As an equation, feeding physics divides m by a . Newton's mass is woman's food, so " m " is the mass of all the Earth's food. Newton's acceleration are woman's cared for babies, so " a " is the energy of all the people on Earth when they are fed aliquot portions of the total mass of all the food. The equation for feeding physics is
f = m ÷ a .
Newton's f are the actions of fed people, so " f " is an a priori synthesis as well as a here and now consensus of what results from fairly feeding all the people. Marx's s corresponds to m . Marx's v corresponds to a . Feeding physics starts to make more sense once indigenous/feminist/womanist (4dq) is substituted for m and s . And once indigenous/feminist/womanist (amr) is substituted for a and v .

As social revolutionaries, we might consider the total world view we hold and others hold, as being irretrivably connected to science of one sort or another. Physics, describing things as unavoidable as gravity, is actually important. No scientist can propound ideas that contradict the "laws" of gravity. So if feeding physics is consistent with the laws of gravity, then it seems we — even us social scientists — should take it seriously.

I consider that science is just a special application of the logic we use in any situation. Using variables and mathematical operations, need not make it less intuitive or less qualitative or having less of a social revolutionary nature. So what Newton did beyond the gadgets his equations spawned, was to state simply how two variables lead to new information. So maybe m and a, or s and v, or (4dq) and (amr), can teach us how to get everyone fed and thus avoid war and thus clear the playing field so everyone can "get it together". If f for feeding = m, for all the food, divided by a, for all the people, then Occupiers might do better than to ignore the possibilities this idea holds for the paradigm shift we seek. I know this is obscure. Yet Occupy's presumed goals are obscure.

We assume that the world is so large and complex, and we are told so by those and controlled by those, who can leverage the size and comlexity to their advantage. If we had a number understanding, and understanding of physics that reduced the size and complexity to one we could leverage, then we'd have some of the advantages of the rich.

I think there are social classes. I don't think imagining violently taking things from the rich is practical or a good idea, or particularly ethical for that matter. I think the more dominant point though is that the feeding physics I propose teaches numbers and math and the physical basis of things — a physicality that includes physical, mental/emotional, as well as spiritual dimensions — provides us with modest means what the rich require exorbinant means to do. We'll be more lean and more mentally tough, when we do the calculations ourselves.

Regarding the repeated emphasis placed in these discussions on the need for a new economic system, if food were handled completely differently than it now is today — i.e., if there were no hoarding and all food was fairly distributed — that would definitely change the economic system. And the way to do it is to learn the logic and apply it in our actions and our ideas.

So the logic is that living on Earth requires certain food shelter and clothing, which can only be successfully stolen from us because we don't see it directly happen. Its hidden behind closed doors. Our power to open those doors won't be force of arms. It will be a demonstrated ability to teach people to teach their children differently. At some point we will have to take power. However that will be by being elected. And the constituency supporting our political platform will consist of those who have learned the new feeding physics, which amounts to economics. Economics informed by Marx and women, and by the hard won consensus amongst ourselves that we must continue to fight for. And I will try to continue having the strength and will to fight for it, by being able to explain these ideas and hope that eventually they will stick in people's minds.

And further, as I will try to demonstrate, the reason for math phobia is because the math that is taught is not related to an Earthly home of people sharing food. Its related to an artificial environment that it creates and traps us in. It is related to multiplying m times a. When you divide m by a, you get an Earthly home of people sharing food. Feeding physics is based on the logic of the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the relationship between a circle and a square. Its not rocket science or statistics or "equationary quadrapeds" :) or the speed of light. Its based on the logic of sharing food. In a world where most food is actually thrown away, suggesting a feeding physics seems admirably reasonable. Like that the many many thousands of vacant houses should be afforded to the fewer thousands of homeless people.

Making science and math obscure so people rely on experts is a trick of the 1%. The numbers and math and logic and facts of how to share food is easy. Yet its also as profound as Newton's f = m times a. It turns out that
f = m divided by a, is actually the holistic Earth centered logic of the origins of people. That's because people got started on one whole Earth and they had to share it so they divided things up. What happened with the Greeks was that Aristotle never had to feed anyone, never had to divide up a limited amount of food, so he assumed that the way to explain things was to multiply things (adding up things) which he determined were important, though not important for feeding I am saying. So his logic and math and ideas on physics amounted to multiplying first and dividing later. That would be enumerating all the substances and then categorizing them. When women first started feeding people, they divided the food and saw how it multiplied the people. That would be discerning the common traits we have and showing all of their uses.

Aristotle's "celebrated" "unity within multiplicity" is the technique that confused Einstein. It led him to seek a unified field theory which he never found. Whereas the oneness of people which we seek to bring in to our governing councils is multiplicity within unity. Diversity within a common whole. This backwards logic has let to our science inventing things for which their is no use, which are positively harmful.

It might seem that one can simply ignore such complicated math when it comes to relationships between people, yet those relationships are characterized by the common understandings we have of the way things are which are asserted by authorities. And we can't contradict them because we can't do the math. A feeding physics gives us the math to prove the authorities wrong.

The logic of the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4, starting with the number 1, works like this. And unfortunately I have to refer back to Aristotle to explain it. That is because knowledge always comes from previous knowledge. Even intuitive flashes, strokes of genius like when Mozart comprehends a whole ensemble easily in his head, his head is arranging notes and tones that have been used before though in different ways. So Aristotle got confused deciding what was a primary subtance and what was a secondary substance. If he knew what was primary it would inform him of the secondary. But the primary nature of women feeding didn't occur to him. So what became primary were all the things that had he could somehow enumerate. Now had he been thinking about women feeding, it might have ocurred to him that the most important consideration was that all the women and all the food were on Earth — that would be one, or 1, thing — and so the number 1, or one, might have been the most important number. Thus, saying one woman plus one women equals two women is true addition since there are definitely two or more women. Whereas saying 1 Earth plus one Earth equals two Earths is false addition, because there is only one Earth. The math and science tradition that a feeding physics contradicts is the one that comprehends things that either don't exist, or are at most of secondary importance. It adds up all the things that are of secondary importance and then uses math to manipulate them. Feeding physics presumes all the sthings that are of primary importance — i.e., food — and then uses math to provide aliquot portions for each person.

There is another science and math tradition from indigenous people that describes how to feed. It is traditional ecological knowledge or TEK. The science and math from Aristotle through Galileo through Newton to computers is the western modern science model or WMS. The WMS model is what is strangling us.

Feminist and womanist theory raises big objections to WMS, however today, even "understanding" occupying males still think feminist and womanist theory isn't about hard science. But feeding physics demonstrates that women and indigenous traditions, as fundamental thinkers, must be listened to if we are to accomplish the goals Occupy sets out to accomplish.

When a group has enough food so that some can exist without procuring food, what tasks are set before those fed people, determines the further intellectual development of the group. How indigenous people think and how women think — albeit recognizing that there are always exceptions — makes a group develop intellectually in a way towards feeding and away from war. So seeing what would happen if math only referred to tangible things of primary importance, is an exercise in how to rearrange our thinking so that we can cease being controlled by the 1%. That indigenous people also fight and that women also fight doesn't disprove this. Teaching ourselves to add up things that actually exist and are of primary importance, will all us to do the calculations that for now we must rely on deceptive authorities.

Such is why Marx can be ignored. Almost all people who can study Marx or study his detractors, are already fed and don't have to focus on the primary importance of procuring food. When he refers to how value comes from labor, it seems highly impractical, since money provides an easier explanation. And since the WMS tradition from Aristotle started on the backs of slaves, it doesn't occur to us that we must devise new basic paradigmatic scientific understandings so that we support ourselves, not supported by slaves or people who work while we don't.

A feeding physics provides Occupy a way to teach revolution and to do revolution which isn't comprehended as a threat, because it seems like more of an intellectual exercise than as a mobilized enemy. An army of scribes is more effective than an army of swords.
— é ÷ × —