Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
» nns^-9?
upon
Today,
the Chinese are
facing and
developing research
in their own
country on
Qigong and human paranormal
abilities which have existed since
ancient times
in China and
in other countries.
However,
if we continue
to
follow the
theory of
electromagnetism which
comes from the metaphysical
Western scientific
thought,
it will
pollute
our
research.
Just
as we
pointed
out
at
the
beginning
of
this article,
pollution can cause the
original
content of things
to change
and
can
turn
them
into something
completely different and unrecognizable.
CONCLUSION
I.
From the
viewpoint of universal
gravity or mass and matter,
all
of
the electromagnetic forces
in
today's
theory of
electromagnetism are
objective.
They
can
only
be
taken
to be adsorbed
in matter,
but are
really objects of
thought.
This
is
just
the
same
as spiritualistic
suppositions.
Therefore,
to oppose the existence of
a spiritual
world
is
to oppose the hypothesis of
this type of electromagnetic
force.
II.
The nature
of
a
convention
of
thought of
today's theories
of
electromagnetism
illustrates
that
electromagnetic
force
and universal
gravitational
force form
a unity
of opposites,
but have no other
”unity“.
III.
Today's theory of electromagnetism
is only
one of
an
infinite
number of
conventions of
thought.
Therefore
it cannot
be used
to explain
the phenomenon
of
thought.
It
must not
be arbitrarily
applied
to such
phenomena of thought as Qigong
and human
paranormal
abilities.
IV.
If
a
more
reasonable
explanation
is
to
be
made of
real
phenomena,
it will
be necessary
to abandon
the
metaphysical
hypothesis
of
universal
gravitational
force
in
order
to
avoid
a recurrence of
the
spiritualistic
theory of electromagnetism.
V.
New theories must be dialectic.
It
is
possible
to
obtain
from
their
metaphysical
aspects
today's
universal
gravitational
force and
electromagnetic
force forms.
Also,
because the new
theories will
not
be
based on
universal gravitational
force,
it will
permit new definitions of
mass.
It will get rid
of
the
laws
of
mass
in
the old
theories and
the
necessity of
"impenetrability".
It will
also release the definition
Df
matter
from the restrictions of
"mass".
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
••
-
mm
in—
ii
ii
film
i
iirrr
i r~nMfi r ~nnr"T
ir-rrrrn'i—
i
r -r.
.a*
Approved For Release 2000/08/1 CM CLM|D^
LI
D I NSV I
LUQJI
YU SIWEI
JlQl
BY!
Liang Ronglin of aioan University
-P—
ABSTRACT
thB understanding
of
past
This
article
makes
new
inquirie
s
^
the
understanding
of
the
definitions
of ^ce^shows the ^PrB“
portant
the^mutual^demonstrable
modern thinking oaohine
connection
between
the
new
theory
FOREWORD
h a. ieB
of
the
20th Century,
we
it would seem
of
forte
because
it
should not have any
d°ub
Jj®
that science and
technology
has
force us
'• *£,*»
’dumber of ---^^“of'^for^
and
these
Th
d
e
efinitionS
n
O
a
f force^ha^
"m^deTny -tributions^n -V-tatn^a^as.
human^beha^^ral
abilt tx«
aorf
thinking
intu-'oi^f orce; wil .
help in^vanoing^r
examination
of
P
Therefore,
this
topic
i
i
related
knowledge of
the "°^d
‘
J^'to
’philosophy,
physios
and
all
rel
theoretical
research
related
mechanics and engineer ng
.
understanding of
This article first reveals
i.preciseness^of ^ definin g force ^
the meaning
of
force
and
then
pr
*
close relat ionship
with
t
discusses this new
^
und^
S^iters or artificial
intelligence.
research into electronic computers
FORCE
ftND LISTING
,
the past
understanding of the definition o
PROBLEMS THEREIN
The
reault Df
the
Ferce
is
a very
important concept
ined -
can determine the
search for
"what
is
fares"
’°"
d
the key
links
in
its developmen
path of
the development of physics
ordinary
,
,
Huihaf
is
torcfc?
Here,
let usdiscusstheproble^ beginning of Dur discussion.
middle school
or college
leve*
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
t **ncT._Q9
Then,
what
is
force?
This
is
a common answer:
"Force
is
the effect
of
interaction
between
bodies."
Clearly,
this
answer
is
not
perfect,
the
question
of what
this
"effect"
is
in not addressed.
"Changes
occur
in
the
form
of
bodies"
is
shortened
to
"body
distortion"
and
"changes
in
the state of motion of
bodies"
often
is used
to supplement
the definition
of
"effect"
in
the
definition
of
force.
Sometimes
it
is simply felt that
the
following express the definitions
of
forces
"Force
is
the cause of changes
in
bodies."
Or ,
"force is
the cause of
bodies being
in
a state of motion."
In
this manner ,
the effect
in
the
definition
seems
to
be clearly
treated,
and
the
statements
that
it
is
the "distortion occurring
in
bodies"
or "changes occurring
in
the state of
motion
of
bodies"
are very
specific,
and
the definition
of
force seems
to have
a
final
statement.
However ,
this way
of
thinking
is worth
looking
into,
because this way
of thinking usually understands force
to be something
"specific"
and not
a
"conceptual
abstract",
and
the
students often
miss
the
point.
Today's
college and middle school
students
and
even
graduate
students
have an
understanding of
"definition
of
force" which stops
at
this
level.
It is
worthwhile for educators and experts concerned
to study
this.
Actually,
it
is
"abstract"
is
not
"specific".
Although
the
definition
of
force presents
the two phrases
"distortion"
and
"change
in
the state of motion",
these two
phrases are
also
"conceptual
abstracts".
Therefore,
the
definition
of
force
or
"force"
remains
a conceptual
abstract and not something
"specific".
The
belief
that
because force
induces
"distortion"
or
"changes
in
the
state of
motion",
it becomes
a
specific object,
can meet with insurmountable difficulties.
Here,
let us
discuss
this further.
(I).
PROBLEMS WITH INDUCING "DISTORTION"
If one
believes
that
"force
is
the cause of changes
in
the shape of
objects"
is
the
definition
of
force,
and
that
it
is
the specific
manifestation
of
force
and
not
a
conceptual
abstract
(also
called
conceptual
in nature),
then
there are
two inherent basic
problems.
The first
is
that
the
"cause"
in
the
definition
is
not precise,
and
up
to the present day,
it
is still
a type of guess which,
of
force
and
the
distortion
of objects,
is
the cause and which
is
the
result.
No one has
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
LN253-92
been
able
to
make
a
determination
or
proof
of
this cause and
result
problem.
If
it Bhould
be that
this cause and effect relationship does not
exist,
then
'force"
and
"the
distortion
of objects" describe
the same
thing,
and neither could
be used
to define
the other.
The second
is
the
"distortion"
in
the definition
of
force
be confused.
Here
let us discuss
this problem.
can easily
..
.
j
.
1 °^ks
the distortion
of
bodies"
is
a speci fic
thing outside
he definition
of
force,
and
it impresses people
as
being
something very
specific.
For example,
they believe
that:
if
one wants
to find
if
there
has been any distortion
of
an
object,
it
can
be
determined
by specific
thnMnr*
tlDn
'H
.. HDwever >
the
occurrence
of
object distortion
and
human
unrelated*^
Whether
°r
not humans
are willing
to observe
are completely
However,
when
we
realistically
and
conscientiously
explore this
problem,
especially when we
study
the
difference between
"abstract"
and
specific
,
we
discover
that the "distortion occurring
in objects"
in
the
definition
of
force remains
a conceptual
abstraction.
,,
. \hlS
1S
bBcausB since
we can
propose that
"force
is
the cause
of
distortion occurring
in objects",
then we must permit others
to ask
"under
what conditions can force
act on. objects without
distortion?"
Dr
they
might ask
"where can
objects which are
in
their original
form not
having
undergone distortion of
having undergone distortion
have returned
to their
original
state
prior
to
distortion
be found?"
If
these questions cannot
obiJrr»
’
?
statement
"force
is
the
cause
of
distortion
in
_ is
.
?ot
specific
or
is
not
real,
and
is
simply
a
type of
conceptual
abstraction.
It
is reasonable
to raise
these questions,
because
"specific"
refers
to something
we can
attain
in
practice and
"conceptual
abstraction"
is
hw^H
ln9 wecannot
Put Dur hands on
in practice and
remains
a conceptual
hypothesis,
inference
or just
a guess.
Therefore,
when
it
is believed
that
the force
in the definition
of
force
is something
specific,
then
it
is necessary
to
be able
to find
in practice comparative aspects which can
be distinguished.
This comparative aspect should
be
the state where there
is
a
.lack
of
force in
"when no force acts on
an object no distortion
will
Unfortunately,
in practice
in
this
real
world
of
ours,
objects which
fn.
aV
H
n
°Th
0T
e actAnQ
on
them
and do
not undergo distortion" cannot
be
found.
The above problem can
only
be
"solved"
by
a
type
of subjective
diI?lA
I
bB
tD
ima9 ine
a
completely empty
world
an infinite
isolated
Ik"*
rT
”orld Df ours >
and
if
the object studied
could
be
solated
there,
and
if
we
also
hypothesize
that objects
an infinite
be?ieCe
e
fh
W
f
Y
.-H
WDUld
"0t
effect on
this object,
then we could
believe that there is no effect of
force acting on
this object and
in
this
empty world
it would reveal
its original
and undistorted appearance.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
t n'7^-92
This cannot be realized
in
the
our objective
world,
and
because of
this this guess
in conceptual
in nature.
(II).
PROBLEMS WITH
INDUCING
"A STATE OF MOTION"
If we
believe that
"force
is
the cause for changes
in
the state
of
motion
of
an object"
is the
definition
of
force
and
that
force
is
a
specific
thing,
than
there
are problems
just
like
those with the
(when
inducing
"distortion")
stated
above.
Here we would
like
to primarily
discuss
the
basic
nature
of
this
conceptual
abstraction
"state of motion".
Here,
let
us
directly
state
that
because
"inertial
movement"
basically does not exist
in
the
practical
world,
the comparative aspect
(or the opposite)
of
"change occurring
in
the state
of
motion
of
an object
cannot
be practically utilized,
so
"force
is
the
cause of
changes
in
the
state of
motion
of
objects"
is
a type
of conceptual
abstraction,
or
is
a
conceptual
statement
We are surprised
to see
that
as of
today,
physics
is still
unable
to
come up
with an answer
to this question.
Although
in
the
past and
today,
physics has always prompted
the development of science and
technology-
In mathematical
practice,
a
confusing explanation
to this question
often appears.
For example,
the
belief
that
this problem can
be probed
by
using continuous practice.
However ,
people point out:
Because nothing
in
actual
practice
can
be
distinguished
by using
"inertial
motion",
this
problem
cannot
be
overcome
by
increasing
the
number
of
times
the
experiments
are
performed.
Another
example
is
the
belief
that
it
is
possible
to
use
objects
at
a
"relatively
far
distance"
and
use
approximation
or
"extrapolation"
to
prove
the
existence of
"inertial
motion".
However,
we
feel
that
these
ideas
are
actually
stuck
at
inference or guessing and cannot really prove
its existence
in
practice.
Similarly,
to
assume that
there
is
a
"completely void world which
is
at an infinite distance
from our
practical
world",
and
that
if
objects
could
independently move
in
that world,
and hypothesize
that objects
at
an
infinite distance would not have any effect
on
this object,
then one could
image
that
this
object
would
be
in
"inertial
motion".
However
,
unfortunately,
the "empty world"
idea
is,
after
all,
a
guess
and not
actual
.
In summary
of
the arguments above,
the introduction
of
or
"change
in
the
state of
motion"
into
the definition
of
make "force"
something other
than
a conceptual
abstraction,
it remains
a conceptual
abstraction.
This
is
the important
have noted.
"distortion
force cannot
but actually
phenomena we
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
LN253-92
II.
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL ABSTRACTION AND ACTUAL
PRACTICE,
MATTER LINKS
The previous
section
has
already argued
that force
is still
a
type
of
conceptual
abstract
and
that
conceptual
abstracts
are
not
specific
reality.
However,
in
practice,
this type of conceptual
abstract
is often
used with predictable practical
results.
We
can
see
that
there
is
a
certain connection
between conceptual
thought and
actual
practice.
But
what
is this connection?
Where
is
it manifest?
In other
words,
if
we
use
subjectivity
to
represent conceptual
abstractions and
objectivity
to
represent actual
practice,
then
how are
this subjective and objective connected?
Without
this knowledge,
there
is
really no
way
to understand
force or
the definition
of
force.
Now
let us
explore this problem.
First,
if
it
is believed
that
conceptual
abstraction
is specific
in
actual
practice,
then
this
idea
will
not
work.
For example,
on
the
problem of
the definition
of
force,
we were
not able
to find
a single
"completely void
world
an
infinite distance
from our practical
world
in
actual
practice so this idea
is clearly unacceptable.
Another idea
is the belief
that
the
"distortion"
or
"change
in
the
state
of
motion"
in
the
definition
of
force have specific contents
in
reality,
and
thus
the definition of
force
is related
to reality.
However,
where
in
between do
these specific contents of
reality
lie?
The results
of our analysis
is that we believe even
though there are real
contents of
"distortion"
and
"change
in
the state of motion",
they do not exist within
"distortion"
and
"change
in
the
state
of
motion",
so
they
are both
conceptual
abstractions.
For
example,
they come from such conceptual
abstractions as geometric
points,
lines,
planes
and
spacial
points and
orbits.
Therefore,
the real
specific contents of
"distortion"
and
"change
in
the state of
motion" occur between
"change"
and
"no change".
In other
words ,
they
appear between the discernable
"real"
and
"unreal".
However,
it must
be noted
that the specific contents of
practice are not
"changing"
or "unchanging"
or
"real"
and
"unreal"
themselves,
because they are all
conceptual
abstract
terms.
Therefore,
we can believe that
all
conceptual
abstract
terms such as
the definition
of
force reflect specific contents which can
be applied
in
actual
practice.
This content
then
is
a
law of objects
that can
be paired
and set
in opposition.
This
rule
is
the philosophical
"law of
the unity
of opposites"
or
the often made statement that
"one divides
into two"
or
"everything
has
its opposite.
In
actual
practice,
we
can encounter very many
of
these problems of
"real"
and
"unreal".
Furthermore,
we can
see
that there are actually many
"real"
and
"unreal"
links
in
the
definition
of
force.
We call
this
important
"link"
a "matter
link"
because
whether
they
are "conceptual
abstractions"
or
"specific
reality",
they
are produced
because of
the
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
I N253-92
existence
of
matter.
Therefore,
the proper
understanding
of
a
definition
requires
the
acceptance of
the conceptual
abstraction
of
this definition.
Furthermore,
it requires
the acceptance
of
the
specific
reality
of
this definition.
Furthermore,
the
later
is
concealed
within
the definition,
and
it
is
called
the
law of
the unity
of opposites.
However,
why
do
we
not
simply
express
this
objective practical
content of
the definition
of
force?
This cannot
be done,
because
a definition can include
a great many of
this type of
"matter
links",
but
the
important
thing
is
language and
literature always represent concepts.
Therefore,
a
more
complete
method
of expressing
the definition of
force
is
to only define the mutually demonstrable forms,
such
as:
"force
is
the cause of distortion occurring
in objects";
"the reason distortion does
not
occur
in
objects
is
because
the
object
is not subjected
to force".
At
first
glance,
it
appears
that
if
we
only take half
of
this
definition
(such as
"force
is the* cause of
distortion
in
objects",
that
the other
half
("the
lack
of
distortion
in
objects
is due
to a
lack of
force acting upon
the object")
is also being expressed.
Actually,
this is
not the
case.
This
is because
the first half
and
the second
half
are not
equal.
This
is easily demonstrated:
"We know that A
»
B,
but from
known conditions
we cannot
get
the
result
that
B
=
A unless
A
= A or
B
=
B can
be applied.
Otherwise they
are independent qualities.
There are
often
people
who
feel
that
the
above
definition can
basically not define what force
is.
This
is
because
it
has
a
"logic
loop"
However,
we
would
like
to point
out that
the above
definition
is only
mutually demonstrative,
and
is not
a
"logic
loop".
If
we were
to actually
have
a
logic
link,
it would
be written:
Because A =
B,
therefore
B
=
A.
Here
it
is not necessary
to use the
"negation of negation".
What
is reality
like
in
the
basic
theories
of
physics
and relevant
mechanics?
We are very happy to point out that
a practical definition
of
force
is faced with jdst this type of definition problem
which seems
like
a
"logic
loop".
Furthermore,
by
not
clearly
seeing
the conceptual
abstraction of
force and
attempting
to
directly and
practically specify
the equal
sign,
one encounters unsurmountable problems
(because
in actual
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
LN253-92
practice there
is no way
to find objects which
"are not distorted"
and
are
in
"inertial
motion".)
III.
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THOUGHT LOGIC MACHINES AND THE LOGIC OF
THE DEFINITION OF FORCE
The mutually demonstrative definition
of
force
can
be
called
the
logical
relationship
of
the
definitions
of
force.
This relationship
allows the statements of
the definition
of
force
to have
the following
forms*
"Force
is the cause of distortion
in objects".
"The reason
for no distortion
in objects
is because there
is no force
present"
Or,
"Force
is the cause of changes
in
the state
of motion
of objects."
"The reason
the state of motion of objects does not change
is because
there is no force present."
Or this "state of motion"
is^ changed
to
"inertia motion"
and we have:
"Force
is
the
reason
for
the
failure
of
the inertia motion
of
objects.
"Inertial
motion of objects
is motion with no
force acting
upon
it"
and other similar mutually demonstrative
forms.
This
is expressed symbolically
as
a unified relationship
force
as.
A
= IB
;
B =
A.
Because of
this simple
form of
definition
of
force,
we would first
point out
that
this form of definition
of
force
is
the
final
form unifying
the various
definitions of
force.
It
is
the source of
all
force.
Also,
this explanation,
because
the first
half
and
the
second
half
are not
equal,
it
is very easy
to demonstrate
this"
We know
that A
=*
B,
but^ from
known conditions
we cannot
find
the
result B
= "A .
Unless
A =
A* or
B
=
B,
they
are mutually independent
qualities.
There are
often people
who
feel
that the
above definitions cannot
define what force
is because
they have
a
"logic
loop".
However,
we would
point out
here that the above definitions are only mutually demonstrative
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
* Mr?s^-92
and are not
a
"logic
loop".
To really
be
a
logic
loop they
would
have
to
be expressed
ass
Because A =
B,
therefore
B
=
A.
Here
the
"negation of negation"
need not
be applied.
Where
is
the practical
in
the basic theories of
physics and relevant
mechanics?
We are very happy
to point out that
a practical
definition
of
force
is
faced with Just this type of definition problem which seems
like
a
"logic
loop".
Furthermore,
by
not
clearly
seeing
the conceptual
abstraction
of
force and attempting
to directly and specifically apply
the
equal
sign,
one
encounters
insurmountable
problems
(because
in actual
practice there
is no way
to find objects which are
"not distorted"
or
"in
inertial
motion".
This definition
of
force
logic
directly
illustrates
the
unity
of
opposites
for
objects.
We need only use
the dialectic viewpoint
on
force
to be able
to properly understand what force
is.
We would also point out
that at times
there have been coincidences
in
the development
of science.
In
1854,
Boole established
a type of strict
method
that replaced
Aristotle’s
which
could,
under
a
set
of
proper
conditions
achieve
truth.
Furthermore,
since this Boolean algebra was
first applied
to the telephone switching circuits
in
this century
(1938),
it
has always been
an important
basis
for research into thinking machines.
In Boolean algebra,
with A
—
B,
then
from A
=
A
or
B
=
B,
then
it
necessarily
follows
that
B
=
A
and
in
thinking machines,
it
is only
necessary
to
find
the opposites on either side
of
the equal
sign of
A
=
B,
and
the
logical
relationship
is established.
Therefore,
the relationship
Ifi-TT
is an
expression
of
the unity of opposites and
A and
B either both exist
or neither exist.
Therefore,
one is
the
logic
of
the definition
of
force
which comes
from physics and
the other comes
from
logic mathematics
(Boolean
algebra).
That these
two
have
the
same
thought
logic
is
a
coincidence.
It
illustrates
that
in
all
the fields
of
science,
there
is
a commonality of
thought among
these fields.
However ,
awareness of
the above phenomenon
is not
the same
as saying
there
is
a
firm
grasp of
the
laws of
this phenomenon and
that
it can
be
applied
in every
field.
The situation
is just
the
opposite.
Physics
is
following another
route
to
learn about
the world.
Along
this route,
the
difficulties generated
by
its previous understanding
of
the
definition
of
force has
only been
briefly described
or simply
ignored.
Furthermore,
research into thinking machines
is more realistic,
because
these machines
must have some contact with the practical
world.
They must use the
law of
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
LN253-92
the unity
of opposites even
thought
current
machine
theories
have not
stressed
this.
However,
objective
laws are inexorable.
Nd matter whether
it
is
the
definition
of
force or theory
of
thinking machines
or some
other
fields,
they must
unite under
the
law
of
the
unity of
opposites.
At the same
time,
the development of physics
will
be
promoted
by
thinking machine
theory,
and
the development
of
thinking machines will
be promoted
by new
developments
in
physics.
In
the progress of
practice,
we
stress the role
of
thinking
machines,
because they quickly and accurately provide us with
desired data.
IV.
CHANGING THE ACADEMIC OPINIONS TOWARD THE DEFINITION OF FORCE
The previous understandings of
the definition
of
force
are reflected
in
the
physics course
materials of
various colleges and middle schools.
Among
these,
not only are they unable
to
stress the
importance of mutual
demonstrability
of
the definitions of
force,
but contrarily use extremely
obstinate explanations for
the reality of
the proof.
For
example,
it was
pointed out
in section
(I)
above
that believing
there
is
a
"completely
void world which
is an infinite distance from
our practical
world",
that
"we
can
send
our
objects
of
research
to this void
world"
and
"we can
believe that at this infinite distance,
objects will
not have
any
"force"
effect on
this object isolated
in
4this void world."
etc.
In
this
way,
it
causes
students
of
physics
to
head
toward
a
mysterious forum which is established on
the basis of
a
guess.
Actually,
objects
in
the
practical
world
can
all
be
described
by
a practical
objective
law.
This
law is
the
"law
of
the
unity
of
opposites".
The
mutual demonstrable phenomenon of
the definition
of
force which has always
been believed
to be
incomprehensible
is
a
manifestation
of
this
law.
Therefore,
the
practicality and
objectivity or
nature
of
matter
of
the
definition
of
force is
not revealed
in
the
loop after
loop of
"matter
loops"
or
"real
or unreal
loops.
These
loops
all
objectively exist
in
the
unity of opposites.
It
is only
through
the
proper
grasping
and
application
of
this
important
law
of
the
unity
of
opposites
that
we can understand
the
practical
world and need not rely on guessing.
Therefore,
this problem
is
directly involved with knowledge of
the world.
It
is
also
only
by
the
proper
grasping
and application
of
the
important
law
that
will
allow
mankind
to
complete
thinking machines
capable of
thought and not depend on man
to command or
program them.
In addition,
the effect
of
force
is directly related
to the various
abilities
of
the
human
body.
Therefore,
the
understanding
of
the
definition
of
force is
also an understanding
of
human abilities.
We can
see from this that
the proper understanding
of
the definition
of
force has
an important
connection and
is
an important contribution
to the fields of
3<S
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
LN253-92
"UNITY OF MAN AND NATURE"
AND
ITS UNSCIENTIFIC NATURE
"TIAN REN HEY I "
JI
QI
FANKEXUE XIN6ZHI
BY:
Liang Ronglin
of
the Guangdong Provincial
Somatic Sciences Research Committee
FORWARD:
The 21st Century
is almost upon us,
but
in china there are still
some
people who are studying
the
culture
left
to
them
by
their ancestors,
especially
a type of ancient Chinese view of
the world which
is called
the
"unity of man and nature"
view.
This
is
a
far cry
from the
"information"
wave which
Westerners predict
is about
to arrive.
These methods these
Chinese use
is really
a question worth
looking
into.
This article attempts
to
perform
a
preliminary examination
of
this
type of
"unity of man and nature"
view,
to see whether
or not
it
is really
worth researching.
In order
to provide
a description
to
the
reader
,
this
article will
use the
language and
statements
of modern
men
familiar with
this concept
and not the records of ancient
texts as
the beginning
of our discussion.
For
the
latter method,
the reader may avail
himself
of
the works of other
authors
I.
WHAT
IS
"SCIENCE"
In ancient China,
people used
the
"unity
of
man
and
nature"
view of
the world.
It was only because of Western
influences that after the
"May
Fourth"
movement
that some intellectuals began
to propose
that the Chinese
should also
study foreign
things.
At that
time,
democracy
and science
were brought into China from abroad.
But just what does the
term science
mean.
But the
term "science"
which even foreigners are not
too sure of
the exact meaning was translated into
"kexue"
by
the Chinese.
Although up
to the
present
time
no one has been able
to provide
an exact description
of
this thing called
"kexue",
but this translation
is very good
because
it
allows all
Chinese
to understand.
Therefore,
"kexue"
actually represents
"dividing
the world
into many different fields
for study"
It
is
a
type of
contraction
for
a way
of
thinking,
and aside
from this
it
has no other
implications.
Actually,
if
we page
through
the
various dictionaries
to
the definitions
of
"kexue",
either
the
definitions are
in error or they
are filled with other terms which cannot
be used
to define
"science".
The Western world has used
this type of
"science"
to achieve
a number
of
benefits,
so
China's
enlightened
persons boldly advanced,
and as
a
result,
China also achieved
benefits.
For example,
the
"electronic
age",
"nuclear energy
age",
"electronic computer
age"
of
the Westerners and
the
"information
age" which they predict
is about
to arrive has either already
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
LN253-97
arrived
in China or
is about
to arrive,
revealing
the rapid advancement
of
science and
technology
in China
and
its beautiful
future.
Thus
in China,
it seems
that
"science"
is
much better
and
provided
greater benefits
than
the ancient Chinese
"unity
of
man
and nature"
view.
Naturally,
people developed
a new
concept
of
"science",
which
is that
anything
that
was "scientific"
was good.
Or any method
that was good
for
studying
problems
was
"scientific".
Furthermore,
this
concept
has
developed
to
where today
it
is
believed
that
scientific means correct,
that
it means truth.
A large number of slogans
have also
been generated
such as
"be scientific,
do not
be superstitious",
and
so on.
There are
also
a number of phrases which adulate science such as "science
is exact",
"science cannot
be fooled"
and
"scientists are honest people".
However,
we
believe
that
it
is
wrong
to
go
to such extremes.
Th®
present stage of development of
"science"
should
be thoroughly examined
.
First,
"science"
can only represent one way of
thinking.
As sta ted
before,
it
only represents
the method
of
"dividing
the world
into many
diTferen t
f
i
elds forstudy " .
The
special
c haracteri stic
of this
is the
term
"divide"
.
These
fields
formed
from
this
"division"
currently
include
philosophy,
social
science fields^and natural
science
fields.
The natural
science field
is further broken down
into mathematics,
physics,
chemistry,
biology
and geography.
However,
there are many
different types
of
human
thought,
they are
limitless.
There
is
not
just
one
way
of
thinking.
This type
of
"scientific" way of thinking
is only one of
limitless ways
of
thinking
in
human
thought.
Second,
today's
"science" must pass through the state machinery
to
be
instilled
into the minds of
the
people.
Otherwise,
the
people will
not
naturally
independently
generate
in
their
minds
what
is
modern day
"science".
Furthermore,
it
requires
teaching
to
attain
knowledge
of
"science",
so there
is an obvious subjectivity manifest
in
"science".
Third,
" sc ience"
is not truth .
Even people who worship
"scien ce"
d
o
not dare believe that
"science"
is truth,
but
only say
that
"science"
is
"relative"
truth.
Actually,
there
are" many questi ohs”'y^igT>^^XgRgg
,,
cannot
ariswerX
Furthermore,
there are many things which are
in violation
of common
scientific knowledge.
"Science"
is not the same
thing
a§ .the
" true world ".
The more advanced science becomes,
the more
challenges
the
"true world"
presents to
"science".
The
source
of
the
problems
above
are
the
result
o f
"science"
" dividing"
the wo r ld up ^into f i elds
of
study
anil
tTiey
cannot
be resolved
by
"scienc e" .
We must c learly
recogni ze this divisional
characteristi c
of
"science" .
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
LN253-92
II.
WHAT
IS "UNSCIENTIFIC"
The opposite of
"scientific"
is
"unscientific".
"Unscientific"
then
represents
"not
dividing
the
world
up into
different
fields
for
study".
Therefore,
"unscientific”
is
a type of
realistic way of
thinking
in human
thought.
Many people,
because they do not understand
the meaning
of
"science",
often
believe
that
"scientific"
represents
being
correct
and
"unscientific"
represents
being
incorrect.
This
is
a
type
of
misconception
of
the meaning of scientific.
It
is naturally
a distortion
of
the meaning
of
"unscientific".
For example,
there are people who believe that
"science
is
a creative
method of
action,
and
that its mission
is
to
learn
the objective
laws of
matter
in space and
time."
Here,
the
definition
of
"science"
is wrong
because there
is no clarification of
the
"division
of
the world" which is
a characteristic of
"science".
Also,
it further muddies the
situation
by
introducing such
terms which
have not yet been precisely defined such as
"matter",
"space and
time"
and
"objective reality",
and so on.
It should
be pointed
out here
that
this
type of so-called
"scientific definition"
can easily cause people
to miss
the point
if
they are not careful.
People who
have
this
type* of
definition
of
"scientific"
will
necessarily
and
clearly
be
mistaken
in
their
understanding
of
"unscientific".
This is
because this
definition
of
"scientific"
forces
the
belief
that
"unscientific"
is
a
method
of
action
which
lacks
creativity."
This
is obviously hogwash.
Because
of
this,
it
is
necessary
to
correct
our
knowledge of
"unscientific".
We cannot
believe that "unscientific"
represents bad or
erroneous aspects.
"Unscientific"
refers
to
a way
of
thinking
which is
the opposite
of
" sclentil ic^'T'^THIs" way of
th inJbino
is charac terized
by
"notd i vid ing up the worid ",
and
it
is
a view
called
"unity
of man
and
nature."
Now is
the time
we should
re-examine
the
term
"unscientific".
In
order
to do this,
we must discuss what "superstition"
is.
Whether
or not
it
is
an inherent quality of or synonym
for
"unscientific".
III.
WHAT
IS "SUPERSTITION"
There
is
a popular
concept
in
society
that holds
that
“if one does
not
believe
in
science
he
is
superstitious".
It
seems
as
if
"superstition"
is "unscientific"
or "counter scientific".
However,
this
type
of
concept
is
in error because "unscientific"
represents "not dividing
the world
into different field
for study"
.
This
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6
LN253-92
"Hypotheses"
are
"minor
principles".
Without
scientific
theory could
be established.
Therefore,
even
itself does
not have
any "superstitious"
implications,
"minor superstitions"
from specific
methods which
make
to "minor superstitions".
"hypotheses"
no
though "science"
but
it introduces
"science"
partner
Many
"minor
superstitions"
by necessity form
a
"major superstition".
This
is the reason why
"science"
joins
with
superstition
and
does not
reject
"superstition".
The
slogan
"be
scientific,
do
not
be
superstitious",
actually calls on people "have minor superstitions,
do not
have
major
superstitions".
This
will
not
completely
get
rid
of
"superstitions".
A great many social
phenomena
in
this "scientific
age"
demonstrate this conclusion.
IV.
THE WAY TO COMPLETELY GET RID OF
"SUPERSTITION"
To get
rid
of superstition
it seems
to
be necessary
to get
rid
of
the
"law of cause and effect"
which
is
the
source
of
"superstition",
and
further
to
deny
the
existence of
any
"arranger
of
the
laws".
However,
this cannot
be done.
We need only
mention
"arranger"
,
and
people will
think
of
the opposing sides of
"exist"
and
"not exist",
and
will
only have
"not exist"
and not have any concept of
"exist".
Therefore,
the only feasible method
of getting
rid
of
"superstition"
is to
view the world through
the
1* use of
the
law of
the unity of opposites
and
let
them see
that the
"theory
of
laws" which
produced
the
"law
of
cause and effect" cannot really represent
the real
world.
However,
who
was
it
that arranged
the
law of
the unity
of opposites.
Was
it
the will
of
"god"?
We must note that
the theories based on
the
law
of
the unity
of opposites serve
to oppose
(or negate)
their functions,
and
any dialectics once written down must
be
a
type
of metaphysics.
The
law of
the unity of opposites holds
that there
are
laws
in
the
world
but
that
there
are
also
no
laws,
that the world
is
a world
of
"confusion",
that among
the patterns there are
lacks of
patterns.
Because
of
this,
there
is
no
so-called
unknown
world
or
spirit
world,
or
"arrangers of
laws".
From
a detailed analysis of
things which are today believed
to follow
certain
laws,
we
can
see
these
do not really
follow
laws.
No single
phenomenon can
be repeated,
at least
the time
will
not
be the
same.
No
two
leaves
on
a
tree
will
be absolutely
the same,
at
least
they will
occupy different space.
Therefore,
where
is there
any absolute
in
these
laws?
However,
there
is
a pattern
in
things which do not seem
to have a
pattern.
The world seems
to really
be rotating around
the sun.
When day
is over,
night comes.
Therefore,
with such
a perfect unity of opposites,
why must we describe this beautiful
world
as
being
a
land
of
demons and
spirits.
Approved For Release 2000/08/10
: CIA-RDP96-00792R000200440002-6