1.20 Environment/Organism

Section 17 (first updated 12.26.2020)

Aristotle suggests that there are virtually an infinite variety of species ranging from the simplest plants to the most complex of mammals.

At the very basic levels of life, it is very hard to distinguish between what is living and what is non-living. (On the Soul.I.2-3.Smith). Alfred North Whitehead reiterates this ancient idea in a more modern way. He argues that it is very difficult to distinguish between the body and environment at the microscopic level, he says:

“Our knowledge of the body places it as a complex unity of happenings within the larger field of nature. But its demarcation from the rest of nature is vague in the extreme. The body consists of the coordinated functionings of billions of molecules. It belongs to the structural essence of the body that, in an indefinite number of ways, it is always losing molecules and gaining molecules. When we consider the question with microscopic accuracy, there is no definite boundary to determine where the body begins and external nature ends. Again the body can lose whole limbs, and yet we claim identity with the same body.” (Nature alive 221)

At the “microscopic level”, meaning the domain of reality that cannot be perceived by ordinary direct perception, involves operations and processes that we do NOT know of existing. At this level, there are billion and billions of relations between infinite number of components. The process whereby an infinite number of components can be said to generate-into-being, and decay out-of-being, is NOT a well defined boundary at minute levels of space. At “smaller” areas of space, the opposite conclusion is made, that there are more and more numbers of differentiated parts. How can the smaller areas of space, contain the greatest number of variables? The answer could be that at this level of reality, the rate at which events start and end, is also at the most rapid of rate.

The most basic event of generating-into-being, and degenerating out-of-being, also occurs the greatest number of times, at the microscopic level. In this way, where a boundary begins to identify one object separate from the boundary distinguishing another object, is NOT well defined, and is unpredictable. For example, where the billions of molecules that form my hand begins, and where the boundary of my hand ends, is NOT identified at the microscopic level, although it is easily traceable with macroscopic direct perception, e., I can easily see where his hand ends, and where outside nature begins.

The reason for this unclarity between boundaries operating components at the microlevel is due to the fact that any object, when magnified enough, becomes the macroscopic landscape that discloses a set of microscopic operations. The same entity acts as the boundary disclosing within itself a set of minute competes that themeless are distinguished from each other by disclosing within themselves other set of smaller components within themselves. This infinite regress continues to go down at the most infinitesimal level of reality.

At the micro-scale, the boundary between macro-scale objects is undefined because it is NOT “there”. In other words, micro and macro are different dimensions, or rather, perceptions of consciousness. For example, if you zoom into a physical object in the 3rd dimension, what you have to do is to magnify it. The process of magnification, or to magnify something is to basically make (something) appear larger than it is, especially with a lens or microscope. However, this “appearing” larger brings into question whether any object itself is inherently large or smaller, or whether these magnitudes are perspectives dependent on the observer?

In order to make “something” appear larger, first 1) a particular point must be picked out on the surface of the larger object. Second, 2) that point must be brought forth to the perception, and everything else has to be pushed away from the observer. Objects in one dimension are NOT in the same space or time as objects in a different dimension, yet objects in one dimension require, and depend on objects in other dimensions in order to persists as they do in their own respective dimension.

At the “micro” level, the boundary where one object ends, and the other begins, is NOT well defined because the rate at which events generate and degenerate, could well be connected to the rate at which any number set of components can subsume on the position of a plane. The latter claim can be clarified thusly; the process of generating and degenerating (coming into-and-out-of-being), could just be the same process of changing position and configuration of figure.

The atomic theory suggests that because “atoms” are eternal, they never ultimately decay, even with the process of subatomic “radioactive decay”, the atoms keep transforming to new decay products until they reach a stable state and are ‘no’ longer radioactive. In other words, the atoms never cease into being, they transform into other models that exhibit a stable form.

The initial problem of the inability (unable) to differentiate between physical boundaries at the microscopic level, introduces us to how the process of generation is after all desired by the relations of symmetry with asymmetry. In other words, at the basic levels of nature, there is no symmetry. This notions is elaborated if asymmetry is the more fundamental condition than symmetry. First, it is important to note how generation relates to symmetry? This connection can be made if we assume that the basic role of substance is the observer, and that the object, is determined by the conception of the observer.

If the observer is indivisible from the phenomenon, then we have to assume that “nothing” is NOT the annihilation of the object, and therefore also its generation into being, but rather how components combine and relate together to form conceptions of objects for the observer, answers to the question of generation. What it means for an object to generate, and therefore degenerate, is related to the process of new combinations of components when generating into being; and inversely, the deconstruction of an already preconceived form describes the process of decay and degeneration. The process of the object outside of the observer, is the same process as the object occurring indivisibly from the observer. The latter is an objective claim because an object out-of-view of one observer, is within the conception of another observer. The observer is objective because there is always an observer, otherwise, there would be no conception of phenomena.

At the basic atomic level, there is “no” symmetry because objects are fundamentally differentiated. However, the relationship between different objects itself takes on a form independently from the objects. The form that two different objects share is called “symmetry”. When two or more distinct objects form together the same conception, that conception “appears” symmetrical to the observer. However, is the observer pays special attention to his environment, they will notice that everything in nature is asymmetrical, nothing is completely straight, no two things are ever equally even, there is always an imbalance between physical objects.

The environment is a compilation of rudimentary elements- such as fire, air, water, and earth. Each element is an expression of an even more general idea. Fire for example is an expression of heat, and heat is an expression of energy, and energy is an expression of matter, and matter is an expression of time etc. (On the Soul.II.5.Smith) (number shapes in form/matter)

Organism is the most primal universal embodied form of reason- rationality.

(Image of atom, the colours illustrate the behaviour of an electron in a chemical bond)  

The word “organism” is sublate of the term organization.

An Organism is a rational form of “organization” because the arrangements of the structure are connected into entity (entirety) made for the achievement of a particular purpose (function). For example, skin cells combine together to form the skin organ protecting the insides of an animal. However, a cell is NOT an organism, but rather a component of an organism, which at the basic level is a single-celled life form, and a complex mammal at higher levels. An organism must be a self-contained entity capable of self-determination and direction within an environment.

An organism is similarly defined as a whole with interdependent parts constituting the same figure.

When we compare the common understanding of an “organ” with an “organism”, the difference is clear in thew former case, but difficult in the latter. It is easy to accept that organs have a specific function, but it is NOT so easy to conceive the function the organism generally in its environment. The organ plays a clear role as part of the organism, i.e,. the whole that the part belongs to. For example, the heart pumps blood throughout the body, the brain concerns motor operations and complex thinking, the eyes utilize refraction in order to see etc.,

The organism also carries out a function in the environment, but the function of the organism is NOT always known because either one of two reasons; first, the observer is limited in conceiving his function within the environment. In other words, the function of the observer can be beyond him, he does something without knowing what for. Second, the function that the observer serves is always part of a greater function part of the environment generally. In other words, the observer is always situated in an individual part of a species, and the function of the species is even more less known than the role of the individuals within it, just like the function of the organism is less known than the organs that make it up.

The reason why the function of an organism is less known is because a specific organ has a clear and discernible function in the body, like the heart pumps blood, but the function of the whole organism is unclear because the role of it belongs as part of a greater environment. Also, the idea that the role of the organism is reducible to the mere basic necessities of survival, like reproduction, consumption, and so on and so forth, does NOT fully satisfy the comprehensive depth of living experience. For example, animals fly, fight, swim, etc, each with that, brings a subjective experience unique to that member at that moment in time.

The species define the individuals that expresses the general notion, in which it belongs to, also carries out a specific function like the organs belonging within itself. The organs that belong as part of the organisms are NOT the same in nature, to the organisms that belong to their environment. The function of an organ is universal and known across all individuals, even though each body carries the individual aspect within it. However, organisms only vaguely actualize the purpose set out by their species.

Individual organisms do NOT actualize the purpose of the species equally, there is an imbalance of power between individuals making up a species. For example, NOT all primates are equal in strength and intelligence. As the complexity of the organism increases, i.e, as they become smarter and smarter, more variability between the individual members of the species becomes extreme (noticeable). For example, if we compare chimps with humans, we observe that chimps, although have a hierarchal structure, of alpha male to a set of unequal betas, they generally share similar strength, mental and physical variability. The beta males unanimously agree to allow the alpha to rule them because they exhibit more intelligence and bravery, although if the alpa over steps their moral grounds, they will be demolished by the group of other male chimps.

Why humans fail to fulfil the role of the species?

A man is “rational” in two ways: (1) first, he can be rational by understanding the ‘rationality’ in the world. (2) Second, he is rational by understanding the ‘irrationality’ in the world. The “rationality” in the world is the structure and order that nature exhibits, and the language man uses to apprehend a proper understanding of nature. The ‘irrationality’ is the element of “chance” and/or unpredictability in the world, asymmetry. You cannot use irrationality to explain the world even though you must use ‘rationality’ in order to explain irrationality. The conundrum is that, in order to be rational, one must recognize the irrational, yet irrationality cannot be used to explain anything rational.

If we compare one human to another, the difference in the expression of personality becomes too variable to predicate a common kin. Even within the same genetic family, human siblings have vast different personalities and capabilities. Moreover, if we take the human species in general, we see that only a few individuals can be characterized to have fulfilled human nature, which is to be a “rational animal”. The reason for this is NOT because humans in general are “stupid” because even the stupidest of human beings possess some intelligence in a specific area. But that what it means to be “rational” also encompasses the ethical principle of being “Good”, which in that respect, people fail. People are generally deficient in moral value because they choose to do what they OUGHT not to do, and fail to do what they OUGHT to do.

Humans are “smart” in all kinds of ways, and possess knowledge in all sort of different fields, however, when they apply their intelligence to living a “good life”, they fail in that respect because they always do what is pleasant, immediate, and sensual. They have weak focus, attention span, and a corrupt consciousness, this means, the stamina of their consciousness (loosely attention span), or the duration of their continued consciousness, is deficient. We are mainly unconscious animals, and our consciousness only arrives during momentary instances, and fades away into the majority of the day remaining within unconscious behaviour, actions, and fancies.

Matter is Protoplasm

Just like the word “organ”, the organ-ism is self-contained and has a specific function. When we think of these concepts we normally think of them as biological properties. These concepts are NOT merely newly evolved forms of the universe, but are versions of the fundamental way the universe is. The strict divide between the specialized science has caused the confusion that certain concepts ought to only pertain to certain fields of study. Like the concept “organism” is NOT applicable in physics. Yet any honest discussion of the science(s) admits the simple fact that the special science(s) require knowledge of each other such that they serve as preliminary preconditions of each other.

In the general scope of nature, the fundamental rules of each science is applicable to all. Biology is just an advanced study of chemistry. We find new concepts in biology NOT found in chemistry NOT because these subjects are fundamentally different fields of study, but because there is a development in knowledge that is approximately proportionate to the development of chemical to biological life.

The atom is an “organism” in the vague sense of the term because a material form like light, for example, is NOT just a single wavelength beam as we perceive, but light is also composed of a species of itself known as photons. Light is a species of photon particles organized or harmonized as a wavelength extended in spacetime. Light exhibits such a harmony that the species operates as the same organism and to the ordinary senses individual photons are indistinguishable as the same single physical wavelength.

Matter is a living phenomena, if by living we mean the capacity for growth and production, and to subsists itself by being in-contact with itself such that to exhibit compactness. Even at the subatomic level of “inorganic” matter, we see that it is contained, and determined by forces, that exhibit the material into a rational form. What “hand”, or in better words, what “mind”, yields nature into rational forms? The atomic state is “abstract” only in that it is a fundamental realm, NOT that it is devoid of composition. In fact, the composition of the atom is a protoplasm like nature. Protoplasm is the aesthetical character that the activity of matter assumes, exhibiting itself as a “colourless material comprising the living part of the cell” it holds-together, contains as part of the same organism, cytoplasm, nucleus, and other organelles. The essence of matter at a fundamental level is to be a protoplasm.

Environment challenges the organism

Consciousness is usually confused with self-consciousness, which is to have the freedom of understanding, and acting on that understanding. But consciousness possess a primal nature in that it is merely the determinacy of the what is unconsciousness, the immediacy of matter. When we take a lizard for example, it is necessitated by its habitat, and it depends on it wether it be a desert, forests, marshes, rocky areas etc. in so being determined by its habitat, the lizard invariably serves as the determination of that habitat. It eats, drinks, reproduces, and thus determines the necessity of the environment to produce, change etc.. The organism aims to determine aspects of the environment, and the environment is the aspect of necessity for the organism.

The environment is a kind of system which challenges the “rationality” of the individuals that inhabit it., and how the individuals relate with the environment, how they solve the system in accord with their understanding of it, is the factor which makes the as-ethical beauty of the individuals themselves (the as-ethical, or physical, form they exhibit). We see this with the instance where self-consciousness begin to manipulate its environment in accord with its will. In this determination consciousness is at a degree of development NOT only in relating with the environment it set out for it self as the challenge for its reason, but rather in how far the object reached to resolve the challenge. And how far it resolves the complexity of its reason expressed outside of itself, is how far it reaches in its asethical value in development. The second way is more subjective because consciousness set up in its individuals the innate ability to take on a level of health within the given nature. This is what we mean by being healthy and even in this sense someone who is very ugly by social standards when attains health is more beautiful than a conventional pretty person who is unhealthy, I.e., a dying pretty person makes no sense as compared to an ugly person well on their feet.

The development towards self- consciousness is a complex one mainly because it takes on an infinite form of logical relations with itself. Self- consciousness is NOT merely given it is rather achieved. In the course of nature at large- the universe- we see the development of consciousness. In the realm of evolution we see that consciousness applied to itself as self-consciousness. The relation between consciousness and self- consciousness is a complex relationship between an environment it sets out for itself – that environment being the systematic encapsulation of its logic- the rigid outline of its logic; and between itself as an object in that environment- that object being the seed whereby the systematic logic can be adopted in the self and set forth as consciousness- the object is set forth in the environment to make sense of it- to grasp it as one expressing its own identity- and with this knowledge the object begins to achieve knowledge of itself by manipulating its environment according to its will to see how it operates with itself. Prior to this stage however- the development of the environment itself takes on an infinite degrees and angles of logical relations each of which carry with it its own inherent form of consciousness. With each kind of habitat comes with it the inhabitant.

Environment or Organism, what’s first?

The environment in this sense did NOT develop first, then thereafter came its life form- rather that the life form and the environment developed  simultaneously. The environment and organism are instantaneous aspects of nature. That each environment had within itself the potential life form inherent in it, and such a life form serves as the environment for the potential of other life forms.

The process is a matter of connecting such potentialities to form a particular actuality, and then that actuality takes the form of what it is potentially. In the process of evolution for instance, each life form portray a specific logical relation of Reason. Each life form itself is an expression of a logical proposition following a long chain of reasoning. In evolution, Reason achieved such a stage whereby it can lay out its logical expressions into objects and see how such objects relate both to their environment and to each other. In this relation there is the implicit aim to a frugally produced that one object that encompasses all logical expression- the object of all object, the species being. It is explained earlier that each animal is an expression of an ethical virtue that expresses a kind of logical proposition.

Vulgar Darwinism

The actuality of the logical relation is expressed as an ethical feature.

What ethical trait in nature lead to the development of self-consciousness?

Every ethical trait is closely linked to self-consciousness. The exhibition of ethical behaviour denotes the development of self-consciousness.

In Darwin evolution theory, it is a common fact that the human being share the common ancestory with apes. In this sense, the human being can be traced back to the same genetic information as, what we call today monkeys. The fundamentalist religious view, on the other hand, automatically dismisses the truth of this fact based on the observation that humans are monkeys look very different, they are obviously different to the naked eye. However, a closer look into their genetic makeup suggests that humans and chimps share a 98.8% of their DNA. Why do we share so closely our DNA with chimps, yet we are so drastically different in evolutionary development? If the body (genes) determines the close proximity between animals, then why are humans so much more advanced than chimps, when we are primarily the same in DNA? the obvious answer is that, humans have a more developed mind, and the vulgar materialist would argue that the mind is also part body.

The usage of “mind” however, in philosophical terms, does NOT mean the organ, i.e, brain, but the quality of the organ, which is the power of thinking, (determining reality into being), and ultimately the ability for higher ethical relations, e.g, the development of technology, and its usage in relation with nature, and other man. These factors are what sets humans aside from other animals, and they are the factors that the Darwinian theory of genes and DNA cannot resolve by merely compering genes.

The religious type, like the Christians, are ironically also vulgar empiricist in the respect that they looked upon the immediate appearance of the human being, as opposed to the monkey; and dismiss any connection because of how vastly different they are conveyed at first sight. Humans are civilized, the other is savage. The religious type rightly look at the moral worth of each and based on that, say there is no familial link between them. However, the failed observation occurs when they overlook the genetic similarities we share at a subatomic and genetic level.

If we are the same bodies made by God, ask least, if we are only different prototypes? Do the religious type take into account that God may have made one thing at one time, and another (better) thing at a future time? Or does God make everything equally all at once, and everything just simply exists always? If God is eternal he cannot be subject to time, therefore the creation of God itself cannot develop overtime because it would mean that God at one point was more defective than at a later time, he became better. Development inherently contradicts the nature of God as all powerful, and perfect. the cornerstone of the theoretical doctrines that would be so striped away from any empirical facts today. In this sense, this is an example of induction gone wrong- a misapplication of induction – the inference of general laws from particular instances.

On the opposite side the Darwinian evolutionist who claims that, humans and apes share that common ancestors, but the connection stops in its tracks, also misses the notion of development, like the religious notion misses the similarity in the same way. Whereas the religious fails to see any notion of development all together between apes and humans, the Darwinian evolutionist is unable to explain the actual transition of development from ape to man – they say its a “missing link”, an all too convenient proposition to escape answering the actual connection if there be any. To explain the development of one from the other, we must simply look at the ethical trait associated with both apes and human beings- is there an ethical trait common between two different species- vastly distinguished only really by a gap of advancement, whereas everything else is virtually similar, at least genetically.

let us look at the nature of monkeys to see how they possess the ethical trait that will later on serve as the seed of development for the homonide genus. Monkeys by nature are curious and materialist, both trait compliment each other in practical manner of discovering nature. Monkeys enjoyed hoarding objects and investigating them. This featured developed the capability which will later on be the ability to adopt tools, but more primarily it also lead to their omnivore nature. the risk in being an omnivore is consuming poisonous food, the animal therefore has to be sharp in memory and attentive to details, the reward is gaining a wide array of nutrients, among of which may be developmental to the mind, especially consciousness.

Relationship between life and environment (keep it connected with genetics)

It is not the environment that makes life but rather that life makes the environment. This goes contrary to our perception because we see that the environment endures while life is the influx cycle transitioning between life and death. Moreover the environment is what nurtures life and so it seems that it is the sustenance of it. Our Reason however operates inversely relative to our understanding- and so if our understanding tells us that the environment is the cause of life because it endures the same kind of being whereas life is forgoing change- we must be skeptical and try the inverse notion- that because life is ever changing and undergoing determination it is the cause for its environment being static so as to necessitate this continuity.   

Evidence for this involves looking at the very basic protocell, which is a seed of life that exists beyond earth and in space. This protocell goes through a spacetime migration and in this journey it shapes the kind of environment necessary for its flourishing. Understanding what life is will give us an understanding to our earlier question; what is meant by information? Life in our understanding means the active determination of Reason in the world, and information is this activity in the world.  

(add here the soul is the body)

In the science of ecology, which is the study of ecosystem, we learn that the organism is not an organism in an environment, but the organism and environment is a unified field of behavior (Alan watts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gfg7rZ8xic). We can go deeper into this and say that the organism is not in the environment, but the environment is in the conception of the organism. In other words, the environment is the conception of the organism. When we look at a particular ecosystem we are looking at the conception of the organism. For example, the city is the environmental conception of man because it is a production of man and as a production it is objective for any conception insofar as it is understandable, e.g., the ant is running around the concrete city block but it has no understanding that what is present before it is a city, even if it objectively exists as a city and that the ant is thriving off of it. Likewise, with the forest of microorganisms, it must seem like just a forest of trees, but it may be a more complex organism.

Productivity is the objective manifest of creativity. The idea is objective when it is a material production. The organism is not a body among bodies in its environment, but what we identify with as the approximate body of the organism is an abstraction of the environment.

The term abstraction has different variations of meaning that require qualification to derive a full understanding of the concept. As a principle of reason, the abstraction is universally the simultaneity and instantaneousness of the intricacy of logical relations. Particularly it is the specification of these logical relations in the phenomena by the understanding into discriminated categories.  

The fish is the cell of the compound, h20, and the compound h20 is the physics of the cell because it is the physical relation between hydrogen and oxygen. The physics is the relation between the compound and the cell as the water and fish. The water is maintained because of the cells of the fish, and the cells of the fish is maintained by the compound water, their relation is the consciousness that maintains them as separate objects for perception. The water is unconscious of the fish and the fish is conscious of the water. This is true at the most basic level of life, life is the whole of the unity because it is active. 

The internal is the relation between two of the principle is maintaining one principle as something external, the cell is external relation as some object involves the internal relation between physics and compound, those two are the same substance when the cell is different. Observation only sees the external objects as relating and not their inherent internal relation maintaining them. When ever we perceive a cell we cannot at the same time see the physics and the compound but we see the cell in relation to another cell, the self relation is the internal relation between the inverse principles. When we see a compound we do not see how it is the cell in physics, and when we see the physics we do not see how the compound is in the cell.

Infinitely indivisible – finitely divisible

The cell, compound and spacetime are universal forms such that they are the same nature of substance distinguished by our understanding. The nature of their content is infinite, and indivisible. Amphibians cell are different than mammals etc. And even in the same organism there is diversity of cells, fur cells are different than organ cells. The indivisibility marks that infinity is developmental. Every divisibility is sign of advancement, infinity, and in every advancement is greater divisibility. In mammals there is greater variety of cells, more quality, kinds of cells. Infinity is measured by quality. For there is quality in quality this is why infinity is inevitable, that every advancement in quality is even more quality. In mammals there is more capability of thinking and moving than in contrast to amphibians and therefore greater potential. 

Natural selection is the ethical and as-ethical construction of the objective specimen. 

(Connect this with how organism and environment are same thing) Organism adaption is the rational acquaintance with the objects of mind. The objects in the environment are the minds ideas reflected for the organism being the organism deriving knowledge of its own mind. 

Evolution is the development of the object to the ideal of the idea. The advancement of organism is the progress in the perfection of the organ systems. 

The dinosaur stage introduces the foundations for the physical species that will be perfected throughout the duration of evolution. 

Sea life is stage in evolution developing the lung organ for breathing. 

The gills of the fish squeezes out the oxygen from the water h2O. The gills is a rational system of differentiation of elements. Once the fish was able to differentiate oxygen it was able to go on land to breath air. The lungs of mammal is more passive in receiving oxygen than gills because water is more dense than air the gills have to be more active in seeking out oxygen whereas in lungs it is more passively receptive. This is the evolutionary development of the organ system in processing the element of knowledge. In the gills oxygen had to actually be differentiated as distinct element from hydrogen whereas in the lungs oxygen simply needs to be remembered. 

(add here breathing using geometric physics, motion of up and down in circular manner)

Reptilian land life is the emphasis development of the digestive system, swallowing and metabolism, throat stomach. 

We have in this sense two process of development happening simultaneously along side within each other in the course of evolution. First, there is the individual animal classified as a specific species, whether we say it is the developmental process from a fish, to a reptile, to a bird, and to a mammal, there is a second developmental process in the physiological, the organism within the organism, which is the development of the body, the internal organs, brain and so on. Those are organism of evolutions also, the internal relations of the environment, the environment itself developing by virtue of the individual expression we call the animal.

Mammal emphasis development of vision

Environment in the organism- habitat

Evolutionary speaking we perceive an organism to be in its environment and Darwinian thought limits this relation to the interaction of the organism occupying a place in its environment, known as habitat. However the possibility of in what way the environment is disclosed by the organism is entirely overlooked, as if we cannot derive some objective notion of the subjective mechanics of life forms. If we only assume that the organism is in its environment and not also the environment is in the organism, than it will be difficult to answer how organisms are able to interact in an environment which from an external comparison to the organism, seems very much more vast and challenging to it. For example it is not all that obvious how such tiny insects can locate resources of food over extensive fields of land. It is not true to say that insects randomly stumble upon food because if there is a rich source of food, you see a multiplicity of different kind of insects all organize around it. For example, if you leave out like a half eaten banana or a piece of lemon, what you see the next morning is a collection of o retesting insects organizing themselves around it. How did these insects come to locate this resource in such foreign environments? The answer is that the organism must have unconsciously had knowledge of this resource, in other words, a map of the environment must be ingrained in the mind of the organism. The idea that the environment is disclosed in the mind of the organism can be explained by the zero point energy,

The environment disclosing all the organisms is in part disclosed in each organism.

The organism and environment are a simultaneous construction of each other one being the determination and the other the determinism.the evolution of life constitutes a construction of the environment by the organism. Each organism at a certain level of development has a certain environment. The environment of bacteria is not the same world as the environment for mammals like humans. The environment for micro bacterial organism is sometimes the body of a mammal in a habitat the bacteria only has an indirect relation to. For example, the skin of a mammal is evolved to be a harsh environment for bacteria.

Human skin has curves and creases and when a bacteria penetrates through the skin, skin develops erosions, “pimples”, like volcanoes on earth to exit out intruders. Mammals skin is an adaption from the environment they thrive in but it is not the same environment the organism that live in skin are experiencing because they are only part of a mock environment.

As life develops the environment develops for the organism (Add here the cell as an environment, the sell as paradise, the basis of life)

Likewise, with morality, the “means” cannot determine the end if the means is first not an end itself. The means must be determined itself by the end in order to be the means. Sleep as the means to health must be adopted as an end in itself in order for it to serve as the means for health.  The cycle of sleep and healthy is determined by the cycle of daylight and night. This cycle in the human being is one of the most primal traits of life itself. The development of the eye began when bacteria who rose up in the water to light and back down, this shows sign of consciousness. Those who kept in the darkness did not evolve. Those who went into light and back into dark developed sight and the ability of locomotion, able to catch their food. 

“Symbiotic” relation between life and environment

The three forms of friendship are a sublation of the primordial symbiotic relation.

Three types of symbiotic correspond to three kinds friendship. Mutualistic to love, commensalistic to pleasure and parasitic to utility.  

Symbiosis (from Greek συμβίωσις “living together”, from σύν “together” and βίωσις “living”)[2] is any type of a close and long-term biological interaction between two different species, be it mutualistic, commensalistic, or parasitic. 

A symbiotic relation does not only occur between two different organisms but also involves the environment and its interaction with the two organisms. For example, if water is the environment of two fish species, the water may have a commensalistic relation with each fish equally, in that it affords them opportunity to move, and so on, yet the interaction between each fish is parasitic in that one is trying to eat the other. The question is however, can the organism and the environment ever possess a mutulaistic relationship? Why is it more obvious to ask how the environment affects the fish rather than how the fish affects the environment. Obviously the fish without the water cannot exists, and the water exists long before the fish. But what about the relationship between environment and life generally? How does life effect the environment? 

(Find where you talk about how environment does not come before life but vice versa. Life is the conception of the environment, its final cause, and the environment is the efficient.) 

This moral activity actualizing the right conduct of the means is predicated by ethics. According to Aristotle, ethics is a scientific discourse. The ends determine the means in that the means presuppose the end. For example, friendship as “phila”, i,e. True love, when adopted as the end invariably encompasses the aspects of “utility” and “pleasure”, e.g., someone who truly loves you would serve you by their own will because your good is their good, and both would derive pleasure from each other because they both like each other and individual derive pleasure from the things they like. whereas friendship that is based on “utility” or “pleasure” only does not necessarily presuppose love because the aim is to gain something independent of any good it may or may not be doing from the source In which it is deriving the gain. For example, if pleasure is the aim, than it may be gained at the expense of the person you are gaining the pleasure from. The latter forms of friendship are based on aspects outside themselves without themselves, e,g. Pleasure is desired independently from the person, money is desired without providing any good in return. The point here is not that utility and pleasure and in themselves bad aspects, but only if they are merely guided by themselves without reasons that make them ethical, like without love for example, they become advantageous, and predatory in nature. But if the base reason is love, than they follow naturally as positive and productive aspects. The point of this is that in nature there is this real duality of value, the same lion which devours its pray, at the same time makes love to their mate and reproduce life. We do not call the lion evil for killing the dear, because the lion is not aware of the force that drives him. The question becomes, is there a force that drives a life form that we can call evil as distinct from the good?

The ethics and Phenomenology of the elements

Critique some of Peirce’s stuff in the audio

In one sense pragmatism introduced a kind of process thinking that requires a detailed explanation of how properties interact (ref audio for lethuim qoute)

Whereas this is the right start in capturing the object akin to its reality, it also explains how it is a principle for thought. In the latter case, there is required the phenomenological explanation of the kind of experience the element arouses to the consciousness, and it is this feature of the object that is indicative of its essence because it not only shows the particularity of the object, but rather what the object is in such a relation. 

Water

When we ask what water is as a natural element we can say that it is a liquid form necessary for life. But when we ask, why it is necessary for life? The answer is usually hydration, but hydration merely indicates that h2o molecules are absorbed and retained as energy source. Even at this point we still do not have an adequate answer to what water is essentially for consciousness because we still have to answer first, what the function of h2o molecules are for the organism, second, what kind of energy state is it? simply saying it is an energy state is just saying that it possess a kind of activity, but as to what the nature of the activity is, still requires further explanation. There is another answer to what water is that completes our search, which is, water is a conductor. Now this answer comes most close to the truth because it explains the element in a relation. And being in “a relation” explain the reason and to what purpose any principle can serve. As Aristotle says, the element is only as much as it’s essence. But it is still ambiguous because water as a conductor in relation to electricity simply allows it to accelerate from one source to another, assuming that both bodies are receptors. However, the way water operates as a conductor in relation to a living organism is much more complex process. Water as a conductor for a living organism acts as a cleanser. Water cleanses substances that are not integral for the overall harmony of the body, and it does this at a microscopic level. Even the feeling of water is refreshing, a feeling of a restart, at the macro level. Water therefore plays an ethical role; it excludes out what is bad for the organism, to make way for what might be potentially good for the organism.

Air is purifier and with water it makes mind clarity.    

Now it is easy to say that water as a conductor is different than water as a filter in the living organism. But this only points out the quantitive difference between the two, that is, the same thing belongs differently to different things. Yet they are also qualitatively related in that the same thing itself involves development. Water as a conductor for electricity denotes its elementary nature. 

The relation between life and death is the qualitative ethical.

Light is good and darkness is bad. This seems like an arbitrary ethical proclamation onto things. But we can say that light is good because it denotes life and darkness denotes death. The question now becomes, why is life any better than death? The reason really hints at the essential nature of the difference between good and bad. That life is good because it is the active determination and death is the passive. It is in the fact that life took on the determination of being something other than itself, that it become the principle of the good. While death remains itself as non-being. This however only paints a simplistic picture of a very minutely complex process. If life is the determination that first took the step to become something other than itself, it produced two potential avenues for its movement. First, life as a step towards something other is really a relapse for death because death is that which life is not, non-being. Yet the determination towers becoming an other, also means to remain the same identity and produce that identity as a duplicate of the self. In the latter case, we have the process of self-generation, or self-reproduction, which is not only a primarily principle for organic life, but life generally as a universal principle in the universe. When life duplicates itself into an other version of itself, it derives a self-relation, that cements its identity as self-identical relation so that any move beyond that is a production from that identity. With life we have the process of development. Death on the other hand never made the determination to become anything else but rather remains itself, void of being. In this way death never made the first step to self relate, and is only related as negation of identity- the void being of the identity of life. And so it logically seems that death is dependent on life to remain as the void being, an ironic revelation because life have had to initially identify as death, non-being, before surpassing that into the other of non-being, that is, being.

and then finding the identity that non-being is itself a being, a being which takes itself as an other, not only so as to return to not itself, but to continue to reproduce that same capacity who is inverse to non-being, as the being identical with itself as the opposite of non-being. Now because inherent in life is the principle of death, the two notions are not separately held apart in the ridged manner so that to state that one is good and the other is bad, but both are rather the same substance in two inverse ethical determinations. In life itself there is therefore the development towards the better life, or rather the development itself is the good, versus the life that fails to develop and remain in the void realm of death. The ethical standard whereby life is to be judged good or bad lies in the fact that the general idea of life is good because it possess the essential determination for development, but that individual forms of life are not good for they always enter into the realm of death. This here is a difficult contradiction because on the one hand we have the general notion of life which never ceases to be, but that individual members of life are continually dieing out. How is it that the individual life form can be said to be bad when it partakes in the universal of life as the good? The answer to this question must begin by recognizing the kind of relation involved between the individual life form, and life generally. For example, the relation between the individual and the species or the species and the genus and so on. The individual is always a particular expression of the universal such that the expression itself either is, as stated above, a determination towards the advancement of the species or for the relapse into its death, non-being.

(Try to connect this to whitehead law of fatigue as the law of death, and law of novelty as the law of life)

The relation between non-being and being is the most logically complex because it aims to demonstrate how being can come out of Nothing, or more accurately how nothing is inherently always a something.