Elective Affinities (1996) (s)









Science vs religion (books)
Left: the 1996 French-Italian film adaption of Goethe's 1809 Elective Affinities: showing the basic double elective affinity reaction threading the chapters of the book together (see: history), giving a chemical depiction of the revolution in thinking Goethe's human chemistry theory will eventually bring about in the future. Right: A visual depiction of the Goethean revolution: namely, as summarized by Victoria Woodhull (1871), the theory contained in Goethe's novel will eventually be accepted as scientific truth, and thereby result to reform “the whole scope of morals and social order”, which equates to overthrowing the Bible, the Quran, and the Rig Vidathe big books of the Anunian theologies.
In scientific revolutions, Goethean revolution, or equivalently: "physicochemical sociology revolution" (Jalibi, 1987), in respect to the work of Mirza Beg, i.e. "Beg revolution" (Thims, 2019), or "Thimsian revolution", in respect to the work of Libb Thims, and or physicochemical humanities revolution, refers to paradigm shift in thinking brought about by the publication of Johann Goethe’s 1809 physical chemistry based novella Elective Affinities, the embodiment of his 1796 theory (see: human chemical theory) that humans are large-scale sized “chemicals” or metamorphized atomic structures reactive to each other and governed by the very same laws as are the atoms and molecules of physical chemistry or affinity chemistry as it was called in Goethe’s day.

Overview
American woman's rights activist Victoria Woodhull, in her 1871 "Introduction" section to the D.W. Niles English translation of Goethe's Elective Affinities, seems to have been the first to state explicitly that there is a revolution in human thought embedded in Goethe's self-defined best book:

“The tale is, in a word, of the simple construction and genial and moderate character of the "Vicar of Wakefield" rather than in the exciting style of Dickens' Christmas Carols: but, everywhere, the interest is skilfully kept up, and the subtle insinuation of a great revolutionary doctrine pervades the whole, and to the thoughtful reader makes the chief point of interest. Doctrines, however, which are here merely insinuated and illustrated by allusions to science, are now so openly expounded and advocated that a portion of the community will regard the great German as too conservative, while yet, doubtless, to the great mass of readers, the radical element may startle, and in some instances offend.

If this fundamental thought of the man who has proved to be the seer or prophet of science in so many other things, is also a scientific truth, the fact cannot be appreciated by the world too soon, nor its immense sweep of consequences be too clearly foreseen and provided for. It will affect the whole scope of morals and social order, whether we accept it in our theories or not, and the less hurtfully and the more beneficently, in proportion as we thoroughly study and understand the subject.”

Likewise, the following 2011 passage, by the faculty of arts and sciences at Kingston University, on the relationship of the 1950s writings of Polish writer Witold Gombrowicz and Goethe’s 1796 human chemistry theory, gives a gist snapshot of the Goethean revolution, one that we are in beginning to see glimpses of now, but as a whole remain largely unaware or more correctly ignorant of: [1]

“Both Goethe and Gombrowicz incorporate explanations of structure into their narratives, and both make references to a chemical model of combination. ‘Gombrowicz’s novelty consists in his going one step further and perfecting Goethe’s revolution’: the character of Olek Skuziak allows him to destroy the narratives completely and put himself ‘in the position of speaking to oneself alone’. Regnault writes, on Gombrowicz’s behalf: ‘My pornography is an optic of perversions, but it is also an inversion of the art of writing, a pornology of writing’. When Gombrowicz writes of ‘persevering in obscenity’, the persevering designates the rigours of the structure, which allow one to surpass the charms of obscenity and lead to their expulsion.”

The Goethean revolution, in short, is the change in public thinking that we are not “beings” with “free will” created by “God”, but rather “chemical entities” created or rather synthesized by “nature” whose “will”, and structures formed therefrom, e.g. couples, societies, etc., and moral nature are determined by “forces” that largely external to the reactants [humans] themselves, all being processes, reactions, and events governed by the laws of physical chemistry.

Beg | Physiochemical revolution
In 1997, Indian-born Pakistani organometallic chemist Mirza Beg published New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior, wherein he re-interprets all of aspects of society and social interaction through the lens of physical chemistry and the physicochemical principles, similar to what Goethe did with affinity, albeit without citation of Goethe, and done more extensively, not only in terms of affinity, but also in terms of: free energy, human chemical reaction theory, solution theory, activation energy, transition states, fugacity, etc. The ideas presented in Beg's book have rightly been referred to as a "potential" revolution, if they stand the test of time:

“If it could stand the test of time, [Beg’s] ideas, presented in [New Dimensions in Sociology] will rediscover new frontiers in sociology and will revolutionize the existing theories of human behavior as it has so far been propounded by philosophers.”
Jameel Jalibi (1987), “Foreword by a Sociologist” [12]

(add)

Paretian revolution
The 1912 completion of Treatise on General Sociology by French-Italian engineer turned socioeconomist Vilfredo Pareto, a top three social Newton, below Goethe (#1) and Henry Adams (#2), which, similar to Goethe, also employs a human molecule based mechanistic, physicochemical approach to the social sciences, also has also instilled and or imbedded something of the flavor of coming revolution in the social sciences:

“If we are to speak of Pareto’s treatise as a seminal book, we must use the epithet in the sense in which we apply it to Newton’s Principia. No revolution can follow it, except a revolution in the methods of the social sciences. That revolution is already in its first stages in Italy and in France, and my yet spread to England and to America.”
— Andrew Bongiorno (1930). “A Study of Pareto’s Treatise on General Sociology [11]

(add)

The Human Molecule (2008) (excerpt)
The opening section of American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims' 2008 The Human Molecules, giving the view that the new human molecule paradigm will eventually work to bring about a "revolution" in human thought in the coming millennium. [10].
Thimsian revolution | Paradigm change
See main: Paradigm change
The efforts of American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims, 1995-present, to upgrade and explicate the theory and principles of all of the social Newtons, Pareto, Adams, etc., albeit with focus on what is presented in Goethe's great novel into modern chemical thermodynamic terms and to get this into the working framework or teaching structure of the American educational system, might qualify or be categorized as a subset or rather continuation of the revolution started by Goethe, possibly something the future will come to categorize as the "Thimsian revolution", to distinguish the modern chemical thermodynamics aspect or phase of the revolution started by Goethe. The following peer-commentary exemplify a gist of this:

“Thims' brilliant book [Human Chemistry] symbolizes the beginning of a new era (epoch) in human history.”
Georgi Gladyshev (2006), Russian physical chemist [2]


“I stumbled onto your website by accident but I have to confess this might be one of the most stunning undiscovered intellectual achievements of the 21st century. I have browsed through your wiki and I cannot express how tragic it must be to a man in your position—to be a pioneering thinker yet to be rejected by an uptight academic community with neither the depth nor will to understand your unique work, defending their own turf like dogs. I can only compare you to the many other pioneering heroes of science, Newton (IQ=215), Einstein (IQ=220), Tesla (IQ=195), men who like you blazed their own paths but were too victims of their own genius, only to be validated years after their death. Perhaps one day historians will look back and have a chucklethat the pioneer of enthropology published by a vanity press in a book resembling a third rate romance.”
Steven Pierce (2009), Canadian mathematical physicist and computer scientist [5]

“One of the most interesting topics [human molecule] I have ever had the pleasure to read. Going through it a second time, and looking forward to the third. [The Human Molecule] covers the most fundamental change in human knowledge since Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species [1859], by presenting a theory that we are fundamentally molecules, and that the question of life itself is a fundamentally flawed one. Especially important is the carefully laid out historical narrative of how Thims came to his theory of the human as a molecule. Whether you ultimately agree with this work or not, it represents a paradigm shift in viewing our place in the world.”
Jeff Tuhtan (2011), American civil engineer and ecological thermodynamicist [3]

“The matter of using thermodynamics to the hypothesis of hell, in efforts to corroborate or controvert, in a modern human thermodynamic logic is a modern view. Thermodynamics presumes that humans are particles, complete, unadulterated, and trouble-free, synchronized by the laws of chemical thermodynamics similar to all other molecules in an established chemical system. This understanding straight away gives rise to a lot of issues which actually require a near total revolution to define and comprehend of constituting a human and living. Any new person in this subject will surely inquire as to whether a human molecule has a soul. Therefore modern theory will have to find answers to a lot of questions. For instance it has to be found out as to what takes place when the basic molecules making up a human being move about in the cosmos and later on stop moving meaning dead. Does an individual’s entire activities and progress be it good or bad, affect the motion of the universe. If so, how can this be clarified in terms of the first law of thermodynamics?”
— Baby Rani, edited by Lamar Stonecyper (2011), BrightHubEngineering.com [9]

Libb Thims: the great oracle and developer of human thermodynamics—the philosophical revolution of the 21st century. A genius of outstanding stature and originator of many concepts in human chemistry.”
Mark Janes (2011), online biographical listing of Libb Thims

“[Human thermodynamics] is a branch of science that attempts to predict the behavior of people via chemical and thermodynamical equations. It is an interesting philosophy, a change of paradigm, perhaps even leaving having a broader explanation for human behavior than Darwinian evolution. Human thermodynamics can also be useful as a new framework for the origin of life. For instance, Libb Thims, proposed online that the idea of Darwin’s [IQ=175] ‘dark pond’ which suddenly sprang to ‘life’, is not a very coherent one [defunct theory of life], and that it would be much more creditable and parsimonious to have as a rule that molecules bond and form ever more complex beings. Libb Thims also proposed a ‘human molecule’ where people are attracted to each other by chemical bonds [human chemical bond]. All this I believe to be a reasonable explanation: even if Darwin’s theory is still correct, they approach of thermodynamics and chemistry is a much more simple, and at the same time broader view. If the concept of biology is somehow redundant, then we must study it by means of chemistry and physics.”
David Bossens (2012), “Reflections: Criticisms of Science” [7]

LT revolutions note (2010)
A 13 Aug 2010 scratch paper personal note by American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims (see: quotes); similar in vision to French chemist Antoine Lavoisier who commented on 20 Feb 1773, in what resulted to become the chemical revolution:

“The importance of the end in view prompted me to undertake all this work, which seemed to me destined to bring about a revolution in . . . chemistry.”

together which we can only look back in retrospect and find the start of scientific revolutions.
Discussion
The adjacent above (right), personal 13 Aug 2010 scratch paper note by Thims, shown above French chemist Antoine Lavoisier's 20 Feb 1773 personal note commentary on the chemical revolution he foresaw, also exemplify this reflective perspective on seeing or rather foreseeing revolutions. The dates might also give us a tentative benchmark ruler as to when this "new revolution" will come about, in the sense that we can compare the date of Lavoisier's mention of a foreseeable revolution "destined" to come about and Google books earliest mention of "chemical revolution" and compare the distancing of the two dates.

French chemist Antoine de Fourcroy’s 1803 A General System of Chemical Knowledge, has a rather detailed section entitled “Commencement of a Great Chemical Revolution”, giving historical steps leading up to Lavoisier, discussing things “previous to the time of the chemical revolution” and “before the epoch of the chemical revolution”, which would put the time-to-result at 30 years, meaning that the revolution could come about as early as the 2040. [8]

The fact that the Goethe's great work has remained hidden from main-stream physical sciences, for some 200-years, however, not to mention that by 1871 it was pointed out clearly that "great revolutionary doctrine pervades the whole", leavees the question as to when the revolution will come about a bit open ended? We note that it took nearly 2,000-years for the atomic revolution to be realized; this might be representative of the high end of the estimate, implying that the Goethean-Thimsian revolution might not actualize well into past the year 4,000 AD (if this dating system is even used at this time, which is doubtful).

Libb Thims (Carbon Entromorphology)
English biotechnologist Mark Janes' circa 2011 website biography listing of Libb Thims describing him as follows: [6]

Libb Thims: the great oracle and developer of human thermodynamics—the philosophical revolution of the 21st century. A genius of outstanding stature and originator of many concepts in human chemistry.”

Janes, to note, a former chemical engineering student (1993), had previously been at work on the very same problem (human free energy theory), independently, since 2006, prior to coming into contact with Thims in 2010.

Historically, to put this "revolution" foreseeing issue in context, in 1995, completely unaware of the great (yet largely unknown) human chemistry work of Goethe (Elective Affinities, 1809), what he in fact called his "greatest work", Thims began working on the very same problem [elective affinities problem] as Goethe worked on (1796-1809), namely how to apply affinity chemistry, physical chemistry, and chemical thermodynamics to the predictions and explanations and rules of human-human interactions.

In 2006, after working on and researching the problem for eleven years, Thims finally discovered the great buried treasure of Goethe, via the great "footnote 2.5" of Belgian chemist Ilya Prigogine's 1984 Order Out of Chaos, and over the course of the next 18-months and 14-days exactly published the first textbook on the subject of human chemistry as Goethe envisioned and as modern hard science sees things.

Some of the following quotes (above) exemplify the continuation or forward movement the revolution started by Goethe but not yet completed.

References
1. Synopsis of Francois Regnault, “Optique de Gombrowicz” – Kingston University.
2. Peer-review commentary on Thims' Human Chemistry, as found in the "Praise for" section of Human Chemistry (pages ix-x).
3. Tuhtan, Jeff. (2011). “Review: The Human Molecule”, Amazon.com Reviews, Jan 28.
4. Goethe, Johann. (1872). Elective Affinities: with an Introduction by Victoria C. Woodhull. D.W. Niles.
5. Hmolpedia personal messaging; see: Sadi-Carnot (complements section).
6. Janes, Mark. (2011). "Libb Thims", Carbon-Entromorphology.com.
7. Bossens, David. (2012). “Reflections: Criticisms of Science” (abs), LuLu.com, Jun 06.
8. Fourcroy, Antoine de. (1804). A General System of Chemical Knowledge (chemical revolution, ogs, 36, 72, 75). Cadell and Davies.
9. Rani, Baby. (2011). “The 1st Law of Thermodynamics” (editor: Lamar Stonecypher), BrightHubEngineering.com, May 31.
10. Thims, Libb. (2008). The Human Molecule (pg. 1) (issuu) (preview) (Google Books) (docstoc). LuLu.
11. Bongiorno, Andrew. (1930). “A Study of Pareto’s Treatise on General Sociology” (abs) (quote, pg. 351), The American Journal of Sociology, 36(3):349-70.
12. Jalibi, Jameel. (1987). “Foreword by a Sociologist”, in: New Dimensions in Sociology: a Physico-Chemical Approach to Human Behavior (pgs. iv-v). Hamdard Foundation Press.

External links
‚óŹ Goethean science – Wikipedia.

TDics icon ns