[ssf] A Crismas Lecture : Passport to Pimlico

Adam Moran adam at diamat.org.uk
Thu Dec 22 16:11:43 GMT 2005


A Crismas Lecture : Passport to Pimlico
=======================================

   "The mystic invokes a rose, a kiss, a bird that is all birds,
    a sun that is all the stars and the sun, a jug of wine,
    a garden, a sexual act.

    Of these metaphors,
    none will serve me for that long joyous night,
    which left us,
    tired out and happy,
    at the borders of dawn."

  The author of the above quote is Jorge Luis Borges.

  It is from his essay, *A New Refutation of Time*,
  that I have borrowed liberally
  in the following discourse.

  In his thesis, Borges juxtaposes:

   * Berkeley's idealism as continued by David Hume, and
   * Leibniz's principal of indiscernibles

  Borges argues that a refutation of time,
  [ in which he himself does not believe, ]
  is the inevitable consequence of their doctrine.

  I make no such argument,
  nor do I intend to speak of ideals.

  Instead in this thesis, I intend to juxtapose:

   * Aristotle's materialism as continued by Karl Marx, and
   * Leibniz's principal of indiscernibles

  as I sense a possible fortunate consequence
  of their doctrine.

  Have good cheer,
  I have placed the theoretical physics at the end
  of this lecture, and intend to begin with
  a light-hearted text,
  in fitting with the season.

  Again, I have taken the form Borges uses
  in *A New Refutation of Time*,
  where he tells us he deliberately use analogous text
  as he understands
  it may facilitate the comprehension
  of an indocile subject.


Phase 3
=======

  Thirteen years ago, almost to the night,
  someone left a message on my answer phone.

  I took it, at first, to be a Christmas greeting.

  It began as a drunken song,
  followed by a lot of threatening sounding swear words.

  Then the tears, then the regards and then a beep.

  When I first heard it I giggled; I too was drunk,
  although I suspect that I would have giggled in any case.

  I had been out that night
  on a pub crawl
  designed by an engineer called David.

  The design was issued as an A3 drawing
  and had a reference number.

  The drawing was a 1:1250 scale plan,
  which highlighted the location of the Pubs.

  Next to each Pub was drawn a clock icon,
  which displayed the estimated time
  of arrival of the crawl, at each location.

  The plan had been delivered to me
  three weeks earlier
  with other drawings and a filing cabinet
  full of specifications and other Contract documentation
  at a car park in the City centre.

  I was in legal possession of this car park
  and had had erected there
  site cabins as temporary accommodation.

  The other correspondence concerned
  the New Works I was to build
  in the New Year.

  Wow ...

  What a job ...

  So much to do,
  so little time.

  The night of the pub crawl was set
  to mark the Christmas shut-down,
  that is:

   the last day of work for each of the many
   Engineering sites scattered across the City,
   before the vacation.

  I was ready for a drink that night.
  Although I thought my site had advanced well
  in the previous three weeks,
  none of the Contracting staff shared my opinion.

  The initial Agent for the Contractor,
  my opposite number, so to speak,
  was at his wits-end by that date.

  He was claiming that the Contract
  was already severely behind programme,
  and had sent me a claim for the delay.

  He didn't like my stance:

  "But I never accepted your programme.

   In fact I rejected it
   and asked for it to be resubmitted.

   You have a further 2 weeks in which to do so."

            "But you won't accept my programme.
             It was accepted at the pre Contract meeting."

  "I wasn't at the pre Contract
   but I will be at the Arbitration
   if it comes to that."

            "I've heard that you never except programmes ?"

  "I do if they are real,
   as I am obliged to do
   under the Contract.

   But they are never real,
   so I reject them
   as I am obliged to do
   under the Contract.

   In any case,
   yours is rejected
   and you have a further two weeks
   to resubmit.

   Now,
   If you don't mind,

   I'd like to take a shower,
   I'm going on a crawl."

  That's how I left it with him
  before the shut-down
  He was replaced in the New Year
  by his directors.

  During my shower,
  there was a banging on the cabin
  and I heard a female voice calling for me.

  It took me a few seconds
  to shut off the noise in my head,
  and I was only finally able to do so
  when I remembered my name
  wasn't 'Engineer'.

  I had a black and green harlequin jumper at that time
  and it reminded me of some dungarees I'd made for a mate
  in what seemed like a different world.

  Again came the banging at the cabin,
  but this time it was name that was being called.

  "Oh ... hi

   Chrissy ?"

         "You remembered me then"

  Into the cabin came two women,
  one a colleague
  and the other
  the women I had named but could not place.

          "I didn't think you would remember me"

  She smiled.
  And that is when I remembered her.
  I smiled too.

  "Oh ... how's it going ?
   You're lucking well."

  My colleague's eyes rolled skywards and said:

     "Before you two get started,
      let me remind you
      we've got just 10 minutes before we are due at Fagen's.

      Can I make a coffee,
      have you got milk ?"

  "Yes and shoe polish.
   Cherry red"

  I replied
  pointing to the highlighted notes
  of a scheme plan
  pinned to the wall.

  "The Agent caved in on that issue today."

  My colleague laughed and busied herself in the kitchen. She called:

     "How's the dig going ?

      What's your chainage ?"

  "Zero.
   I've not started the Permanent Works.
   I've just finished trail-holing"

     "Really ?

     "It looks like Permanent Works
      It's very extensive."

  "I've had to be.
   I've only just proved a route."

  I began to fasten my shoe-laces
  and returned my attention to Chrissy.
  Her weight had changed since we had last met
  But I fail to recall whether the change was
  positive or negative in gross terms.

   "You went through with it then ?" I inquired.

          "Yeah" she nodded and smiled.

          "I'll tell you all about it ...
           if you like."

          "You like ?" She continued to nod, and then held up
                       her ring finger

  My colleague returned from the kitchen

     "Well done.

      Most of the cabins are covered in pornography these days.
      And it's contrary to the Council's standing orders."

  "I know." I replied

  "I'm your new shop steward."

     "Are you ?" replied my colleague.

     "Well done.

      What about those ?"

  My colleague pointed to a tabloid newspaper open upon a plan chest.

  "The standing order doesn't allow us to ban newspapers." I quipped.

     "Well ...

     "Why don't you put a suitable note
      on the scheme drawings, after the note
      which requires the Contractor to supply you
      with milk and cheery red boot polish !"

  My laugh was interrupted by a banging at the cabin window.

               "Engineer ...

                Engineer ...

                Have you seen the Powder-Monkey

                He said he wanted me.

                He promised me a pony."

  "You've missed him
   He fucked off some time ago" I replied

               "Fuck !
                What am I'm going to do ?

                Are you busy ?"

  "Am always busy"

               "Yeah ..." replied the women

                I can see that !"

  She said as she looked passed me at Chrissy.

  "Oh ...
   I think she's married " I said giggling

                "Yeah ..." said the women

                "I think I am too,
                 but where's that fucking Powder-Monkey"

  All roads merge in a City on a night.



  Live merges in a City on a night.

  I'd fallen under the influence
  of different council colleague
  earlier that year.

  I work with him still.

  I'm sending this round-robin
  to our info@ address also.

  It seems to be accepted procedure amongst us
  to copy folk in to our business affairs
  when we have an issue, and we always have issues.

  It amuses our Suppliers and Clients alike.
  But I don't think that's its cause.

  It's crunch time for us here again.
  And yet it's always crunch time here.

  This is what we do in our day jobs:

   http://www.mkdoc.org/
   http://www.mksearch.mkdoc.org/

  We didn't start out as script writers
  and we are not really now.

  The founding partners were / are Architects
  and got together
  on an ad hoc basis
  seven years ago
  to do geeky stuff
  and build accessible web sites
  in their spare time.

  I knew one of the Architects,
  from our time at the City Council

  We met through the trade union.
  This is how it happened:

    Some of my mates needed some cash
    for a mercy mission to Romania
    and I approached
    my local shop stewards committees
    with photos and a begging bowl.

    My mate,
    the Architect was there
    as one of four shop stewards
    representing the Architects
    and looked at the photos with interest.

    There were about another 5 stewards there too
    representing roads
    drainage, structure, bridges, heat & power.

    The chief shop steward,
    a nice old chap named Atkinson,
    kindly told me the ins and outs
    of the possible union procedures to get some cash,
    and told me that in his opinion,
    with the present union hierarchy,
    we'd just be bagging us head against a wall.

    My mate the Architect had spoken first,
    but to be honest,
    I found much of his speech incomprehensible.

    He knew the union procedure inside out
    but had coached the rejection in terms of
    national, regional and local policy documents,
    the relevant committees, with their relevant acronyms,
    from which i would need approval,
    their constitutional make-up,
    both ideal and real.

    And finally he let me have his stand
    on the 50 quid I was trying to get,
    which was this:

      Ask the government for the money
      not the trade unions.

    Good point.

    However as time was of the essence
    how I actually chanced upon the money
    was by a bloke I knew and his mate who
    performed the spectacle of a crisp eating competition
    in a pub on Hanging Water Road
    with the landlord's consent
    whilst i carried a collection bucket
    and showed folk the photos.

    We won 77 squid that night,
    and I wasn't made to feel a beggar
    and the landlord made it up to a hundred
    which bought an air fair.

  Any way, several years later
  and after I had served a suitably long sentence
  in the shop stewards committee,
  were we jointly witnessed the whole sale degradation
  of the terms and conditions of us, the producers,
  coupled with large scale attacks on our pensions;
  our economic futures:

    I fell upon my mate the Architect in his house,
    on long term sick leave,
    were he had developed an expensive hardware habit
    whilst making accessible web sites
    and running up an enormous telephone bill.

    I was on a pink-out too,
    and I wanted a place to lodge,
    so we made a deal
    and I bought a licence on his attic room for 35 quid / week.

    But I needed the place tidy for visitors
    and I started to clean up,

    First in the kitchen,
    washing the pots and the surfaces
    vacuuming the floor,
    clearing away the empty boxes
    that kind of thing.

    And then to more personal stuff:

    "What's in that box ?"

          "Oh ... letters."

    "Who's letters ?"

           "Just letters."

    "Arn't you going to open them ?"

           "Later."

    Later :

    "I've sorted out that box of letters,
     these piles are folk I know and I can pass them on.

     Those piles there are to folk I don't know;
     these piles are to organisations I've never heard off
     but I can pass both lots on if you tell me where.

     These letters are to webarchitects .

     And that box there is to you"

          "Oh ... pass me the ones to webarchitects,

           oh ... there's money in these ones,

           oh ... i think this cheque's out of date."

    Later :

    "Are you scanning that book in ?

     Wow ... can I do that ?
     I'll be careful with your kit"

          "Erm ... I guess ... sit there."

    Later :

    "I've run the OCR and corrected the text files;
     there on atomism.

     I'll put the kettle on."

          "Erm ... ok ... er cheers."

    Later :

    "So if I do the structural markup
     you can do the CSS and SSI ?"

           "Erm ... i guess so."

    Later :

    "For goodness sake,
     we must charge out more than we spend.

     How can we live unless we do that !"

  And that's been the crunch time we've been in ever since.

  But we now have these tools:

   http://www.mkdoc.org/
   http://www.mksearch.mkdoc.org/

  and a real chance of a 300 k squid budget to take us to market,
  so you'd think we'd be quids in.

  But nothing is that simple around here:

          "Erm ... Plone's better than MKDoc.
           We should have GPL'ed from the very beginning.

           That was always my stand.
           We have failed,
           and I have repeatedly told all of you
           we would fail.

           I don't want anything to do with MKSearch,
           it's a useless toy compared to Google.

  The crunch.

  There's a hole in my pocket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
  but to live in necessity is not a necessity.

  Some people in our office think,
  we sell web sites for a living,
  and we should carry on the good work.

  Whilst I tend to feel myself, like Mrs Hudson,
  tidying up around Sherlock and Dr Watson.

  I also eat crisps in front of
  the Department of Trade and Industry,
  who continue to fund us
  because they want us to provide decent local employment.

  We have to start thinking out side the box
  and figure out how we want to live
  the rest of our lives
  and begin to live it.

  My preference is to build tools,
  but I need some cash to live on
  and we need to score a pension
  and I suspect if we could all just stop arguing
  and with a wind in the right direction
  we could all be better off
  and potentially be working far less,
  if at all,
  at least as far as our daily bread is concerned.

  But nothing is that simple around here.



  But nothing's that simple any where.
  A month ago I was in Pimlico at the Tate Britain.

  An Open Congress,
  It was very international in feel.

  Folk of many movements,
  both old and new, bumping off each other
  in Brownian motion.

  I jumped in at this young chap who is trying to start yet another.
  He was slagging off Stallman and Lessig, and distinguishing his
  licence, that isn't a licence, as the new way forward. The new
  programme.

  My question to him was this:

   "Do you not know,
    we have a constitutional stand-off in Europe over software patents ?

  He wouldn't answer me. He asked me to put my and up and wait my turn.

  I barked at him again, for good measure, and then walked away.
  I passed a bloke wearing a Crombie and matching hat.

  He nodded towards the young chap and said:

   "He's a Stalinist"

  I replied:

   "He's academic"

  Later, I found out from a colleague
  that the bloke with the hat
  had been the young chap's tutor the year before.

  You will note,
  the world is full of fucking geniuses,
  they read a lot of good books,
  but they do tend to live in a world of abstract universality.



  Chrissy and I left the pub crawl after Fagen's
  and we took our little party somewhere else for a bit.

  We caught up with the main movement
  at a Pub then labeled the Hornblower.

  There I was accosted by my line manager
  who coincidentally used to me my shop steward:

          "How's it going ?

           Have we got a root through ?"

  "Yes,
   It's tight, but isn't it always.

   But I've finally got a route through.
   You need to check it.

   The Contract drawings are no more than a guide.

   Just like the programme."



Telos
=====

  "It hardly seems still possible to presume that these men,
   who contradict each other on all points,
   will adhere to one and the same doctrine.
   And yet they seems to be chained to each other." - Karl Marx


I. The Sole of the Atom
-----------------------

   Bayle, [18]
   Supported by the authority of Augustine [19]
   States that:
   Democritus ascribed to the atom a spiritual principle:
   the "soul of the atom",
   [ and ] reproaches Epicurus
   for having thought out the concept
   of [ the ] declination
   [ of the atom from the straight line ]
   instead of [ adopting ] a spiritual [ ontology ].

   Moreover Cicero, [15]
   ( and Several [ other ] ancient authors
   according to Plutarch [16] ),
   reproach Epicurus for saying
   that the declination of the atom
   occurs without cause.

   "Nothing more disgraceful" says Cicero
   "Can happen to a physicist". [17]

   Cicero [ holds that the atom ]
   is by no means complete
   before it has been submitted
   to the determination of declination,
   [ and imagines the atom declining
   within a determinystic inertial frame ].

   But something Cicero [ missed ] entirely
   in Epicurean physics [ is this: ]

     It goes without saying that
     the sensation of a particular determination
     of the declination of the atom from the straight line
     depends upon the domain,
     [ the inertial frame ]
     from which it is experienced.

   Epicurus gives reality to the pure form-determination of the atom:

     The concept of abstract individuality:
     [ The ability to resist the fall ],
     [ and he thereby negates ]
     any mode of being determined by an other being.

   [ It seems therefore
   that abstract individuality
   is the "soul" of an Epicurean atom ].

II. Necessity and Chance
------------------------

   The differences between
   [ Democritean and Epicurean physics may be ]
   attributed to the accidental individuality
   of these two [ thinkers ],
   just as one would expect
   a different theoretical consciousness
   [ to exist in each and every thinking individual ].

   [ But if ] we consider
   the form of reflection
   of these two [ tinkers ] in particular,
   [ that is to say,
   the labels they use ]
   to express the relationship between

     * their individual thought
     * and the wide wide world

   [ we sense that ]
   these differences embody two distinct tendencies:

     Democritus uses necessity as a form of reflection of reality. [30]

       Aristotle says of him that he traces everything
       back to necessity. [31]

       Diogenes Laertius reports that the vortex of the atoms,
       the origin of all
       is the Democritean necessity. [32]

     More satisfactory explanations
     are given by the author of 'De Placitus Philosophurm':

      Necessity is, according to Democritus,
      fate and law,
      providence and the creator of the world.
      But the substance of this necessity is the anti-type
      and the movement and the impulse of matter. [33]

     In the 'Ethical Selections' of Stobaeus
     the following aphorism of Democritus is preserved:

       Human beings like to create for themselves
       the illusion of chance.
       A manifestation of their own perplexity,
       since chance [ Zufall ] is incompatible with sound thinking. [36]

     Contrast this with Epicurus:

       It is a misfortune to live in necessity,
       but to live in necessity is not a necessity.

       On all sides many short and easy paths to freedom are open.

       Necessity does not exist,
       but is played up [ aufgeführt ] by some
       as the absolute ruler.

       Necessity that cannot be persuaded
       can be subdued.

       Some things are accidental
       and thereby unstable.
       Others depend on our arbitrary will. [40]

   The form of reflection of reality used by Epicurus
   is arbitrary will and unstable chance.

   Democritus rejects this form of reflection
   with polemical irritation.

   The principal consequence of this difference
   [ is sensed ] in the way that physical phenomena are explained:

     If someone is thirsty and drinks and feels better,
     Democritus will not assign chance as the cause, but thirst.

     For, even though Democritus seems to use chance
     in regard to the creation of the world
     yet he maintains that chance is not
     the cause of any particular event
     but on the contrary leads back to other causes.

     Thus for example digging is the cause of a treasure being found,
     [ or the cause for which an olive tree was planted ]. [45]

   Once again Epicurus stands directly opposed to Democritus:

     Chance for Epicurus,
     is a reality which has only the value of possibility.

     Abstract possibility, however,
     is the direct antipode of Real possibility.

     Abstract possibility is unbounded, as is the imagination.
     [ It is abstract universality. ]

     Whereas Real possibility is restricted within sharp boundaries,
     as is the intellect;

     Abstract possibility is not interested
     in the object, [ the other, ] which is to be explained,
     but in the subject, [ the self, ] which does the explaining:

       The other need only be possible, conceivable.

       That which is abstractly possible,
       that which can be conceived,
       constitutes no obstacle to the thinking self
       no limit, no stumbling block.

     Whether this abstract possibility is also real is irrelevant,
     since here the interest does not extend to [ the other ]
     as [ an other ].

     Whereas Real possibility seeks to explain the necessity
     and reality of [ the other. ]


III. The Law of the Atom
------------------------

   We now consider the consequences that follows directly from
   the declination of the atom.

   In this form of reflection,
   is expressed the atom's negation of all motion and relation
   by which it is being determined as a particular mode of being
   by other beings.

   This is represented in such a way
   that the atom abstracts from the opposing beings
   and withdraws itself from them.

   But what is contained herein, namely,
   its negation of all relation to something else,
   must be realised
   [ must be ] positively established.

   This can only be done if
   the being to which it relates
   is none other than itself,
   hence equally an atom,
   and,
   since it is directly determined,
   many atoms.

   And this [ determined existence ],
   this relative existence,
   [ in both the Democritean and Epicurean forms of reflection ]
   is the original motion of the atoms,
   [ namely ]
   that of falling in a straight line:


     [ In Epicurean physics ]
     the repulsion of the many atoms
     is the necessary realisation of the lex atomi,
     that is "the law of the atom",
     as Lucretius calls the declination.

     Lucretius states:

       If the atoms were not to decline,
       neither their repulsion
       nor their meeting
       would have taken place,
       and the world would never have been created. [28]

       For atoms are their own sole object
       and can only be related to themselves,
       hence speaking in spatial terms,
       they can only meet
       because every relative existence of these atoms
       by which they would be related to other beings
       is negated. [29]

     Hence [ in Epicurean refection ] the atoms meet
     by virtue of their declination from the straight line.

     And here,
     the concept of the atom is realised in repulsion,

       inasmuch as it is abstract form,
       but no less also the opposite:

         inasmuch as it is abstract matter;

           for that to which it relates itself consists,
           to be true is atoms,
           but other atoms.

     But when I relate to myself as myself
     as to something else that is directly an other,
     then my relationship is a material one.

     [ This is an extreme conceptualisation of externality ]

     In the repulsion of the atoms therefore
     their materiality
     which is posited in the fall in a straight line,
     and in the form-determination,
     which is established in the declination,
     are united synthetically.


     Democritus, in contrast to Epicurus,
     transforms into an enforced motion,
     in to an act of blind necessity,
     that which to Epicurus is the realisation
     of the concept of the atom.

     Above we have noted that
     Democritus considers the vortex
     resulting from the repulsion
     and the collision of the atoms
     to be the substance of necessity.

     He [ seems to sense ] in the repulsion
     only the material side
     the fragmentation
     the change
     and not the ideal side
     according to which all relation to something else,
     to an other,
     is negated,
     and motion is established as self-determination.

     This can be [ sensed ] in that
     he conceives one and the same body divided
     through empty space
     into many parts
     quite sensuously,
     like gold broke up into pieces. [30]

     Thus he scarcely conceived of [ a unified ]
     concept of the atom.

     Aristotle argues against him:

       Hence Leucippus and Democritus,
       who assert that the primary bodies
       always moved in the void
       and the infinite
       should say what kind of motion this is,
       and what is the motion natural to them.

       For each of the elements is forcibly moved by the other,
       then it is still necessary
       that each should have also a natural motion,
       outside which is the enforced one.

       And this first motion
       must not be enforced but natural.

       Otherwise the procedure goes on to infinity. [31]


   The Epicurean declination of the atom thus
   changed the whole inner structure of the atoms,
   since through it
   the form-determination is validated
   and the contradiction inherent in the concept of the atom
   is realised.

   Epicurus was the first to grasp the essence of the repulsion
   even if only in the sensuous form
   whereas Democritus only knew its material existence.

   We find also more concrete forms of repulsion applied by Epicurus:

     In the political domain, there is the covenant. [32]
     In the social domain, there is friendship,
     which is praised as the highest good.


IV. Abstract Universality and Unfree Mysticism
----------------------------------------------

   Repulsion is the first form of self-consciousness,
   it corresponds to that self-consciousness
   which conceives of itself as immediate being,
   as abstractly individual.

   But abstract individuality is freedom from being
   not freedom in being.

   It can not shine in the light of being.

   This is an element [ that ] abstract individuality
   loses [ in ] its character [ as it ] becomes material.

   For this reason the atom does not enter into daylight of appearances
   as the atom [ itself ].  [24]

   [ It enters the world in and at its material base. ]

   If abstract-individual self-consciousness
   is posited as an absolute principle,
   then, in deed,
   all true and real science is done away with
   inasmuch as individuality does not rule
   within the nature of things themselves.

   But then,
   too, everything collapses
   that is transcendentally related to human consciousness
   and therefore belongs to the imaging mind.

   On the other hand,
   if that self-consciousness which knows itself
   only in the form of abstract universality
   is raised to an absolute principle,
   then the door is opened wide to superstitious
   and unfree mysticism.

   Stoic philosophy provides the historic proof of this.
   Abstract-universal self-consciousness has,
   in deed,
   the intrinsic urge to affirm itself in the things themselves
   in which
   it can only affirm itself
   by negating them.

   - Karlo Marx : Abridged Doctoral Thesis.

As an end note,
A quote and parody of both Borges, me myself and I:

   Time is the substance I am made of
   Time is the river which sweeps me along,
   but I am the river; it is the lion that destroys me
   but I am the lion; it is the thorn that pierces me
   and I am the nightingale

   The world, fortunately, is real;
   I, in sickness and in health, am

--
Duncan Disorderly : Beep

   ¿De qué agreste balada de la verde Inglaterra,
   de qué lámina persa, de qué región arcana
   de las noches y días que nuestro ayer encierra,
   vino la cierva blanca que soñé esta mañana?
   Duraría un segundo. La vi cruzar el prado
   y perderse en el oro de una tarde ilusoria,
   leve criatura hecha de un poco de memoria
   y de un poco de olvido, cierva de un solo lado.
   Los númenes que rigen este curioso mundo
   me dejaron soñarte pero no ser tu dueño;
   tal vez en un recodo del porvenir profundo
   te encontraré de nuevo, cierva blanca de un sueño.
   Yo también soy un sueño fugitivo que dura
   unos días más que el sueño del prado y la blancura.

   La cierva blanca : Borges

Footnotes
=========

I. The Sole of the Atom
-----------------------

[18] Bayle : Dictionary historique et critique, art. Epicurus

[19] Augustine : Letter 56.

[15] Cicero : On Fate, x[22].

      'Also he is compelled to profess a reality
       if not quite explicitly,
       that this swerve takes place without cause ...'

[16] Plutarch : On the Creation of the Soul, VI (VI, p.8, stereotyped
      edition).

      'For they do not agree with Epicurus
       that the atom swerves somewhat,
       since he introduces a motion without cause
       out of the non-being.'

[17] Cicero : On the Highest Goods and Evils, I, vi[19].

      'The swerving is itself an arbitrary fiction
       (for Epicurus says the atoms swerve without cause,
       yet this is a capital offence in a natural philosopher,
       to speak of something taking place uncaused).

       Then also he gratuitously deprives the atoms
       of what he himself declared to be the natural motion
       of all heavy bodies, namely,
       movement in a straight line.'

II. Necessity and Chance
------------------------

[30] Cicero : On Fate, x[22,23].

      'Epicurus [ thinks ] that the necessity of fate
       can be avoided ...

       Democritus preferred to accept the view
       that all events are caused by necessity.'

[31] Aristotle : On the Generation of Animals, V, 8 [789b,2-3]

      'Democritus ...
       reduces to necessity all the operations of Nature.'

[32] Diogenes Laertius : IX, 45.

      'All things happen by virtue of necessity,
       the vortex being the cause of creation of all things,
       and this he [ Democritus ] calls necessity.'

[33] Plutarch, On the Sentiments of the Philosophers, p. 252 [I, 25].

      'Parmenides and Democritus [ say ]
       that there is nothing in the world
       but what is necessity,
       and that this same necessity
       is otherwise called fate, right, providence
       and the creator of the world.'

[36] Stobaeus : Ethical Selections, II [4].

      'Men like to create for themselves the illusion of chance
       -- an excuse for their own perplexity;
       since chance is incompatible with sound thinking.'

[40] Seneca : Epistle XII, p. 42

      'Epicurus uttered these words:

         It is wrong to live under necessity;
         but no man is constrained to live under necessity ...

         On all sides lie many short and simple paths to freedom.'

[45] Simplicius, 1.c., p.351

      '... in deed, when somebody is thirsty,
       he drinks cold water and feels fine again;
       but Democritus will probably not accept
       chance as the cause of this
       but the thirst ...

       for, even though he [ Democritus ] seems to use chance
       in the creation of the world,
       yet he maintains that the individual cause chance
       is not a cause of anything,
       but refers us back to other causes.

       For instance the cause of a treasure trove
       is the digging
       or the planting of an olive tree.'

III. The Repulsion of the Atom

[28] Lucretius : On the Nature of Things, II, 221, 223-224

      'If it were not for this swerve,
       everything would fall downwards like rain-drops
       through the abyss of space.

       No collision would take place
       and no impact of atom on atom
       would be created.

       Thus nature would never have created anything.'

[29] Lucretius : On the Nature of Things, II, 284-292

      'So also in the atoms ...
       besides weight and impact
       there must be a third cause of movement,
       the source of this inborn power of ours ...

       But the fact that the mind itself has no internal necessity
       to determine its every act
       and compel it to suffer in helpless passivity -
       this is due to the slight swerve of the atoms ...'

[30] Aristotle : On the Heavens, I, 7 [275b, 30-276a, 1].

      'If the whole is not continuous,
       but exists, as Democritus and Leucippus think,
       in the form of parts separated by void,
       there must necessarily be one movement of all the multitude.

       ... but their nature is one,
       like many pieces of gold separated from one another.'

[31] Aristotle : On the Heavens, III, 2 [300b, 9-17].

      'Hence Leucippus and Democritus,
       who say that the primary bodies are in perpetual movement
       in the void or the infinite,
       may be asked to explain the manner of their motion
       and the kind of movement which is natural to them.

       For if the various elements are constrained
       by one another to move as they do,
       each must still have a natural movement
       not by constraint but naturally.

       If there is no ultimate cause of movement
       and each proceeding term in the series
       is always moved by constraint,
       we shall have an infinite process.'

[32] Diogenes Laertius, X, 150.

      'Those animals which are incapable
       of making covenants with one another,
       to the end that they may neither inflict nor suffer harm,
       are without either justice or injustice.

       And those tribes which either
       could not
       or would not
       form mutual covenants
       to the same end are in like case.

       There never was absolute justice,
       but only an agreement made
       by reciprocal intercourse,
       in whatever localities,
       now and again,
       from time to time,
       providing against the infliction
       or suffering of harm.'


IV. Abstract Universality and Unfree Mysticism
----------------------------------------------

[24] Lucretius, II, 796.

      '... and the atoms do not emerge into the light ...'











More information about the ssf mailing list