[Fis] Congress on Order In Brazil

[Karl Javorszky]

A period comes to its end by means of a crisis and restarts as something
partially new



Dear Diego,

One needs no factual proofs as a support for the thoughts expressed in this
chatroom, we are not in the business of factual things here, I believe. If
we were discussing facts, we would be sitting in some Committee on
Standards and Norming: where the conceptual work has already been done, and
there are facts and relations among the facts the participants had already
agreed on. We discuss concepts here, of which we are not even sure that
they do exist, like Order and Information. In your valuable expose you
discuss order concepts, as being visible in social stratification and
allocation of goods and justice to different participants. Let me talk in
more general terms about order.

1. The end of a period

We do live in interesting times. We are witnessing, and taking part, in a
slow-motion process of a collapse. There is a change in the air. The frame
had become widened, more aspects can be pictured, from perspectives spaced
wider than before.

The historical perspective of exporting culture by killing people and
raping the present, traditional culture, has been with us, without
questioning, since times writing up records of history have begun, and
probably since even earlier times. Our generation has understood that
although killing your opponent may be explained away into doing and having
done something honourable, by using traditional terms and rhetoric, but the
procedure itself cannot be actually done maximally effectively – and if you
don’t want to do something in an efficient manner, why do it at all? The
ultimate war defeats its own goal, as it leaves all participants dead,
victors inclusive: so why begin an escalation if all know that it is
unthinkable to escalate fully. Let us credit Hitler with having fought the
last ultimate, total war, although Truman would be a serious contender for
having that named after him, which we since then have understood to be a
complete idiocy. If the last step of a correct chain of reasoning leads to
a nonsense, then the whole chain of reasoning is severely discredited. This
is what falls us now on the head: that the ideology of the Normative Power
of the Factual has proven to be conceptually finite and local. We cease to
believe in the magic power of *Individual q*, which he used to derive from
the *position* that the individual has occupied. The legitimacy of his
teachings is demolished. He may keep declaring, that such an order *q* has
to be maintained, because this is the order that keeps the world running,
and him on his position, but we see in the rural communities, outside of
the inner circle of the courtiers of Emperor *q*, that order *q* is
actually dis-allocating matter to places, resources to families. There is
apparently a much better order *r*, the details of which may at the moment
not yet be fully spelled out, but a general agreement lies in the air, that
a differing set of relations among the elements is definitely called for,
and that such an alternative order is possible.

The end of a period is marked by a crisis. Then, a re-evaluation of all
concepts is permissible and will take place. Among the teachings that
experience a re-evaluation by society is the interpretation of history, as
Orwell has pointed out. If the cultural export, causing a violent import
and division in the subset of elements subjected to being civilised, is
defined to be a positive value, the system of measurements yields that all
is well and order *q* keeps on ruling based on reason, insight and
tradition. If the costs caused by the extermination of the previous form of
organisation appear to be higher than the benefits received from being
civilised into someone other’s design, then unrest will present itself.
Nature likes to be in an optimal position and state, and elements
(relatively) free of external prescriptions tend to migrate towards their
natural places. There is a web of tension when we regard the two webs
created by the ruling ideology of order *q* and the instinctive feeling of
there being a more just and sensible way of distributing things, which is a
version of the natural order, felt by the participants on a gut,
instinctive, pre-intellectual level of hormonal facts, which we called
order *r*. The tension between these two is again a web, which is not
represented on the level of objects, matters and distribution of goods
among the members of the public. The meta-web is not built on places,
elements and resources, but on the *differences* of two webs which are
represented in reality. This is a dimensionless measure of distortion. But
this is what the people feel, and can instinctively agree on, that the time
has come *now* that something happens. To this level of interplay of
symbols is the mombomat looking forward and pleased to provide a wild
rhythm to.

The collapse relates to the order in society. We do not have any more *one*
version of teachings of history, and we have differing ways of assigning
positive or negative values to observed facts and relations among facts.
The concept of total wars, and therefore of wars generally, has become
discredited: therefore, the traditional way of settling rivalries does not
serve its purpose any more. The export of population surplus in the
traditional fashion, by subjugating the inhabitants of other places, is
frowned on. The heroic interpretations of cultural rape have lost their
credibility. Additionally, to the credibility issues of traditional social
norms, we experience the problem that money is created out of thin, hot
air, not to speak of problems with the surface temperature of the planet:
what else is needed to add to the instability? It can well be, that the
present version of the invention of the Phoenicians will follow the way of
the commodity money cowry clams. If the rules of the distribution game had
been conceptually biased, skewed by the writers of the rules, and had a
built-in bias preferring those in the sub-procedure of accumulating
capital, who already have had accumulated some capital, then a
concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands is a built-in consequence,
to be expected as a certain outcome of the game. Once all the wealth has
been won from the other players, the losers will lose interest remaining in
the game, of continued play. This would in itself not disturb the haves,
that the have-nots are unwilling to cooperate: if they don’t want to
starve, they will cooperate. The problem for the haves comes rather from
the drying up of flows from the have-nots, as the have-nots had become
actually too poor to continue subsidising the haves. If the steady income
stops, the haves, too, have no interest in continuing the game. Then a
decoupling of bonds takes place. The haves and the have-nots are no more
members of the same community, they will not be depicted any more as *one*
Sachverhalt, there ceases to exist a word to describe their common
interests, because the former antagonists have no common relation any more
as participants of distribution and re-distribution. This can happen in
intellectual relations also: it is no more, that a person’s views are
irritating: they just become irrelevant.

2. Several, competing concepts of order

A European of some age, one will remember thankfully our variants of
Emperor *q* in the 1968ff years. (In Europe, only one person, Benno
Ohnesorg, was shot during political demonstrations, no Kent State
University or Tienanmen Square style massacres. This has given the 68-ers a
feeling of victory.) Not being too repressive, the European version of *q*
had made it possible for the 68-ers to do the *Long March Through the
Institutions*. Antiauthoritarians pop up at times from the most unlikely
places, like anarchists throwing bombs at royalty. Now the right honourable
learned friends are co-participants in the spectacle of a big bang of the
numbering system, with the fragments caught and reassembled into a
mombering system. This is truly a réussit, if it goes through, of *change
the system from within, from its basis*.

The concept of order is the anatomy of the Emperor. Order concept *q* is
differing to order concept *r*, which is how we call a version of the most
natural order that is ever possible. Order prevails, if requirements are
met. We know the requirements from the words: all are, where they should
be. If requirements change periodically (see influences of Earth, Moon,
Sun), there will appear a collection of possible, maybe including some of
them: ideal, arrangements and strategies for the elements to be on or to
progress towards their ideal places. This is what we are looking for: the
most sustainable compromise among differing requirements that change
periodically. If we turn up in our archaeological work on relations among
variants of *(a,b)* some generally valid rules of order, then we have
unearthed, uncovered, unveiled a new faith, a new concept of basic order,
at least as legitimate as all other existing order concepts.

3. The powers above us

The Emperor’s message is, invariably along the centuries, that it is
necessary and rational to keep faith with him. “I represent the order. The
fact, that I am *up* and you are *down* keeps reinforcing archaic knowledge
of our species, from the times we still dwelt on trees. The chief is up and
he pisses down: his urine’s flavour and *haute-gout *are the key
properties, on which members of the group recognise each other as belonging
to the same group. The most basic of all relations – gravity itself – is
normed, adjusted, defined, rediscovered, reinforced on my being up and you
being down. If you don’t believe in me being up, you don’t believe in
gravity.”

Gravity is one of 3 axes that appear by themselves if one orders diverse
forms of appearances at his hearth’s leisure in a systematic fashion. It is
important to remind the learned friends, that numbers have so far nothing
to do with the idea of order relations to be proposed as useful and
practical. The numbers will eventually validate the hypothesis, that
predictable patterns appear if one orders some glitzy puppets around. Dogs
have a perfect understanding of spatial geometry, as their ability to catch
a frisbee shows, but dogs will not be credited by using numbers as the
basis and method for their calculations of paths. We discuss the
instinctive intelligence here, which arrives at correctly predicting
coordinates in space, without using that Sumerian invention, *N*, 1,2,3,…

The basic order, visualised as three axes, has one, additive and oriented,
which serves as our basis of experiencing the effects of gravity, because
it exerts a continuous ordering requirement on the elements. The other two
are conceptually symmetric, de facto not quite symmetric.

4. Oh, to be different (diverse, alien, biverse)

There is a rather archaic feel to a pre-Sumerian deal, where two partners
in commerce try to establish the value of an item of exchange. How much it
is, both parts together, has already been agreed on: the merchants
themselves being subject to an equaliser, they have no difficulty in
imagining an objective equaliser that is valid for other, factual objects
of reality, too. The equal gradation and additivity of the vertical axis,
which depicts *a+b=c*, allows the connection of a mental image, of *N*,
with an experience rooted in natural order, which we call gravity. The idea
of the pre-Sumerians, with *putting the two pieces together* and agreeing
on rules on how to establish names for the procedure, has been developed
into a strongly rooted and organised mental system, the present numbering
system. This was the easy part.

To compare two things with each other, it helps to consider, what they
yield if joined. It also helps if we see by how much the blue smaller, *a*,
is different to the green bigger, *b*. The discussion has two points: how
the blue relates to the double of the green, and how the green relates to
the double of the blue. This may appear rather alien, even
extra-terrestrial alien, to us, but this is the pattern the orderings bring
forth. How much the *two parts of something* are *different t*o each other
is as good a question as how much they are *together*. The inner difference
can have two voices: once the smaller narrating how he would experience the
difference to the bigger, if only he was double his size, once the bigger,
telling us, by how much he is bigger, and even by how much more bigger,
relative to the smaller, if he was double his size. (The songs of the equal
are haikus.) These are two different tales of order, which give a
descriptive structure, creating a background for the experiences to be
placed in. Combined with the upright axis, of which the effects are
independent (the two parts remain additive, even as they are classified
according to their inner alienation), which is *semper et ubique,* the
three axes generate a space. Right-left and front-back are describing
measures of diversity, the upright axis describes the similarity property
of objects.

The two diversity axes disperse the elements across a wider territory than
their similarity property. There are more ways to be different than to be
similar, which is no great wonder, given that there are two narrators of
diversity, who have to fuse into one to sing about similarity. The natural
order is visible in the form of a lentil, at times in the form of a flat
doughnut. Saturn makes the example well visible: one would assume that the
things circling Saturn are ordered according to their inner diversity
(alienation), as predicted by the measurement gradation of the two
horizontal axes. The two degrees of alienation *{a-2b, b-2a} *give the
position *(x,y) *of any *(a,b)* on a plane exactly, and with their sum *{a+b}
*giving an exact value *z*, the individual called *(a,b) *could be assigned
a place in a 3D space. Diversity (alienation, biversity) is as much a valid
property of two objects included in the same Sachverhalt, as is their most
common, and commonly used, property valid. If it is legitimate to derive
the *additive *property of *(a,b), *then it is equally legitimate to derive
the *diversity (alienation, biversity) *property of the same *(a,b).*

5. Oh, to be subversive once again (Urban guerrillas of number theory)

Your position suggests, that you believe in the existence of a better order
than presently exists. You discuss the social context of the apparent
disorder. Physicists will be interested in the forms of the breakdowns of
the order. Chemistry will investigate, how assemblies are built, which
common sub-orders govern associations, and genetics investigates, which is
the perfect stage for the artistic performance of a piece called folding
and unfolding, following the rules of folding and unfolding. Some will be
interested in how the assembly blows up for containing too many inner
contradictions, some will watch and discuss, what measures are to be taken
to reduce the overall distortion between the actual web of allotments and a
more natural one, and some discuss, how the inner peristaltic of the system
invariably leads to destabilisation of power structures and dissolution of
order, allowing for a different form of organisation. Some theorise about
ideal circumstances, trying to use the pause signal of the system as a
carrier frequency.

The ideal order, in which theoretical genetics functions, is well different
from the social order actually existing in different forms among regions of
the planet and across species. However, both approaches discuss the
identical idea of a system of ordering principles having several forms of
realisation, and judgements being possible regarding differing forms of
appearance of order. You say: “There must be a better order!”, I say:
“There is a natural order.”.

6. We have to talk about the issue

What the Congress could contribute is a discussion about the meaning of the
term Order. The possession of the megaphone has given some groups of
society structural advantages. The guy with the megaphone sounds forcefully
convincing, compared to those who rely on the quiet voice of reason.

Discussing tales of Utopia and contrasting them with descriptions of actual
reality will direct attention to the distortion measure, describing the
alienation between two variants of order. Addressing what we understand
what the word “Order” means is a great and brave task.

Maybe in a quiet corner some fellow-accountants will happen to have an
exchange, talking shop among *jongleurs des cycles*, periodic and rhythmic
learned friends; such a meeting of minds could be an invigorating
experience, if you have sympathies for new wilds, shakers of fundaments
among those in the philosophy of numbers. Similarly, learned friends whose
revolutionary impulses express themselves in more Earthbound subjects, will
meet in their own biotope. Sex, drugs, crime are the retro side of the web
of concepts that is order, so the order concept is always eminently trendy.
If the web is folded in fashion *q*, the result is called ordered, by the
guys with the megaphone, but then Spartacus, Robin Hood and Che Guevara
demonstrate that perspectives exist, which maintain order concepts that are
radically different to *q*.

Wishing you the best:

Karl
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20191127/1413e139/attachment-0001.html>