstration might proceed as follows:

A small amount of a solid substance is placed in the bottom of a test tube and the test tube is then held over the flame of a bunsen burner. For a few moments nothing happens, then a thin vapour may be seen issuing from the substance (or maybe not). This vapour may be seen to rise up the tube and, when it reaches the cooler regions at the top, deposits itself as a solid on the glass sides of the tube (1). With some substances there is not even the telltale trace of vapour to mark the passage of the substance through the intermediate space; it may appear to simply diminish in presence at one location and accumulate in another, higher place. This is the literal, ‘embodied’ sense in which the term ’sublimation’ can be experienced, and as noted is not an experience that many will have had. Nevertheless, this process of sublimation has extensive use as a metaphor and the structure of this metaphor links it to the wider imaginary landscape within which knowledge makes sense (and the senses make knowledge). The relationship between this particular metaphor to the wider imagination, and indeed why such an apparently arcane experience is appropriate in this case, can be revealed by an analysis of the various uses of the term outside of its specific scientific or alchemical context (2).

The term ’sublimation’ appears in Freudian psychoanalysis, and is most usually applied to the practices of artists. He writes that “Among the instinctual forces which are put to this [civilizing] use the sexual impulses play an important part; in this process they are sublimated.” (Freud, S. 1966. 27). This “process” “consists in the sexual trend abandoning its aim of obtaining a sexual component or a reproductive pleasure and taking on another which is related genetically to the abandoned one but is itself no longer sexual and must be described as social. We call this process ‘sublimation’, in accordance with the general estimate that places social aims higher than the sexual ones, which are at bottom self-interested.” (Freud, S. 1966. 429)

Note the use in this passage of terms indicating differences in elevation, and the unstated values associated with different ‘levels’. The originating substance of sublimation is placed ‘at bottom’ and is narrowly concerned with the self and the sexual body. The products of sublimation however are given the wider and more lofty perspective of the social. The metaphorical schema underpinning this image, in addition to its narrative of alchemical transformation, also makes use of the UP IS GOOD association discussed elsewhere. The view from the top of the test tube or alembic vessel takes in the houses and gardens of one’s neighbours.

The particular goodness of this sublime position, particularly when it becomes the precipitator of art, is, for Freud, not unclouded with potential problems. For Freud the libidinous and thanatoid drives of the ego, constantly under the whip of id and superego, ideally found release in the delights of sex and the void of death. But for those of us who are wedded to either celibacy or self-preservation these drives must send their energy elsewhere and the destination of choice for artists, writers, and other creative inadequates, is to exhaust them upward in the vaporous evanscences of art, the social function of which, for Freud, is questionable. He describes the artist as “…originally a man who turns away from reality because he cannot come to terms with the renunciation of instinctual satisfaction which it at first demands, and who allows his erotic and ambitious wishes full play in the life of phantasy.” (Freud, S. 1911. 24). This is an image of creativity in the arts as the steam above the factory; energy lost to the environment as uncontainable and useless gas. This unruly, and possibly even toxic, waste is deposited as solid accumulations on our gallery walls and the shelves of our libraries without even passing through the hydraulically practical liquid stage of useful procreation or of turning the wheel of life into the mulch of death. As is evident from the tone of these sentences, to Freud (as to Plato before him (3)) the product of arts practice was a deviation from the intended use of these drives. It is interesting to note that Freud, in keeping with the necessity of maintaining consistency in the utilisation of his image schema, (although he may not have thought of it in those terms) described the alternative to sublimation as ‘repression’. The workings of the steam-driven psyche act upon the unwanted desires such that instead of being evacuated to the air they are pushed underground. The verticality of the psychic dimension is retained, along with a notional position of the self, in the form of the ego, at ground zero. Repressed material enters the confines of the dark, whereas the sublime expands upward into the light.

This characterisation of sublimation as the cause of, at best, harmless vapourware, is obviously not one that tends to be shared by artists and those in the art industry more generally. For the cognescenti, the alchemical transformation that marks the change from the solid and indeed stolid experiences of this fallen world into the elevated condition of high art is little short of miraculous. This process, including the airy gap across which the substance disappears and reappears, bears the marks of the magickal, reminiscent of an earlier, more theological age. As Peter Harrison reminds us “Some of the practitioners of alchemy also wished to claim much more for their chemical experiments that that they merely signified Divine activities or theological doctrines. Thomas Tymme, the English translator of Calvin’s commentary on Genesis, believed that God had actually used alchemical processes to create the world, bringing it forth from an elemental chaos ‘by his Halchemicall Extraction, Separation, Sublimation, and Coniunction’”. (Tymme, 1605 in Harrison, 2001). As the base material of God writ small, the paint diminishes from the palette and recongeals in angelic form on the canvas; inconsequential ink evaporates from the pen and rises unseen to trace the shape of sounds across the page. The dull and profane solidity of matter passes invisibly upward to become a second solid, a bright and sacred work of art permanently glimmering in the empyrean of the cultural imagination. This is the alternative take on sublimity favoured, and most clearly exemplified, in the work of the Romantic poets; Wordsworth for example, uses the term ’sublime’ or its derivations twenty times in his ‘Prelude’, each usage referring to some kind of elevated state which, it seems fair to say, he never articulates well, which is probably the point, since almost by definition the Romantic sublime is forever an inarticulable idea beyond expression in the charnel-house language of fallen flesh.

For Edmund Burke, whose Enquiry into the Origins of our Ideas on the Sublime and Beautiful (1757) and for Kant in his Critique of Aesthetic Judgment (1790), the sublime finds its place within the glossary of formal aesthetics, and this place illuminates the intuitions of the Romantic poets and those painters of the period who similarly aspired to this transcendent position. Interestingly, the sublime of Burke is aspirationally more lofty even than the social overview suggested by Freud. He distinguishes the sublime in art from that which is merely ‘beautiful’. The judgment of beauty, he claims, “has its origin in our social feelings, particularly in our feelings toward the other sex, and in our hope for a consolation through love and desire.” http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-570785/sublime

The production of the sublime, on the other hand, may require the mobilisation of cthonic forces which one would be hard-pressed to consider social;

“Whatever is fitted in any sort to excite the ideas of pain, and danger, that is to say, whatever is in any sort terrible, or is conversant about terrible objects, or operates in a manner analogous to terror, is a source of the sublime; that is, it is productive of the strongest emotion which the mind is capable of feeling.” (Burke, E. 1757/1998. 50)

What is more, the view from the ground, when looking up into the eyes of this sublime horror is similarly enlarged. To feel oneself the object of that terrible subject is not the detached aestheticism one feels in the presence of beauty. The height of beauty is merely that of the pedestal, whereas sublimity touches the void, and the only appropriate response, as Burke notes is one of astonishment.

“Astonishment, as I have said, is the effect of the sublime in its highest degree; the inferior effects are admiration, reverence and respect.” (ibid. 53)

It is irresistable at this point to note in passing that one, ideosyncratic etymology of the term sublime traces it to the latin super limas, which means ‘above the slime or mud of this world’. (Beattie, J. in Monk, H. 1935. 129), although Monk does comment that Beattie’s contribution is “chiefly memorable” for its “etymological aberrations.”

To return to the ground on which we began, this term ’sublimation’ has its technical origins in the laboratory and marks this odd and counter-intuitive transformation in which the intermediate stage is invisible. Instead of seeing physical change one sees upward motion, disappearance and reappearance. This chemical act is not the first use of the term however, and if we are to get to grips with the meaningfulness of the concept in its full embodiment we may need to go further back. Without wishing to evoke etymology as explanation, it is worth noting that the origins of the word ’sublime’ lie in the Latin ’sub lintel’, indicating a metaphor to do with thresholds, entrances and exits, passage across, through, or under a significant boundary. To ’sublime’, in what may seem an overly literal sense of the phrase, would mean to pass from one location to another, very different type of location; leaving the cell in which one has been confined, stepping out of the darkness into the light. The identification of the metaphor in which STATES are understood as LOCATIONS has been well explored (Lakoff & Turner. 1989. 3) and this use of the concept of the physical threshold, a transition zone in which there is no perceptible and identifiable space in which change can be observed, merely the demarcation of a line of difference, is evidently an entailment of that overall metaphor.

It seems to be a consistent theme in much writing, unfortunately beyond the scope of this piece, that part of the human condition is to be a dweller on the threshold, without definition other than as a liminal interface between the inside and the outside, the fallen and the risen, the sublimated and the repressed, the day and the night. As Samuel Beckett put it:

“Perhaps that’s what I feel, an outside and an inside and me in the middle, perhaps that’s what I am, the thing that divides the world in two, on the one side the outside, on the other the inside, that can be as thin as foil, I’m neither one side nor the other, I’m in the middle, I’m the partition, I’ve two surfaces and no thickness, perhaps that’s what I feel, myself vibrating, I’m the tympanum, on the one hand the mind, on the other the world, I don’t belong to either.” (Beckett, S. 170. 34)

(1) Almost all gasses, if frozen, will pass from solid to gas without passing through a liquid phase if the atmospheric pressure is kept very low. There are some substances however which are solid at room termperature and that undergo sublimation at atmospheric pressure. These include include phthalic anhydride (1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid anhydride), which is widely used for making paint resins. Another is terephthalic acid (1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid), which is used form making polyester. The most common substance is probably napthalene, which is the active ingredient in mothballs. Some substances, iodine for example, appear to undergo sublimation but this is actually a different process involving an oxidation and reduction reaction.

(2) Thomas Timme, in his epistolary to Duchesne’s 1605 ‘Practise of chymicall and hermeticall physicke’, wrote, “Then shall yee see the sublimated substances clinging to the sides of the glasses”

(3) In Plato’s ideal and noble Republic, poetry and the arts were to be banned, partly because of their status as imitations (and therefore further distancing man from the light of ideal forms), but also because they cause excessive and unnatural emotions and appetites to be aroused, that is, to ‘rise up’. (Republic X.595b-608b).

References

Beckett, S. (1970). The Unnamable. New York, Grove Press.

Beattie, James. (1783) Dissertations Moral and Critical. London, 1783). Quoted in Samuel H. Monk, 1935.

Edmund., B. (1998). A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Freud, S. (1966). The Complete Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis. . New York, Norton.

Freud, S. (1989). Formulations Regarding The Two Principles in Mental Functioning. The Freud Reader. P. Gay. New York, Norton: 301-306.

Harrison, P. (2001). The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G. and M. Turner (1989). More than cool reason : a field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, Ill. ; London, University of Chicago Press.

Monk, S. H. (1935). The Sublime. A study of critical theories in XVIII century England. New York, MLA.

Posted in Light, Matter, Space, Substance, Up | No Comments »