The “Pulsar” effect in global society

In recognition of a personal reference from all my days, Carl Sagan, 1934 - 1996.

Eduardo Terranova

Analysis of the functional and evolutionary relationship of the minorities that generate innovation and knowledge, compared to the majorities that absorb some of the innovations slowly and incorporate them at the wrong time of their generation.

The original minorities remain in such a condition as do the quiescent majorities. These are linked to the majorities that assimilate a part of them, losing their innovative nature.

The permanence of the majorities that change out of phase in time and of the innovative minorities that persist as such, means that the former become giant walls on which the shadow of their actions is projected, without belonging or being assimilated, but stimulating oneself to its constant maintenance and growth over time.

In this way, a functional and ontological dimer is formed by the archaic, slowed-down, quiescent and conservative majority of a large mass and a discrete, almost imperceptible minority of a small mass that feeds off its own reaction to its reflection in the wall of quiescence of the majority society. This feedback maintains the existence of these minorities that constitute the fundamental framework and scaffolding on which the majority itself lives thanks to the innovations that the minorities have created, but one or more evolutionary cycles out of phase in time.

It is necessary that there be tacit conservatism so that the development and innovative impulse of those who think about the generation of knowledge is stimulated. On the other hand, it is necessary that a fraction of the innovative minorities manage to infiltrate the universe of the majority and be assimilated by it to generate the renewal in quasi-static equilibrium that the quiescent and conservative majority can tolerate.

In short, the conjunction of two bodies with highest different masses causes the smaller one to orbit at high speeds around the larger one but without crashing into it; providing thermodynamic balance to the system while avoiding total assimilation, light and energy is emitted into space as happens with a Pulsar (two stars around a black hole emitting light as a hypervelocity orbit is completed)

Another example is the gravitational stability that the Moon gives to the Earth as the Moon orbits our planet.

It looks a lot like the relativistic braking radiation in systems of charged particles in accelerated motion, but in the gravitational and subatomic context: gravitational radiation emitted by systems extremely asymmetric in mass and energy.

Based on this line of thought, we ask ourselves the following questions:

Nature of innovative minorities: We mentioned that they remain as such, but what factors keep them in their innovative state without being completely assimilated? Are they constantly self-renewing or do they depend on an external flow of ideas?

The factors that maintain its innovative state are those fractions of the minorities that manage to infiltrate but are ultimately assimilated although their content is incorporated into the general heritage of said majority.

Assimilation times: We propose that the majority adopt innovations in outdated cycles. Is this delay an inherent characteristic of every society or can there be models where the gap is smaller?

It was proposed as an inherent characteristic of every society, although they may have variations or nuances in different cultures. But society as a Meta-environment responds to the same nature in all cases.

Astrophysical analogy: In a pulsar, energy is dissipated in periodic pulses. In social terms, what does this radiation represent? Is it knowledge that filters down to the majority in each cycle?

Indeed, radiation represents the technological, cultural and scientific as well as religious and philosophical advances that different societies can show within the global context that nature itself maintains.

Collision risk: We also mentioned that the minority orbits without crashing into the majority. But what happens if this happens? Are there historical examples where an innovative minority has been completely absorbed, losing its role as an engine of change?

There is always a remnant on the outside that motivates a source of change even if it is subtle and discreet. Otherwise, the risk is the definitive stagnation and collapse of the entire society that leads to the destruction of the meta-environment and the risk of disappearance of the human species as such, which continues in a Darwinian evolutionary state identical to that of Homo sapiens sapiens from 1,000,000 years ago.

Some lines to reflect on:

The balance between assimilation and innovation:?

If the assimilation of minorities is what allows the renewal of the majority, but at the same time threatens the persistence of innovation, how is the balance maintained? Does it depend on the spontaneous emergence of new minorities or the resistance capacity of existing ones?

A little bit of both, but I highlight the versatility in the capacity for conviction? that assimilated minorities have, who manage to contact internal HUBS that concentrate other nuclei of power and connection, constituting a non-homogeneous network of a non-linear and complex type.

The inevitability of the gap:?

If delay is inherent to every society, then it would seem that the evolution of knowledge is always limited by the absorption capacity of the majority. Are there historical moments where this gap has been significantly reduced, accelerating the transition of knowledge from the minority to the majority?

The answer is yes, in the case of the Greco-Roman era and the Renaissance where the knowledge and scientific revolutions had their strategic impact of great power and effect on the general society, considering this as the religious and scholarly political society that held the general power (which is an executive minority in essence).

Example of remnants that prevent collapse:?

The assertion that there is always a remnant outside the system that prevents collapse is key.?

Movements such as the Renaissance, which rescued almost lost classical knowledge, or persecuted minorities who, from exile, continued to influence global thought are a valid example of the existence of these remnants.

The case of Freemasonry in the Middle Ages is another example of this, or the Muslim culture that served as a cultural bridge between the antiquity preserved in the Byzantine Empire and medieval Europe. The Catholic Church, which for the purposes of maintaining power, stored and monopolized the knowledge of classical antiquity, are other emblematic examples of this.

These reflections consolidate the idea of “Pulsar” as a dynamic model of interaction between innovation and tradition. The conception of Internal HUBS as strategic nodes within the majority opens a line of thought about how non-homogeneous networks of influence are formed. This connects with the theory of complex systems and nonlinear networks, which gives even more strength to our model.

The historical examples that we have given reinforce the point that there is always a remnant of knowledge that prevents the total collapse of innovation. The Freemasonry, the role of Islam in the preservation of knowledge and the Catholic Church as a monopolizer of knowledge are solid cases of minorities that, beyond repression or attempts at control, have acted as cultural and scientific bridges.

There is another example of an opposite situation that we may see about the Mayan civilization and such abrupt disappearance.?

In this case, all the knowledge and power was placed on the minimal elite of the sacerdotal population which also were political leaders as well as military authorities. The great mass of people were subjugated to the mentioned and once the hyper exploitation of fields and natural resources took place there, the elites were gone and they were dissipated and in fact they disappeared first.?

The great mass of people were stood into a status quo by the total ignorance and disability to replicate the older development. In fact, Mayan civilization as we know as fantastic architectural and urbanistic developers disappeared. But until now, the Mayan people have survived. They lost their monumental identity which fell down with the empowered minority of elites which they didn’t do anything else after those times.

The minority disappeared and thus the great mass of the majority lost its identity forever.

The role of antagonists in Pulsar dynamics

Until now, we have talked about the majority as a passive entity that slowly assimilates innovation. But what about the active agents within the majority who seek to block or distort assimilation? For example, the political, economic or religious elites who control the speed and direction of change. Could we include them in the model as a "friction force" affecting the orbit of the innovative minority?

The answer is Yes; It interferes, but does not suppress or modify its nature. The functional dimer persists even if its functionality is distorted.?

Model inversion phenomena

At certain historical moments, the relationship between majority and minority is abruptly reversed (French Revolution, fall of the Roman Empire, Arab Spring).?

What happens when an innovative minority, instead of progressively feeding the majority, suddenly takes control? Does innovation continue or does it become the new quiescent majority, reproducing the same cyclical pattern?

In these cases, the innovative minority prevails by force of its power of conviction and erudition of its emerging representatives before a deprived non-thinking mass that moves in the form of irrational and instinctive hordes. Once the power matrix has been modified and the new hierarchy led by the enlightened minority intellectual leaders of the beginning has been reestablished, they will soon be replaced by politicized administrative-military leaders, servile to the purposes of the new majority that quickly ignores the intellectual foundation of origin;? Even its promoters are usually crushed by the new hordes generated in the sphere of the revolution. Such is the case of Lavoisier who was sentenced to death by the revolution itself under the precept: “the revolution does not need science.”?

Cognitive dimension of the model

If we apply this scheme to the evolution of knowledge:?

Can we talk about an "Epistemic Pulsar"? That is, not only in terms of societies, but in the structure of human thought: advanced ideas that emerge at the frontier of knowledge, but that are only slowly assimilated by the bulk of the scientific or philosophical community.?

This could be linked to the notion of paradigms of Kuhn or even with cognitive resistance to conceptual disruption.

This is fully applicable to the assimilation of ideas and the positivist scientific world is the example of this, since it suffers from skepticism sometimes to such an extent that the great scientific discoveries were not initiated under the classical scientific method, nor following Koch's a priori postulates or the logical processes and algorithms of the Cartesian positivist scientific method, which are appealed to once the first signs and findings found by proactive inductive actions are discovered.

This paper attempts to propose a model of the dynamics between innovation and tradition in global society, using the metaphor of "Pulsar" as a representation of the balance between innovative minorities and quiescent majorities.

The astrophysical analogy encapsulates the tension between the advancement of knowledge and its slow absorption by society.?

By conceptualizing this phenomenon as a system of two bodies of unequal masses in gravitational interaction, we aim to introduce a mechanistic view of social change, where energy (innovation) is released in pulses and friction (conservatism) acts as a regulator of the system.

The inevitability of the gap in the assimilation of knowledge. This observation suggests that the evolution of human thought is never linear or homogeneous, but rather advances in leaps, with periods of stagnation and explosion. Historically, the moments in which the gap has been reduced, such as the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, have been those where knowledge transmission networks (internal HUBS) have been most efficient. This makes the key question not only how we innovate, but how we optimize the speed and stability of knowledge transmission without innovation being lost in the absorption process.

The point about the "friction force" introduced by elites is crucial. In many cases, it is not just the mass of the majority that slows assimilation, but specific interests that seek to block or modulate the flow of knowledge. Here a path of reflection opens on the relationship between innovation, power and control of knowledge.

Another interesting aspect of our observation is what happens when an innovative minority suddenly takes control. Here we introduce an element of the historical cycle, where revolutions often end up replicating the power structures they overthrew.?

This connects with the theory of complex systems and self-organization processes, in which any power structure tends to stabilize in a similar way to its predecessors, unless there are feedback mechanisms that prevent the crystallization of a new status quo.

In short, our model of the "Pulsar" effect aims to provide one more analytical tool to understand the relationship between innovative minorities and conservative majorities.?

We open a path of exploration on how to accelerate knowledge transfer without sacrificing its depth and quality.?

Perhaps the key is to strengthen those internal transmission HUBS before they are absorbed or distorted by the dominant structure.

The final question is whether there would be ways to accelerate the dynamics of Pulsar without innovation losing its essence in the process.?

Would it be possible to introduce a third body into the equation that functions as a catalyst?

Eduardo Terranova, February 21, 2025.