The first is to avoid the creation of martyrs; cleansed of sin by the manner of their demise. The second reason is that it may well have little effect: their perceived evil living on because having become established the target leaders would either rule by the will of the people, which might not easily be redirected-, and / or by the control of those wielding direct executive power, who might be expected to seek to secure their already defined positions. Everyone would just carry on following their 'script' (Vijai Parhar, C89/27 ).
..... and Political Power: Chairman Mao's thought that 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun' may well be true for a primitive country. In the United States, a country intellectually impoverished since 1828 when Noah Webster reduced their version of the English Language to pre-school level, it holds true internationally and to some extent domestically; but in civilised countries the word has long been the key to power; even when it needed a sword behind it to mop up (to mix a metaphor or two).
For instance: is Tony Blair Prime Minister because the people wanted it; or because the BBC and Rupert Murdoch wanted it ? That is a rhetorical question, of course. The real question is this: is it inevitable that if a government does not control the popular media then the popular media will control the government; and as in each case they will both come to share the same bed is there a difference ?
Mathematics, Science, and Reality (Theo, C89/22 ): As Theo seems to fear that I risk corrupting the minds of young impressionable non mathematicians let me assure him that I accept that i is as real as the number 2. In fact I am in awe of its power; its beauty; and its artistry: for that is what it is: art. Leibnitz might have been naive in describing this Mona Lisa of maths; this 'imaginary root of negative unity',- as an 'amphibian between being and not being': but he was missing the point as well. The number 2 may have a longer history; may be too commonplace to be worthy of thought; but is just as unbeing. Consider the sentence: there are two ducks on the pond. It conjures up a picture: one duck here; another duck there. That is the point: they are separate ducks. The expression 'two ducks' is a representation of the scene, not the reality. The undoubted usefulness of such representations is irrelevant. A restaurant menu is useful: but you don't eat it!
Incidentally, just one of the wonders which may be credited to the root of the negative is the demonstration that negatives are not less than positives; merely different: implying that negatives are greater than zero. Whilst this need not conflict with Theo's 'series..(that)..can sum to .. zero .. depending on the terms .. and their signs' it suggests that zero conforms more to the ancient idea of an empty place rather than a number: but an empty place with potential: a bare canvas awaiting the artist. Plenty of mud, er .. maths, for the mind can be found in:
TTR (Philip Lloyd Lewis, C89/15 ): My difficulty may be that although we both seem to see the world as a one/many problem I see TTR as an attempt to divide the indivisible without appearing to do so.
Crime and Punishment (Stef Gula, C89/29 ): Someone who would risk being topped for a fifth Mars bar would be a demonstrably irredeemable nuisance and deserve all they got. In the matter of getting the 'right person’ the beauty of the system is that it would allow for a couple of travesties of justice before anyone got their neck pulled. I did consider including the innocent for tracking but apart from the unnecessary expense I thought I might have a hard enough job getting even the basic system past the Council for Civil Liberties; but as the innocent are largely excluded from their libertarianism Stef might get it through. By the way, taking drugs could constitute an offence of risking violence to others.
Newsletter Naming (Theo's reply to Stef, C89/30 ): The moment Theo mentioned the liquid refreshment beloved of philosophers it was as if a veil lifted from my eyes: there was the answer, bold and clear: DELIRIUM. (For any who can't see reason in this nonsense, I voted to keep the original name. I wouldn't dare write anything to Commensal without serious intent. It isn't one of the 'potty' SIGs !)
Anthony Owens
Previous Article (also in Commensal 90)
Next Article (in Commensal 91)
Yes, I agree that mathematics is a model of reality and not reality itself, but what’s this twaddle about negatives not being less than positives, only different ? Maybe it depends on what angle you’re viewing the natural numbers from. Viewing the natural numbers as a group under addition, the negatives are the inverses of the positives and zero is special, being the identity element. In co-ordinate geometry, zero and negative numbers are less worthy of differentiation since a simple translation of the axes will transform them into positives. When it comes to ducks, zero is very special in that zero ducks is not a duck, any more than it is a sheep. And minus one duck is a promise to pay the bearer the sum of one duck. Anyone wanting to get their teeth into the philosophy of mathematics should read Philosophy of Mathematics - Selected Readings Edited by Paul Benacerraf & Hilary Putnam (CUP). I would also add Ian Stewart’s recent (1995) Natures Numbers - Discovering Order & Pattern in the Universe (Weidenfeld & Nicolson) to the couple of books Anthony suggests.
What did you mean by suggesting, contra to the rest of humankind, that mathematics makes science fuzzy ? What description is more precise ? Don’t pretend that an instruction to "jump in a spacecraft, fly to Pluto and land on a pin-head" is precise, because no significant details are given. Mathematics is the most precise language we’ve got. It’s just that even it is inadequate to the precision required in certain circumstances.
Yes, General Relativity is a model of reality, not reality itself - but the dictum Space acts on matter, telling it how to move. Matter reacts back on space, telling it how to curve (Misner Thorne & Wheeler, Gravitation, p. 5.) represents a conceptual revolution over Newtonian action at a distance. GR isn’t just a black box to provide more accurate answers (eg. in calculating the rate of precession of the perihelion of Mercury) but represents a conceptual revolution in the way in which the interrelationships of space, time and matter are understood. The details cannot be understood without mathematics, and I’d suggest that those who doubt this should at least flip through Misner et al’s 1,250-odd page tome on the subject.
Like the suggestion on the name of the newsletter !
Theo