Section 59 (last updated 03.26.2021)
Noah earth is spaceship in void
Right conduct bring out the best in the worst and wrong conduct brings out the worst in the best.
The story of Noah does not only denotes warning against sin, which happens when people stray away from what is good for them, “missing the mark”. The flood and the ark encompass the primary meaning related to genesis, particularly the creation of planet earth. The flood according to the older Sumerian creation myth is a process of “filtering” life which is the crude image of the evolutionary idea of natural selection in the formation of organisms.
The Hebrew word for the ark is “teva” which is translated as nature. In genesis, The construction of the ark as given by God to Noah is on some accounts a description of the formation of the earth. The ark is constructed and the animals ride it until they come to rest on the mountains of Ararat, which is an example of an area where a formation of kingdom can be positioned over all the natural world serving as salvation from waters. Evolution out of the waters.
The animals riding the ark is analogous to the place of organisms on the planet while in celestial motion. In ancient Hebrew the universe is conceived as a flat disk-shaped habitable spaceship with heavens above and the waters beneath. This can naively be interpreted as an account that the earth is flat, it is naive not because of whether the truth is sphere or flat, that’s not the point, the point is the meaning behind what the earth is. But this seems to be a shallow interpretation like the narrow interpretation which mistakenly takes the cosmological principle as stating that the earth is the positional centre of the universe.
In the Ancient Greek times up until medieval cosmology, they saw that the sun revolves around the earth. In modern times we frown upon the so called “geocentric model of the universe”. However the modern perspective which sees the earth as revolving around the sun has the same equal viability as the ancient inverse perspective. Both are partial perspectives of the same motion, i.e., what is the actual order of the cosmos? We however claim that the modern conception is more objective because the earth is conceived from the outside-in point of view and this seems to be not as subjective as the opposite view, which looks out from within the earth. However there are reason to suggest that the modern notion is even less objective than the alternative because it reduces the earth to an object in motion like a meteorite but ignore the vast qualities that is perhaps internally related to the quality of motion as generative force in the universe.
If we see the earth as just another dead object floating about in space like all other objects in space, then it is true that the earth having a much smaller size, is revolving around a greater mass object like a star, and due to their distance they are locked in a gravitational pull of attraction where the smaller is going around the bigger. But we only assume this because we assume that the bigger object is more stationary than the smaller. However the sun is also in motion around another star, and that star around a galaxy, and that galaxy around a black hole, etc., Aristotle had the same problem confronting the Pythagoreans:
“Although most say that the earth is situated at the center <of the universe> . . . those in Italy called Pythagoreans assert the contrary opin- ion. For they declare that fire is at the center and the earth is one of the stars and by being carried in a circle around the center it causes night and day. Further, opposite to this one they construct another earth, which they name “counter-earth.” In this they are not inquiring for theories and causes with a view to the phenomena but are forcing the phenomena to fit certain theories and opinions of their own and trying to bring them into line. Many others agree that the earth should not be put at the center, finding reliability on the basis not of the phenomena but rather of their theories. For they believe that the most honorable thing deserves to have the most honorable region and that fire is more honorable than earth and that the limit is more honorable than what is intermediate and that the extremity and the center are limits. So, reasoning from these premises they think that not it but fire is situated at the center of the sphere. Moreover, the Pythagoreans call the fire occupying this region Zeus’s guardhouse because the most important part of the universe should be the best guarded, and the center is most important, as if “center” had a single meaning and the center of the spatial extension and of the thing itself were also the natural center. But just as in animals the center of the animal is not the same as the center of its body, we must suppose the same to hold concerning the whole heaven. “
(Aristotle, On the Heavens 2.13 293a18–b8 = DK 58B36)
The genius in Aristotle’s above critiqued of the Pythagoreans is found in the last sentence, the centre does not necessarily mean the “middle” of something, which in geometry is equidistant from every point on the circumference or surface. The centre by this definition is the point furthest away from every point that is more closer to every other point, in a circle for example the circumference is made up of many points as closest to each other as possible, and the centre is the only point that is equally further away from all those points closest to each other forming the line of the circumference. This is a purely quantative definition of the “centre”, a more qualitative definition defines the centre as the place where things originate from, as we say the central nevrious system, or the brain for the animal is the centre in terms of its power to be
The earth in this sense is central in being the place where life begins and originates.
• 9.33 Philolaus says that there is fire in the middle around the center, which he calls the heart of the universe and the house of Zeus and the mother of the gods and altar, bond, and measure of nature. Moreover, he says that what surrounds the universe at the furthest extreme is another fire. The center is by nature first. Around it ten divine bodies dance—the heaven, the five planets; after them the sun; beneath it the moon; beneath it the earth; beneath it the counter-earth; after them all the fire of the hearth, which maintains its position around the center. He calls the highest part of the surrounding <region> Olympus, in which <he says> is <located> the pure form of the elements. The <region> below the motion of Olympus, in which the five planets are positioned together with the sun and moon <he calls> kosmos. The sublunary and earthly <region> below these <he calls> Heaven, in which <are located> the entities involved in change-loving generation. He <declares that> wisdom is concerned with the order found in the things above, while aretē is concerned with the disorderly behavior of things that come to be, and that of these the former [wisdom] is complete and the latter [aretē] is incomplete. (Aëtius 2.7.7 = DK 44A16
Figure of the heavenly bodies — An illustration of the Ptolemaic geocentric system by Portuguese cosmographer and cartographer Bartolomeu Velho, 1568
In the figure above, the earth is depicted in two places. This is meant to capture the range of motion that the centre discloses. From the view on Earth, the Sun appears to revolve around Earth once per day. While the Moon and the planets have their own motions, they also appear to revolve around Earth about once per day. But this is not exactly what this means. In purely quantitive manners, the habits of orbital motion alone does not derive a proper understanding of what it means for a body to constitute the centre because whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun around the earth means that there is mutual motion the perspective of which is relative depending on which side of the relation one stands – from inside the earth the sun orbits the earth but from the outside the earth orbits the sun, in either case there is a simultaneous movement by both bodies relative to one another.
The mere positioning of bodies in motion does not tell us in what sense can any one of them constitute the centre for all other motion of bodies. For example, the sun is the centre because all smaller objects revolve around it, but the bodies revolve around it not because of its positioning being at the centre. How we come to understand cosmological centre is informed not by the position or location of the bodies movement, but instead relates to the body itself as a duration of relations. What asethical result does the body maintain while motion? (Add Feynman symmetry) The centre is derivative from the productive value of the motion. The centre of a sphere as according to our understanding is not any particular point on the surface of the sphere but rather the potential relations that constitute the totality of the circumference of the sphere itself.
What we are looking for when ascertaining the centre of spherical motion is the kind of relation where inverse parts are sustainable as forming the spectrum of the circumference from which the centre can lie as potential point on any part of the surface. In the above figure, the earth in two places demonstrates motion as relation, intact which acts as the potential, when one side of the relation is not the other, the other side is what the other is not.
The gap between the two earths is their relation where each side of the sphere is potentially the turning of the other because they share the same potential that is not any of them both but their relation that is non of them and both of them. This gap is the centre which is potentially any side by being the relation of all sides. This duration of earth is a physical description of the planet as an object of time and not just space, it is an outline of the events that go into forming its revolving motion.
(See symbol of chaos)
Center of mass is at the relation of equal objects. Reason why we have midpoint because it is “either or”, the law of non-contradiction.
For two objects of equal mass, the CM is the point midway between the line joining their centers.
The center of a planet is not found somewhere on the surface of the planet but is a point beyond its surface on the circumference of its spherical relation. The orbital motion of the planet is in some sense its center because it encompasses all the relations within it.
The center of two equal spheres is their relation, which is the motion that discloses them as two abstractions of the same sphere. The above figure is an abstraction of the relation that dissects an internal process as an external relation, which is really how objects for sensation exhibit themselves anyways. In actuality however it is impossible for there to be two external spheres outside from each other without somehow being enclosed by a unifying sphere.
The relation between two spheres is their spherical motion. This motion is logical because for one determination to go one way and another the opposite way means that there is nothing outside of their opposing determinations, there is nothing outside of their inverse determinations relative to each other, but so far as they have to be relative to each other to remain each particular, they remain in contact as going in different ways, where do they go away from each other while needing to remain in relation? they follow and chase where the other is not heading, as it is unoccupied by the other and therefore a differentiation can happen.
When we say that the center of the sphere is any potential point on the surface, this refers to the quality of the sphere to be divided into abstractions that are then multiplied within the perimeters of the capacity that makes these determinations.
(The mass of the object being outside of it, for example when you fall, your centre of mass falls too much in one direction causing an imbalance. Saying that the centre mass of the earth is the sun is an incomplete observation because the center concerns not one object of the relation relative to the other but the pure relation itself that grants objects the capacity to be abstracted as components affecting each other.
The center of mass is the individuality not merely an individuality that acts as the middle point between presupposed individual bodies. The orbital motion of the sun in simultaneous relativity to the motion of the earth constitutes the center of mass because in this movements there are relations arising beyond the mere cycle. In that motion there are subatomic activities that conserve the mass visible to us as the structures of the planets. But invisible to us they form the specific details pertaining to each planet, life on earth, solar energy on the sun etc.
The earth being the centre of the universe because it occupies a centre of a conception.
Ether is the force of the conception
possibilities of why ether is undetected by scientists
“The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether. Then we on earth would not experience an ether wing, this making the detection of the ether impossible. Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage by moving around it. The fact that the earth was only one of several planets revolving around the sun was enough to dispel any notion that, as a planet, it occupied any kind of godly post.” (James a Coleman relativity for the layman the great dilemma 43)
“The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand; they could scarp the ether theory which has explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or, if they insisted on retaining the ether, they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves — light waves, electromagnetism waves — could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypothesis were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tired again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.”
The existence of aether is a fundamental presupposition for general and special relativity. An aether is a medium that fills space necessary for the transmission of electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Aether is the internal form of space which space is a self-externality.
Scientists today dismiss the existence of aether because there is no direct evidence for its physical properties only that physical properties of proven phenomenons act directly against an implicit force.
Einstein for example argues that wavelengths like light would not be able to propagate alone in space without an aether which does not exhibit any motion of its own only that it facilitates motion of other forces (Einstein ether and the theory of relativity) For example, Einstein writes
“the velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces” (Einstein’s first paper)
Flat earth phenomenon
The flat earth model is an archaic conception that is remerging in modern times in a very simpleminded manner. The idea that the earth is a flat disk is a naive and shallow understanding of the geometric dynamics that encompass a body like the earth. To say that the earth is flat or spherical are abstractions of a dynamical geometric process because the earth is both of these and any one of them from a particular point of conception.
To claim the earth is spherical is a proposition about its fundamental form, but to have a foundational form is to presuppose many other forms and it cannot be said that the “here and now” is merely spherical it is only fundamentally so. Inversely just because the earth a relation of many forms it does not mean it is not fundamentally spherical. The earth is a potential of many different relations superimposed onto each other and the complexity of this is spherical. The bare relation disclosing a set of infinite relation is always spherical because that is the logic that the infinite is itself still a finite conception, or in other words it bears a self relation that is definite.
earth is a composition of different grades of material and each composition of the materials forming the planet is a result of its relations. On the one hand from a first person point of view the earth appears as a flat plain disclosed by a curved sky. The sky during the day is blue due to sunlights reflection onto the ocean. The sky is not physical in the same way as the ground nor is the ocean the same physicality as the light. These are all physical elements but they are not physically the same. On some level the sense precepts determines the physicality of an element. The question of whether the earth is spherical or flat is a question concerning the nature of its composition.
Those who impose that the earth is flat assume two things about the nature of it’s physicality; first, that the defining physical composition of the earth is land because it is the highest point of density characterizing the earth while all other elements like air, the atmosphere, even liquids are precursors and therefore secondary physical properties. Second the plain extends as a line and not a circle from the view point of a particular position on a plain. The flat earthers take their particular position on a plain and their sensation of that plain as the governing factors for determining an objective picture of the earth.
But what they provide is no more objective than taking a picture from space of earth and claim that as the true form of the earth because in the latter case what is being conceived is the bare relation, which is spherical, that discloses an infinite set of relations. And we can say that the earth is therefore spherical because a circle is its most fundamental shape, but that would make the earth as a circle into a single object, which in the same way that a circle is not a single object since it is a relation of the point to a line to a curve, the earth is not a single object because it is a field of relations between many different levels of physical elements. Those who claim that the earth is flat forget that a linear plain is simply the relation of a point to itself, a point being simply the conception disclosing of a plain, when you zoom into a point it becomes a plain.
from a point of view on land, the sky and space appear more abstract as they are not tangible as the ground is, but from the point of view from space the earth is seen as spherical, and the land which is one point among many on it appears more abstract in the same way as the sky did from view of the land below because it is intangible by touch for example like the land is, but from space, the same land which appears so concrete while on it, appears as abstract as the ocean and any other element in its relation.
The earth is composed out of a core, mantle and crust and we associate with these layers a round shape giving the planet a spherical form. The reality is that these materials are animate and not static in the case of tectonic or volcanic activity and their motion is a self connected and related movement. When something revolve around itself, it is in one position and moving in circles, and so it appears to be a sphere. Above the crust is also ocean encompassing 360 degree around the earth. The ocean is also in a self relation and in relation to the more interior layers and like them the ocean is always in flux. This means that the spherical form is the stability of flux in the sense that it discloses and therefore emphasizes the event.
The interaction of an infinite set of relations do not occur scattered, but even their disembodiment from each other bears the same relation when conceived as disembodied from each other, their unity is their cluster of chaos. The function of a sphere is the same as that of a conception which is inescapable as soon as anything comes into being. The conception is the unavoidable or necessary value in anything coming into being because it is the validity of the witness of it existing for itself, for something else, and for anything at all. A sphere is the geometric value of the conception and is the possibility of having all different kinds of geometric forms. A sphere however is implicit in a thing having many different geometric values, just like an artist begins his sketch by drawing circles and traces the other figures around that,
Radius
A radius is a point from which another point is distinguished and then this relation is denoted, which is what the encompassing of a line by a circle is. What we use to associate the earth as flat is the land we stand on, is a radius because it constitutes a relation between the observer and any point spatially away from the observer. In this sense the plain of the earth because it functions as a radius is confused as excluding the earth as ever being a sphere in the first place.
But the reason why a circle always involves a radius is because a line in the first place always involves a circle. Since a line is composed out of a point, and the point is a circle because it is the conception of a plain. This means that the spherical nature of the earth is the conception disclosing a set of infinite possible finite linear forms. A sphere is never an object in the sense that a line is (Add here how Aristotle explains circle to be impossible because it is only an abstraction. In nature a circle can never be fully completely because the point connecting back to itself lapses into a line. A circle is there the conception of a radius)
Why is there no electric field inside a charged sphere? …
On a solid sphere the charge could only be on surface. The earth consists of layers of spheres inside each other. A sphere is never really solid because its centre is an indefinite point, any point on the surface of a sphere is its centre, a sphere is therefore a potential and is never a particular quantity like a solid, or density or a size etc. because the moment the relation between the observer and the circle conceiving a set of relation large for the observer changes, the sphere itself changes. For example, changing the distance between an observer and a planet, changes the spherical nature of that planet for the observer, the earth at a distance form the moon appears as a sphere, but go further away to the distance of Jupiter and the earth appears as a flickering point. The surface of a sphere is the form of what it means to be a centre point. The element of chaos is not related to the conservation of structures but capacity for structures to undergo change without compromising their composition.
The only resource energy needs is itself, it does not need any external source. Energy is the principle of internal relations.
We cannot say that the inner layer is the centre of the outer because any point that is the centre of the outer sphere parallels the centre of the inner. That is to say, the outer sphere insofar as having a point on its circumference, would be the same centre point on the circumference of the inner spheres. Each cannot be the centre of the other but that both share the centre. Centre of a sphere is the point of reference.
Gauss’s flux theorem The surface under consideration may be a closed one enclosing a volume such as a spherical surface.
The total of the electric flux out of a closed surface is equal to the charge enclosed divided by the permittivity: The ability to store energy.
Permittivity is the permanent feature of the surface. The charged sphere theorem (gausses flux theorem) informs the interesting direction of cosmological motion to form an idea of universal structure. An enclosed surface not only encloses the inside but also the outside. In terms of electrical charge attracts from any direction.
that any series of flux which is the change of composition based on form, is still stored in this capacity. There is therefore nothing external from the idea of permittivity but the distribution of changing energy states is internally divided. This is why we have the total duration of the universe as an infinitesimal magnitude. This is why the composition of objects exhibit layers and layers of composition internally within each other.
(Connect below with magnetic field)
us in Fig. 2-6 the electric flux that emanates from surface (1) is equal to +q and that from surface (2) is equal to -q. The flux that emanates from surface (3) is zero because that surface does not enclose any charge. The flux that emanates from surface (4) is likewise zero because that surface encloses equal but opposite charges, the net charge being zero.
Consider a source producing the electric field E is a point charge +q situated at a point O inside a volume enclosed by an arbitrary closed surface S. let us consider a small area element dS around a point P on the surface where the electric field produced by the charge +q is E. if E is along OP and area vector dS is along the outward drawn normal to the area element dS.
The way God instructs Noah to build the ark parallels this description of the universe. The ark consists of three internal divisions, “decks”. The story of the flood developed across all different cultures maintain the analogy that the planet earth is analogous to an ark. What is special about the intuition that the planet is a terrestrial organic ship on a cosmic voyage, concerns the notion that creation is not mere cycle. The earth insofar as it is in motion undergoes creation, un-creation, and re-creation. Conforming to our metaphysical principles of being, nothing, becoming, the motion of the planet is however not cyclical. The ancient Hebrews do not specify the destination of the planets motion.
Although in Christianity and Islam the destination is the kingdom of man. We are left with the broader insinuation that the destination of the planet is not any particular place but the very relations that concur within it. This intuition goes all the way back to ancient Babylon.
The Babylon tower is depiction of the universal order. Ptolemaic- Medieval conception of a hierarchical structure of the universe
The seasons are the earths endurance of the change caused by its motion. The orbit around the sun does not merely present a cycle but disclosed in this cycle are processes of new lifeforms. Whether you do anything, things are nevertheless being done, motion predicates individual doing, the orbit of the earth is such example. Your life is still at the basis in motion by virtue of the motion of the earth, the latter being objective to the former. Just like daily life of cities for example exhibit a habit yet within that production arises.
Analogy is an imprecise method of knowledge, but nevertheless a corollary for truth. Mythology is not merely fictitious because what is usually taken as realistic is naively judged by sensation (Descartes bending of the stick in water). In fact sensation provides knowledge by way of analogue, which is the natural predisposition of analogy. Sensation creates a correspondence between differing forms into the same familiar schema. Analogue relates to the use of “signals represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position”. In this way, there is a comparable element like a compound with a molecular structure closely similar to that of another. The structure being the analogue of the molecules. Sensation singles the comparable element among things.
However, If we adopt as the standard of reality what is judged as “apparent” by the sensation, then we will only get a single concept not knowledge of what the concept actually is. For example just because I give you direction to come location, that alone does not tell you the kind of location you are heading to, even though the directions are part of the location. The logical function of Analogy is the corollary, which points to something not exactly explained by the concept of locus. The imagination is precisely to point to some locus, without exactly explaining what that is, which is an insufficient explanation, is not explanatorily insufficient. This is where the nature of a philosophical sciences is universally applicable in attempting to offer the clearest explanation of ambiguities.
Aristotle universe
More than anything modern materialism makes a laughing stock out of Aristotle’s cosmological principle on the straw-man assumption that it takes the earth as the center of the universe. The center in this way is misunderstood as the midpoint position which is a purely quantitative assessment of what constitutes center. However, the cosmological principle describes the center as the aim for the motion of the universe which in turn governs the structure. The cosmological principle first and foremost takes the center as the quality of motion prior to the quantity of some position.
The cosmological principles is qualitative because it states that the existence of the universe needs an explanation, as it could not have come from nothing. Or in more Hegelian terms, that nothing itself is a quality that requires explanation.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec05.html
The cosmological principles portrays the structure that the direction of the universe is heading in an inward direction in the singularity, which being on earth, in the mind of man. The human reason is the present state of universal evolution. The singularity having no specific direction and operating under quantum mechanics, is an infinitesimal continuity, in the neurological activity of the human mind is the dimension of the universe heading into the future. It is the spacetime continuum of the construction of reality.
Concerning the question of multiple universes.
Its is important to deal with the difficult consideration that there exists the possibilities of many alternative, or parallel universes. (Explain idea of parallel universe) given the quantum nature of the singularity that it can be at two different places at the same time, moreover or at the same time be multiple places, the form f the plasma globe, the Big Bang can in theory be only one spark among many.
Whereas it is difficult to deny this possibilities, it is important not to merely assumes that this is the case but must actually show what kind of relation between simultaneoutity of instantaneousness does the form of the exhibits, for it is not obvious that the latter is true because the former is primarily true. It could be the case that the simultaneous complexity of the mind develops rather than mere appear all at once especially given the our premise that mind engages in what whitehead calls the adventure of ideas, and in what sense are two or an infinite number of adventures not connected by the same encompassing adventure.
(Add the size of atom is big)
The differences in the atoms in one sense exhibits the developmental stage minds form. The hydrogen in one sense may perhaps a very primal form of mind.
The proton can be the external dense mass that is the seed involving implicitly the entire potentiality of the happenings in the universe, and the electron is the real jolt or electrical force of the expansion of the Big Bang setting the process into actuality. The neutron is the…
Alan watts (more or less 12:49:00)
One of the Buddha doctrine is to not take scripture seriously because they say that the conceptualization of anything is an attempt to grasp on to immanent change. They say that not only is there nothing to grasp on to, they even believe that the you that grasps on to thing is itself as changing as what it aims to grasp. Any explanation of if God is always imprecise. Monotheistic religions on some level also forbid the attempt to paint an image of God, even though theistic individuals still conceptualize God in their mind, or that they have ideas about god. The logic behind these inclinations is that it is impossible to specify everything, or that God cannot be specified. On the same token, Buddhism essential doctrine to alleviate “duka” or suffering concerns the fact of not holding on to anything personal depends on the capacity to produce the state of consciousness that objectively conceives the world.
This is the state of complete awareness which is not necessarily awareness of completeness but involves assigning a factor of consciousness to any particular sequence of the activity, whether it be physical action of moving my hand and I am aware of it or having some specific idea and being aware of having that specific idea. To assume that this state of consciousness conceives anything specifically, why should it be assumed that what this state of consciousness produces for the awareness of the conception not be as specified as the conception itself?
meditation is after all done to achieve this as kind of clarity of the world so that one is not governed by passions or instincts that result in a state of ignorance which is really the source of suffering since when ignorant you might be doing things from a source of latching on to them rather than for the pursuit of their merit. For example having sex because of being lonely or bored is a form of ignorant dependance, while in comparison having sex to celebrate love for each other is not done from a place of ignorance.
Whereas it is true that it is impossible to specify everything, for we say that everything is encompassed in the universal and it is impossible to describe universality in a particular manner because the universal is the act that goes beyond its description, that when you explain something the thought that follows after the explanation becomes the universality of it and this goes on infinitely. But the description derived from a place of universality still conceives itself particularly while not being comprised by that particular description because it is this capacity that gives the meaning of universality.
The universal is not a thing like the particular because it is what encompasses the particular as thing. Universality exists in the particular world it has designed using the very defining capacity of not being particular. The capacity of the universal is the very function of specifying itself particularly and encompass that particularity such that it is not redundant to it. In order for anything to be particular requires that it not be repeated in the same specific manner. We run into a difficulty in this level of analysis because an empirical observation of the world portrays that things of the same kind are repeated as multiplicity.
Unless we talk about the nature of some atom we say for instance hydrogen atom is so and so. But when we use the atom in description of other things, we always say the plural, hydrogen atom(s) are among so and so. Why are there many of the same? The answer is related to the scientific principle of species. Whenever any form is talked about scientifically, we speak of things as species. Species of hydrogen atoms, species of plants, species of planets etc.
Planets are species of some definite idea connected by the laws of reason logic. If you want to know what an idea looks like, look at a planet.
The idea qualitatively spirals into the centre. The planets orbital system is a thought spiralling into an idea. Each planet orbits around the sun for energy source. But this energy is not equally consumed by the planets.
Universe ethics
Whenever we ask what is first the egg or the chicken, we say that they are equally necessary but not necessarily equal. That without an egg there is no chicken, but the egg is only so as to make more chickens. In the metaphysics there is the task of placing things according to fundamental order. But this does not mean to place things chronologically. When we say in metaphysics that something comes “first”, there is a very specific meaning by this, mainly, in what sense does a fundamental principal exists in all levels of analysis?
When something is first, there is the mathematical undertone that in what sense is a thing first part of all things secondary? How is 1 included in 2,3,4 etc. (Add to Aristotle) the egg is involved in all levels of reproduction of the chicken, but the chicken is involved in all levels of propagating itself by the method of laying eggs. It is the description of how something is “first” that informs an understanding of fundamentals rather than using first as axiom of cataloging things as chronologically coming after some predicate.
The idea of “predicate” is not indented for so called objects that some object is the cause behind all following motion. Like for example the first mover is not the first domino piece that causes the chain reaction. The idea of predicate concerns the kind d activity which is the kind of thought, the way the reason of something is so as to make it some definite object. A predicate is the kind of thought which necessitates some definite object. Chronologically we say the earth is 3rd from the sun. But an understanding of its qualitative place requires the ontological application of subjecting it as playing what fundamental role? He planet used the suns energy for life. And why is life higher in quality because life is delegation of energy towards self-consciousness, more freedom of energy. Freedom is achieved by delegation, to delegate requires removing something from its particular place for the notion that there is some prioritization of this move. Prioritizing tasks. When you delegate you prioritize.
This provides an overview that the rational way of nature is equivalently ethical. The philosophical notion of the “ought” synthesizes the rational and ethical into the same conduct. What rationally should be done is ethical because rational action sets an aim for its course of action, and this aim insofar as describes its function equally declares the function. This sets the ethical threshold whereby some particular nature ought to actualize its aim because such an aim is self forwarded, even though initially there requires the realization of this self initiation. For example, a bird ought to fly because that nature is what is realized by the organism categorized as “bird”. The bird does not fly because the organism has wings because beds having wings does not explain for what purpose other than begging the question, to fly, which we need to explain before we can answer why birds have wings; nor does a bird develop wings due to the phenomenon of flight, even though this latter point is closer to the mark, it almost assumes that the development of wings comes after the realization of flight. Instead this distinction is not a real one because whether the bird having wings and flying or flying and therefore having wings, only demonstrate that the activity and the body are the exact same occurrence.
That an ugly person is not so because he acts or he acts and he is therefore ugly but he is ugly because he is that act. What you are and why you are point to the exact same initiation. Everyone is precisely the way they are exactly because that is what that thing is. There is no difference between the exhibiting of some nature and the nature you exhibit. There are however minuteness in this exact relation, that a bad person does something good and a good person’s bad is different on the grounds of the intention and that intention across all possible scenarios.
Feeling as the mechanical way reason interacts
Hegel points out that the great old division between reason and sensation is a theoretical distinction. For Hegel reason is more fundamental in that it belongs to inorganic nature; yet sensation insofar as it is a natural property of knowledge is a component of reason, limited yet rational in its discourse. Peirce goes further and argues that “feeling” which is the basis of sensation, is actually the pragmatic aspect of reason, it is how reason interacts in the world. (Law of mind protoplasm)
there is the indication here that feeling is present as fundamentally as reason itself as the necessary substance in the world. That so long as there is reason in the world there is feeling. However whether feeling extends beyond the developed stage of sentient beings or not is a further question. The universe as a self-exciting circuit must in some sense relay on the fact that feeling is prevalent part of reason as an acting substance. That the production of some natural object in the world must stimulate some kind of response of the whole of the universe (whitehead part and whole extension).
Connect the idea of virus with the protoplasm, of the ethical laws for every action there is inverse reaction because there is the underlining protoplasm (peirce) of life. This protoplasm is on some level the complexity of the bacterial and viral aggregate (whitehead the 7 aggregates of micro macroscopic)
(Add to environment is conception of organism)
The following question rises from the proposition that the environment is part of the organism and not the vice versa. How do we account for the fact that organisms are differentiated into individual members of the species? Our empirical observations portrays the environment as consisting of disembodied members of the same species. However there is no scientific conceptualization of organism as something individual without species. For example, there is no speaking of monkey without mention of the species of the monkey, chimp, gorilla etc.
Distinct organisms in the environment are only individual so far as they express possible logical relations that constitute the idea of the species as conception of reason. The environment is not the conception of the individual as member of the species. Instead the species is the idea in the individual conceiving the environment as the possible logical relations of its actualization. In other words, the individual perceives in his environment all other individuals comprising the species engaging in the relations of his own thinking. His environment so far as different from the individuals in it directs the course of his individual towards a purpose outside himself, and outside himself he is physically bounded by the affect of the environment on his psyche so far as it directs its course of actions. For example, that I walk face first into a wall only hurts so far as this physical compulsion evades my motion towards another direction.
Individual members do not possess a conception of the environment as unrelated from the function of the species.
The economy of quality
The quality of economics is likewise the same as the nature of quality. Quality concerns the nature of relations and activity. The activities governing the mechanics of economy concerns the relation of the living organism and its appropriation of the resources its environment. The environment is for the organism a resources depends on the way the organism relates with the environment. Human economy is a high ordered form of life economy generally. The fundamental principle of economy generally is that the non-material values govern the material production. (Keynes) this argument is akin to what some might argue as the principle of communism.
This however is much more fundamental principle because it concerns the affect of mental capabilities on producing its environment. How the environment is a conception of the organisms idea is preceding understood by the productivity and creativity of of the rational faculty. But there is I believe an important distinction between the concept of communism and its actually occurrence in history. Many may not grant the former because of the latter due to pragmatic reasons, that they fear society goes into chaos. This view assumes that certain kinds of human governance has perhaps more control than it does in shaping the destiny of the world.
Supply equals demand
Like ants, derive as a whole and distribute as part. You gain more money because of the extra step, relation of taking the part from the whole is added than to the prior form, each part belongs to the same whole.
Producers take raw materials and make that into artificial commodity with use values, like factories.
Cryptocurrency will attribute to any non material activity a quantitive measure. This will make explicit which individual is good at their activity. The evolution of the economy concerns creating a scheme of production where the best at their job stay whereas the worst die out. The best doctors, layers , thinkers, cooks will stay whereas the worst will not be included in the system.
The universally developed individual Marx takes from world historical individual. What would it be like if we had a whole society of people like world historical individuals? The problem with marxs idea is that it assumes the same individual will have the capacity to do multiple actives simultaneously. The truth is that prior to the idea of universal individuals, the multiple activities will be done correctly and to their maximum potential by different individuals.