Kinesis
evolution in its general meaning involves the process of becoming. The term evolution has its basis by what the Ancient Greeks refer to as movement, change or process, all of which are defined by the Greek term “kinesis”. The term “kinesis”, which simply means “any difference in something’s condition between two different times”. This basic understanding of change is defined by the more fundamental term for the Greeks, that is, what they called “energeia”, which means activity. Energeia defines the development towers and the actualization of a capacity.
The word “capacity” for the Greeks precisely defines the term matter. Energeia for the Greeks define the nature of what they call “logos”, or in modern terms, reason. In this sense reason is the substance that has matter as the capacity for its activity. Evolutionary metaphysics is concerned with the kind of activity necessary for overall development, or equally, the fundamentals of development.
Activity as spectrum
matter as a spectrum does not mean that fundamentally there are no individual objects. On the contrary matter is made into individual parts by the conception of consciousness, yet the nature of consciousness identifying matter as one individual thing different from another is itself a continuity.
When we say that activity is the most fundamental nature of matter, or that a static object at rest presupposes a motion or a cause that which makes it at rest, we have to qualify the meaning of the concept activity, and to do so requires classifying what is meant by activity? The activity possess range and so any activity is essentially a “spectrum”. A spectrum is a concept characteristic of an activity because it explains its range. Range identifies that there are inverse limits, an upper and lower for example, and in between there are a variable amount of points, limits or events indicative of form. When we speak of range, we are saying that the process of change includes a spectrum whereby one form transitions into another.
We have to be cautious not to confuse a spectrum with being a destination. When we say that activity is a spectrum of change, it is assumed in the most basic sense, that we are talking about a process whereby something is transitioning from point A to point B, the latter being the destination of the former. The notion of a destination assumes a finite end that upon achieved, the process ceases to be. This fact is derived from immediate empirical experience. That from the perspective of a finite point, every process is seen as transition of one thing going from one place to another. The activity as a spectrum is not a process towards some end destination that is something outside the activity itself. The activity is rather a relation of two inverse positions. In this sense, the relation that constitutes the activity is a contradiction.
A contradiction in the formal sense is seen as end point that thought reaches, a mistake, that is a destination once arrived at, thought must proceed beyond it and look else where, only to stumble upon another contradiction. And so the system of formal logic preceding became the task of discovering contradictions. But in nature, meaning more fundamentally than the formal system of logic, natural logic, the contradiction is the very relation of the activity. (Unused parts of thesis- In nature the contradiction is the resolution). The contradiction explains the the two inverse parts constitute the limits encapsulating the relation as a spectrum. The activity is defined as a relation that is a contradiction because the way the contradiction supplements the meaning of the relations is the same as how the former two explain the meaning of the range as a spectrum. That is to say, the activity is a spectrum with range, that range is a relation, and the relation is a contradiction. The contradiction explains that the spectrum is held by two limits and between those limits there is a form acting as the content, the being of the activity, or rather the result in less explanatory terms. The result, like the destination, is not something independent of, or outside, the activity, that is to say, the activity is not the efficient of the result it is rather the result that is the efficient cause of the activity, because it presents it as the kind of activity that it is (check thesis final causation section).
For example, if we take the principle of the non contradiction as a formal principle, we see that it is impossible for the same thing to be and not be at the same time (Kant 8:00:50). This on its own is a dead-end for the understanding because everything, or each and every thing, cannot be and not-be at the same time, that is to say, there is nothing else to know because everything abides by this principle. The addition of the word “impossible” indicates the certainty that ought to be self evident from the principle itself (Kant 8:00:10).
However if the application of the principle is seen as an activity, then the very same principle taken as a contradiction is at the same time determines the definite nature of a particular thing. For example, A thing equals A which is something equals B cannot at the same to be and not-be. But both, be and not-be, may very well exist in succession. For example, a man who is young cannot be at the same time old, but the same man may very well be at one time young and at another time not-young, that is, old. The very thing that cannot be and not-be at the same time just means that that very thing is transitioning from being into non-being or non-being into being. When we say what appears to be two contradictory propositions are not really contradictory at all because they are subject to time, in that they exists at two different moment in time.
If I say “you should do something” and than say “you shouldn’t do that same thing” we say that is contradictory because we assume that you should and should not do the same thing at the same time, which is impossible because if your doing it, than your not not doing it, I.e., doing the opposite of not doing it; and vice versa, if your not doing it, then your doing the opposite of doing it, however time is not absolute in bring a fixed constant but is minute and changes at an infinitesimal rate. This means that if you did not do it, then at the next moment you did, there is nothing contradictory about that. This is the way things transitions
In other terms, the same man that is young cannot be old at the same time means that the very same man is young at one time and transitioning into being old at another time. When the principle of non-contradiction is seen as a static universal, it is taken as a formal principle, but if it is seen as an organic process, then it is a natural activity. Now the way the activity is conceived is always as a universal, which is just to say that the activity and the forms it takes are absolutes.
We separate a predicate of a thing from the conception of a thing, and connect with the predicate its opposite, and hence do not establish any contradiction with the subject but only with the predicate which has been conjoined with the subject synthetically. For example, if I say that a man who is stupid is not smart, the condition at the same time must be added, for he who is at one time stupid may at another time be smart, but if I say that no smart man is a stupid man, then the proposition is analytical because the characteristic, stupidness, is a constituent part of the subject, the negative part is immediately evident from the proposition of non-contradiction.
37:30 (Russell audio)
(Put here whitehead critique of motion not just as random, not just position in space, but as directed, forming a whole. Ted power points)
Motion gesture
Physical science explains that all natural phenomenon are reducible to motions. Motion is philosophically informed by activity because activity constitutes the aim of the motion, or that motion itself is an activity. Motion is specifically the gesture of activity such that it is the action performed to convey intention. Physical science purposely forgets this deduction by stripping the activity away from the motion only studying how the movement operates without the aim. Without aim the movement appears mechanical in two ways, first, motion appears as a feature in the sense of belonging as a secondary trait part of a fully formed object. Second, motion seems automatic in the sense that it appears to be uncaused and undirected and unaccustomed to spontaneity of change.
The aim of the movement does not come once the activity is initiated but is rather the very initiation of the activity.
Light, heat and sound are reduced to wave motions which travel between sources of energy known as bodies of matter. Physics assigns to motion positions in space identifying them as source of energy. Sensation supports this fact. Whether the source of energy initiates the motion or the motion itself is the source of energy, the understanding asks about the distinction between motion and energy?
The fact that light is wave motion contradicts the phenomenological sensible experience of perceiving light. When we perceive light we do not see it as a wave motion but rather as a static entity with colour, shape and so on. We see it not as an activity but as a source of energy. Sensation perceives elements as results but does not perceive their causal activities because it sees them as objects of instrumental use. The form of the activity therefore takes on an aesthetic value that is efficient for the organ. Depending on the development of the sensible organ, the object appears with greater complexity of aesthetic value. In order for the same natural element to appear differently depending on the nature of the sense organ, requires that any source of energy be inherently an activity capable of morphism. The organs of sensation do not shape the nature of matter but rather their development relates to the capacity to pick out a corresponding development in their conception.
Russel points out that concepts such as light and space appear different when touched, seen and when conceived by thought. (40:30)
Motion is not just locomotion but generation
The question of evolution as to how something originates is fundamental because the answer concerns how something is maintained. (The modern physics of motion is generally limited to locomotion which is only a particular form of motion, but physics implicitly relies on the definition of motion as Aristotle describes as the coming into being the becoming of something. The becoming into being of something is its maintenance as that which moves from location to location. Locomotion in physics presupposes that there is an already given substratum of forms bearing physicality moving in relation to each other, it has to assume “something” in motion, or an object of motion, so that the object is the subject for motion, it is what is moving. This understood as external relations explains that motion is secondary quality of an already composed entity. This is challenged by the nature of atomic motion which cannot assume some already pre ordinate structure of an entity that causes motion because an individual atom is not separable from the species of atoms- the sum of its relations seems to come prior to single entity, the atom is therefore an adjective of its situation.
The textbook formulation of an atom exhibiting some quality is an abstraction of the species of atoms because quality is not Like quantity measurable as separable entities but is rather a shared essential nature. Hydrogen atom constitutes the compound generally parable in objects made up of the element . For example a hydrogen atom cannot be isolated from the quality of the chemical which is the composition of the relation of billion of hydrogen atoms. In the atomic motion, relation are internal because there is no single entity spectate from the form formed by the relations of atoms. In the atomic level, an entity is no different from the motion that constitutes the composition of the entity. Aristotle’s principle of rest- rest must also come to be that which is at rest constitutes the very principle of atomic motion. In the atomic nature because we cannot merely presuppose an already composed entity the question of origination precisely springs into action as the bare activity that forms itself into abstraction of entity.
Atomic motion concerns the kind of activity that maintains what is presupposed by physics as composed objects. What we perceive as objects of sensation are maintained by a motion whose nature is to be at rest in particular configurations of forms. Atomic motion is the kind of activity which is the maintenance by the constant insistence on the being of some form. This is how we have static objects. The motion of evolution seems to be that of bringing into being new kinds of forms the ideas that must be maintained by the atomic motion.
Hydrogen implies the activities of atoms as the maintain of the quality of hydrogens. The motion of Hydrogen atoms is the rigidity that is the characterization of the chemical. (Feynman two hydrogen atoms cannot fit beside each other (?)
Logic Hegel 813
(Add this to the part, Buddhism does not take seriously that there is a self-contradiction, the problem)
“Essence as the completed return of being into itself is thus at first indeterminate essence. The determinateness of being are sublated in it; they are contained in essence in principle but are not posited in it Absolute essence in this simple equality with itself has no determinate being; but it must develop determinate being, for it is both in itself and for itself, i.e. differentiates the determinations which are implicit in it. Because it is self−repelling or indifferent to itself, negative self−relation, it sets itself over against itself and is infinite being−for−self only in so far is as it is at one with itself in this its own difference from itself.”
The centre of sphere is the extent of the conception, for example, from where your eyes begin from your head to the extent of the vision where it ends. This reach is the the diameter with one side of the radius being where the vision begins from the eye and the other is the extent of the visions scope which is potentially 360 in duration.
Take a spinning ring for example. The question as to how it spins can be explained in
We explain that being and nothing are not static categories but are the principles of a relation the form is spectrum of some activity of the extremities are distinguishable . Motion as physical concept implicitly includes the ordinary definition meaning gesture. In the legal system, motion is proposal for order or rule of court. These definitions of motion are ontological because they assume that there is somehow capable of motion. A gesture is made by someone, a proposal is for someone. In physics motion is understood as process of moving or being moved, both of which assume that motion is secondary attribute of some predisposed entity. That motion occurs when before there was no motion, or an entity moves and from that gesture there is motion or the entity is moved and thus the motion. But unlike the ordinary or legal meaning for example, there is absolutely no explanation as to the reason for the motion.
Hegel explains that it is the meditating movement between being and nothing that constitutes becoming which is the quality of the physical phenomena motion, the latter being the quantity of the former. Being and nothing are rational principles meaning that they are logical conducts. The mere proposal of being produced the motion towards nothing and the proposal of nothing advances to being. It is the logical presupposition of one by the proposition of the other that constitutes the actual transition whereby becoming is each one towards the other and not each as fixed category aside to the other. As logical principles being and nothing are conceptions of consciousness. They are actions from the perspective of consciousness as it grasps reason. Motion is the mediation of consciousness as it transitions between indivisible logical relations. This involves what Pierce frames as the complex relation between mind and matter outlined by the law of mind. When the mind proposes a form that becomes
The falling in and out of consciousness concerning some object is its motion. This is why every thing has a beginning and end. At the beginning mind proposes the form of the object, which it looses attention of due to the compulsion of a logically inverse proposition which takes the attention of the mind. The previous form proposed and forgotten takes on the duration of not being paid direct attention to but working behind the attention of its inverse principle which took the focus. This occurs simultaneously to the inverse principle and there we have the loss of attention of both and focus on third form which necessitates the continuously working behind the newly found focus. When a principle is not directly focused on, it is what we say in its material condition which occurring instantly with its abstract conception, is still always proceeded by the abstract conception because the latter is the minds nature of elusiveness, the focus being taken away onto inverse principle.
It is constant process of moving on to the inverse creates the need to move to the inverse of that. This means that the mind sets a form in time which acts as the future aim for the already working activity towards that aim, during the activity it forgets it with its attention being focused on inverse other principles which the focus of which also diverges away into infinitum, but the mind ultimately comes to rediscover the form it set into motion when the time for that reconnection is ripe and it is enivdable as the lost form now becomes the inverse of the one recognized. The mind returns to the idea as an experience.
#63- (June.18.2015) Explain the one and the many in Ancient Greek. The very basis to quantum and atomism. Aristotle’s critique.
Aristotle proposed the law of non contradiction and the law of the “excluded middle” to elaborate their inverse notion, that is the principle of moderation. This form of logic serves as the basis to quantum.
——-
#18- The notion of motion
For Hegel the term notion means the idea in motion. The generation of the idea. The notion is the driving principle for Reason to actualize itself as self-identical and that identity being contained in an externality that is by containing is equally contained by the identity. How the externality is contained is explained by how the identity presupposes its externality in such a way where the identity makes is the form that is perceived as the external layer of the object.
Three laws of motion- external and internal
To understand the true notion of how external relations are the sublation of internal relations, such ontologies underpinning what is identified as science require clarification. The Newtonian three laws of motion are the scientific ascertainment of external relations: explain Newton three laws of motion:
Mass is the velocity of motion (how strong is motion is how much mass)
These laws of motion are the objective form external relation takes on. For example, third law, with every action their is reaction. ( f = -f )
This involves every particular instance of motion in the process of external relations. What this does not involve is how the laws of motion operate in its most general form. Einstein developed this notion to involve the external relations between the inorganic macroscopic scales of the universe. Light and gravity characterize the inorganic states of being as externally related with each other as actually internally related.
What Einstein implicitly uncovers about the nature of external relations is that it is always invariably internal relations. This is the very basic notion of quantum mechanics, where the laws of motion not only involve every reaction for every action but that every action is itself the reaction. In the quantum state, the process of External relation is internal relations. Newton and Einstein’s investigation into motion is analytical; it conceives the process of motion by way of sense perception and outlines the process as it is perceived in the way that it is and in no other way.
Ontology must take it’s hypothesis literally
This is where ontology differs from empirical science because ontology must take every hypothesis it makes as literal as possible, in other words, it operates on the assumption that every abstract notion it makes has as if a real existence as physical objects do and feel to the senses, every object notion is real to the mind as every object is real to the senses. While empirical science must take literal only what is observed and felt and not what is thought of, in some cases the hypothesis does not conform with the experiment. Its conclusion conceives motion as mechanical and determined as such. It does not leave room for motion as free determination. Define “free determination”; whitehead. Kant provides a similar analysis to motion in matter through the laws of repulsion and attraction (hegel logic). Quantum, unlike general relativity, characterizes motion as free determination.