“FIELD” AND “MEDION”
on a previous day, i posted "Ma--SUBSTANTIALIZATION OF BETWEENNESS" here. i am writing a book of relativity-based economics but not japanese culture. i would post ' "FIELD" AND "MEDION" ' which is supposed to be stated in just preceding section, in order to make my intention much clearer. ************************** “FIELD” AND “MEDION” That you have something to do with relation by tradition of the Western philosophy was dangerous in a sense. It was as if you made an acquaintance with a devil rather than god in the monotheistic tradition, for instance, Christian one. Therein, material (something physical) and matter (something like event) could not be expressed by the other scheme than by the scheme of the binary relation at most, that is, in the linear “relation”. The monophyletic determinism that it begins at God and returns to God rules the academic world too. As soon as you tackle three factors, it has been said since ever that it becomes difficult to deal with the mutual relation of the movements of the three in the simple system. That is the three-body problem or multi-body problem proposed by Henri Poincree (1854-1912) who established that it was impossible to generally be solved with the integration. He gave up on calculating the quantitative solution of differential equation, and shifted his focus onto the qualitative solution by the topological solution if there can be a global quality of some solution of differential equation or not, that is, if there exists a solution, it is cyclical or not, and it is structurally stable or not. Nearly at the same time with Poincree’s establishment, the theory of mechanical “field” of the electromagnetic field came out through J. C. Maxwell’s elaboration in 1865. It became aware at last that the electromagnetic field should be given before the problematique around the mechanical problem of the relation among sub-elements. Later, till early 20th century, A. Einstein denied the existence of Ethel and established the necessity of field as physical quantity. The field (Ba 場in Japanese) in the physics is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space-time. The three-body problem or the multi-body problem necessarily requires a space-time with a certain value, which may supposedly be evolved not only to physical quantity like just scalar quantity or vector quantity, but also say to observed quantity or statistic quantity; social quantity or economic quantity; artistic quantity or religious quantity, etc.. Though physics requires us a field with the quantity characteristics, and presumably well, if every quality can eventually be reduced to some quantity (each or global quantity may be reduced to some quality), we can determine a field with quality. For example, in the physical field, I have a height, weight, or standing point etc. In the biological field, I have a sex, age or DNA etc.; in the social field, I am a member of a family or relatives, a friend (or an enemy), a resident, a citizen, a people etc.; in the professional field, I am a pensioner, a businessman of an NPO etc. The physical characteristics and the biological ones also are thought determining to some extent social characteristics. I am wearing in a particular atomosphere. This is as if an atom as a set of the elementary particles were superposed with a set of a lot of fields as every elementary particle wore in cloth of a field. Each elementary particle has an atmosphere consisted of fields proper. Thus I live in the superposed worlds like a lot of mountain masses of many fields. However, people cannot see me being in the entire mountain masses, but in a field or two fields only. At the same time, the people including me myself also cannot see the entire mountain masses where I am located. Despite that, I have managed to survive among many fields moving in Protean exchanges of energy. Abstractly speaking, I live in a macro or microscopic field and I, who am a material mass, can be regarded just as a warp or fluctuation of such fields no matter how I might realize it. Thus I am an ensemble of a lot of localities of fields consisted of non-equilibrium, non-asymmetry or a fluctuation with the position information of space-time. The difference of locality A and locality B, namely, an explanation of the deviation (non-symmetry) of a field is given by some position information with four dimensions including time dimension. In this manner, it is considered that the sub-elements with relativity with four dimensions are generated from a grand field and consequently the mechanical and social-cultural relativities are also born. “The material is a state of field, and the field is a mother of elementary particle” (Shin-ichiro Tomonaga; p.202 ETHEL, FIELD, ELEMENTARY PARTICLE written in Japanese 1952, in “The World Image of Quantum Mechanics” (Misuzu Shoten) ) said Shin-ichiro Tomonaga (1906-1979), Nobel laureate of physics in 1965. What he argues is significant to me too. “Strangely, the dualism that there are material particle and field in the physical world can be united to a single field namely monism, but in turn back, eventually, we must employ the pluralism because we must consider various kinds of fields” (ibid p.203). I am not confident whether or not I can understand correctly Mr. Hiroshi Shimizu’s opinion of the mediator 関係子or “medion” (Cf. Hiroshi Shimizu “New Edition Life and Place––Principles of Creative Life, NTT Publisher March 1999), but I think that his mediator may be conceived the sub-elements as a bias of a field with relativity by nature. He gives such sub-elements namely a relativity itself a kind of substantiality so that he introduces a new concept of mediator or “medion” into his theoretical system of biology and then he seems to try to solve the binary opposition between substance and relation. He called his own biology “Relative biology” or “Biological relativity”. The substantialization of mediator or relation makes me aware that it is relation that is substance and it is substance that is relation. In any case, Hiroshi Shimizu has very often discussed on relation, the mediator and “Ba” but not on “Ma”, which I discuss on in the next section. Nevertheless, he failed to define the mediator and discuss on the semantics of mediator. His idea of mediator or “medion” may relate closely to my following statements of “Ma” 間.