Section 74 (last updated 5.1.2021)
part 1 (audible)
The idea that History is determined
What it means for history to be determined is a very challenging notion in philosophy.
The law of mind applicable to the idea that History is determined in the abstract, every possible event and relation is rationally considered and conceived. Mind is the ideality of matter. The construction of matter is based on the conception of mind. But this construction is a proof of the abstract hypothesis. When matter is being constructed that is an abstract notion being proved. In the abstract state of mind, its place according to jung is the unconsciousness; every time period is conceivable, the instinct to prove a certain frame of time is the body’s manifestation in that time as particular being. That is “the gleam in your fathers eye”, which is you trying to manifest itself. What we think of as the function of activity is to go through the activity to produce some kind of result (add here growth end in itself activity vs instrumental) but the partaking of the activity is to maintain an objective proof of the abstract conception. If history is determined, “why go through it? Why the process”, relates to the fact that going through something maintains its truth. The proof of this is that growth is a physical process of complicating itself precisely demonstrates the nature of the physical construction is proof of the abstract.
(Add to timeline of historical thinkers and their time periods)
The historical development of knowledge is not linear because history is not merely the discovery of new knowledge built on the continuity of previous thinking, because we have to ask discovery of what? Things not previously known? But then does that make discovery subjective process since the object of discovery is already knowable to some other observer or is knowable to itself as existing? Discovery is subjective in the sense that it is the subject which knows the object but is fundamentally objective is an object of knowledge. To dis-cover, which is “uncover”, means to make something objective, knowable to more than one, known to many. more fundamentally the development of knowledge can be characterized as the attempt of trying different methods of tackling the same essential problem. It is only because of the having the same essential basis that we can say new things are discovered as building on that.
Each historical period is the attempt at figuring out the absolute truth, and in each period, truth of the absolute is acquired, but only inconclusively, and more primitively than the next because the historical process is not to keep uncovering more and more facts, but this “more of knowledge” is the discovery of complexity of the very thinking process itself doing the discovery, it is self discovering itself. Ultimately there is nothing to discover but the most complex way of thinking which belongs potentially to thought and is realized. This aim constitutes what at the end of history is the most complex mind necessary for a beginning. A beginning which makes a process start as primitively, and ending up into itself as advanced having made a process begin, primitively.
Being is not fact among facts but the only fact of being is that “it makes itself into its own presupposition.” As presupposition to itself, its conceptions are objectively real for it. the idea of a “ centre” means, in its own conception, its consciousness takes on the smallest point on the whole, the centre is the smallest point, but this minuteness is an inwardness of the whole taking on a form around the essential determination coming from no place that interacts with each part.
History
History presents for us not a mere evolutionary process of creation but this becoming is now fundamentally a recollection of knowledge in the form of conception going through an experience. The idea of evolution as process of creation, and history as the discovery of truth, are not inconsistent with the world as a recollection of experiences. The dialectic states that the beginning and the end are the same point, such that the advance between them is an extension of the same principle, but the advance, or rather the transition between the end and the beginning, so far constitutes mediation of one to the other, is a distinction not of the beginning as one point separate from the end as another point, like in a movie, the beginning is at the start and the end is at the final where some other movie plays or something else happens. The beginning and the end are made the same by the advance connecting them as the same duration, but their advance however is the point distinct from them as being the distinction of both points being at the end extreme of a timeline. The advance is the the same relation where both points can be extreme aspects of the same thing.
The end of evolution and its initial beginning are simultaneous which is a concept contrary to our ordinary understanding of process which sees the end as a result following after the beginning. The beginning must happen before the end does, that is the assumption. This supposes that the result is not found in the beginning of the process because there is something new which comes into being out at the end which was not there at the present. For example, the notion that the developmental process of nature finds its result in the development of mind, a consciously self acting organism in environment, finds difficultly in modern Darwinian evolutionary theories, because “mind” is viewed as a recently adaptive result in the environment and the speculation that mind is present in the beginning of history finds no place in this empirical assumption, since it is assumed that mind comes after a series of preliminary developments of which the mind is a result, and not a determination. mind of-course in evolution must be viewed as a factor of determination because we see in all life forms their mind is the power for their behaviour.
The hypothesis of Darwinian evolution investigates the development of life as a linear process in time, that mind is a result of a series of preliminary causes and effects, that without first happening, the mind could not have happened. It does not assume that mind must have been a first principle of which all the causes that explain it must have been determinations from it in the first place. In all observational methods, whether it be empirical observation, or simply ordinary forms of experience, the conception made by mind to derive knowledge of its object must come first or at least simultaneously with that object. It cannot be that the object is first before the knowledge of it, as that itself becomes an assumption of mind itself. However this kind of fact can not be carried out to its extreme in an overall explanation of nature’s development.
The development of the natural world is taken on its own as a process independent from mind. At the ultimate level, we cannot assume that there is a conception present all along the development of the universe, that somehow the universe is always conception-less, no witness or observer. that throughout the development of everything there must have been no conception to witness all that because our conception at this moment is not present during that past, therefore no conception was present, nature was an unconscious series of occurrences that happened on its own for no one, until now, finally, there is someone to witness it; what a coincidence, that it is only now that nature is conceivable that we are conceiving nature, nature has someone to conceive it. These assumptions on the distinction between mind and nature are basic biases the method of observation carries out throughout its effort to remain unbiased. it is ironic that observation must take its own ability to be in direct observation with the object, to be proof of that object existing, yet on the same note, it assumes, that once it has at one point grasped knowledge of that object; the object always exists without the need for it to be in direct contact with the observation. It is a double whammy.
The limited understanding of time as a linearity is not applicable in the scope of quantum science because if we take the latest point of time as also the first point, then it is easy to see even by modern evolutionary standards, that the conception of the world exists in a nonlinear state of time. What does this mean? It means that there is a record of everything that happens in the universe, and quantum science confirms this fact. It is only in recent history that we can record things at all, and slowly our ability to record things are enhancing. For example, now we can directly record things with cameras, capture them as they happen exactly in the way that they do in real time as they happen. Before we have records of things from writing and books. Before that we have records of things based on tradition and story, which is by way of memory, and even deeper than that stored in the unconscious of the species as they arise in myth and and archetypes. And even more before that, we have records of things in their genes, that the genes of animals do not only explain the features they inherent, but more fundamentally can explain their behaviour; whether an animal is rash, or soft, is explainable by their genes also. So if we take the idea of genetic information, the gnome per say, or DNA generally, and divorce it from being a merely concept of biology, and extend it into the scope of physics, we come to necessarily conclude that DNA is an aspect of nature belonging to space and time, just like everything else in the universe, DNA beings to space and time I.e., DNA is a slab of spacetime in nature. In this deeper context of explaining what we mean by DNA, that DNA is not the mere makeup of the animal, i.e., being the factory for the cells making up the body, but moreover DNA is a piece of spacetime that contains the potential paths and events of the organism itself, the moment it dies, its initial birth, and all events in between, the experiences, and moments that happen to the organism, all these peculiarities that we take to be random, are somehow disclosed by the DNA of the observer. If this has any truth of describing DNA, then we know nothing about the concept of DNA.
It is important not to forget that the task of empirical science is to prove or disprove hypothesis of abstract reason. Whether these abstract principles are derived a priori or after experience- posteriori, whatever that may be, does not take away from how empiricism defines “truth”, which is what it means to be true, means to be in contact with, to never loose physical contact with the phenomena in order for it to be a fact. (Add to the conjunction of the senses) empirical science is fundamentally a question of the phenomenological experience brought by the senses.
In all fields of scientific, the study of the idea of circular processes are presupposed fundamental everywhere except in the subject of history. The claim here is not to suggest that history is only a circular process because that is negated by the obvious fact of there being a difference between primal and advanced life forms in cognitive ability. Moreover there is a fundamental force in the universe of passing. but as to whether this complexity is derived through a linear process of development, meaning that it is always moving forward from a previous point to a later point, meaning that it never repeats again, from the advanced point going back to the primal point; dismisses an obvious and fundamental activity describing all processes in nature, that things seem to behave in circular motions, things behave in cycles.
part 2
In geometry and astronomy for instance circular motion is a feature of linear motion or rather moving forward, the discrete transition from one point to the other. In order for a thing to move in a linear motion, it has to develop momentum which is derived by circular motion. The object moves around in circles and that develops the energy for it to move from one point to another on a plain. The point is the circle developing infinite energy within itself, it becomes dense, enough to form a line extending outside itself, towards an indefinite point, the definiteness of which is a particular shape.
It is important to at-least be open to the possibility that the idea of development beginning from a primal form moving on to an advanced state could just be a construction of the understanding piecing together a general picture of nature, which is not necessarily different than nature itself. The understanding finds itself in a surrounding rich with life forms and it places these life forms into a hierarchy based on the value of cognitive complexity. The understanding then takes time and realizes that there is always a process of “moving forward”, things always happen and never repeat again in the same way, this is identical with the information principle that when something is known it cannot be unknown, the next sequence of events have to take what is previously known into confederation.
The understanding conjugates the hierarchy of life based on mental complexity with the abstraction of time being an irreversible process, and concluded that the the more primal life forms are older and the more complex are a recent result. In order to explain how one life form came out of the other while still maintaining a spectrum of development that simultaneously holds along side a primal life like a worm at the same time man; the crude understanding in the form of empiricism claims that these life forms share a missing link, a common ancestor, which is always conveniently extinct, constituting the bridge of one advancing to the other. But when we look out into the present state of nature we see that these life forms of different development simultaneously exists in the same time period, it is only individuals pass and go but species remain for millennia over millennia, and we only ever provide an estimate of how old a species really is. The point here is that where time may perhaps be relative relates to the developmental process of the observer. That a general developmental process of evolution may be the pricing together of a very specific developmental process constructed by the observer at their present stage of development they are making the reailzation. For example, if modern day humans today look back and see they share a common ancestry with monkeys, monkeys during this exact same time are entering upon their Stone Age, when they arrive at the same level of human development today, they will likewise look back and understand their lineage, but humans having already advanced would have a whole new understanding of evolution
The construction of the understanding described above is by no means arbitrary but in fact could exhibit the same characteristic nature of the general process of natural selection. Natural selection fundamentally describes the way a unique organism generates into existence. Darwinian interpretation of natural selection measures development by the quality for survival. If there is a trait that is more favourable for the survival of the offspring, over a long period of times, offsprings of that same type subsist while those offspring adopting the opposite would die out.
This is a shallow image of natural selection because it improperly explains which factor contributes to the selection of one trait over another. Survival in the same way as the environment is a predicate for organism to continue but they are not the quality that determines the adaptations for living because in order to thrive, that requires beyond continuing, but the capacity for building. Life works to build and order rather than subsist an already existing state. This question must be readdressed to; is there something in the mental capacity of the black mice that made it select its colour that favoured its survival?
It is precisely in the mental capacity where the process of natural selection occurs and not in the conditions of the environment. Whether there are black rocks or not does not alone influence the mice to adopt that into its own colour because there are rocks of all different types and colours. the understanding that the black rocks contribute to a greater camouflage in relation to the dirt determines the mice to select the trait. The more rational the mice is the greater chance it survives because it is more conscious of its environment. The mice must have somehow recognize the black rocks to contribute to its survival and select that as a trait. The difficulty arises in answering the question of when did the mice acquire this knowledge because it is not obvious that the mice made that choice during its life time, because mice are born with already predisposed traits.
The displacement of natural selection is associated outside of the organism and into its environment precisely because we do not perceive the capacity to determine its acquired traits from the organism itself. We define an organism after it is brought into conception, when it hatches from the egg or comes out of the womb, we can identify that life form as a bird or a man. But before this moment of conception, we do not specify the organism but explain what it is part of, its genetics, it’s parent, its species etc. However evolutionary thought maintains that the traits which the organism squires predate its initial conception from its parent, that the brain, nervous system, immune system etc. are all properties belonging to its genus. In a sense the organism we specify as an individual of its species at the moment of its conception has a genetic preconception of what it is.
It is during this general scale that an organism conceives its individuality
Natural selection is the behaviour of a species mind, we call genetics, DNA etc. That individuals member preconceive traits and acquire at the momentous birth as their genetics. The wholly development of genetics is developed throughout the trails and errors of many of its individuals throughout a historical experience.
Darwinian evolution demonstrates that there are major breakthroughs in development of animals groups but it does not properly explains the proper connections that these breakthroughs have to form a system. For example there are breakthroughs from single-cell life to multicellular insects to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, and to mammals and into man. These break are claimed to be a result of of random mutations, however the results of these mutations are by no means ever random.
Even the nature of mutations themselves always involves the contribution of some influencing force into the change of the organism. For example, a transition occurs when a purine is substituted with another purine, or an insertions is the additional base pairs leading to frame-shifts depending on whether or not multiplied of three base pairs are inserted. The point is that modern evolutionary theory lack an count of the determining force of these changes but claim they just naturally occur either due to the environment or some other external complex reasons.
The other extremes argue that there may be intelligent design contributing to the break throughs in evolution, but this intelligent forces are always claimed to be transcendent and not part of the evolutionary process.
Earliest life forms
Accounts of the earliest life forms are very vague but revolve around the idea that life may perhaps be as old as the earth itself.
Fossil evidence informs most studies of the origin of life. The age of the Earth is about 4.54 billion years; the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago. There is evidence that lifebegan much earlier.
The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old.
It is commonly stated that Studies suggest that life on Earth may have come from biological matter carried by space dust or meteorites.
The emergence of microscopic life is the first evolutionary breakthrough on earth. The term “breakthrough” means the initial stages of a living process resulting in its full extent of its development that gives birth to a new process of living having a different emergence into its own full development. This informs a fundamental principle of evolution that life necessarily results in the full extent of it’s development, that things always reach their full development, and this is not a single aim that nature is at work to achieve, but is infinitely being achieved at a consistently cyclical level. Unlike all evolutionary processes on earth, the first microscopic one has its break through in the beginning and not at the end.
This breakthrough occurs by the actual arrival of biological matter on earth, which is not necessarily externally derived by way of a meteorite or space dust but more so can be internally derived. Microscopic life infinitesimally emerges onto the macro scale of earths environment. Microscopic life may transmigrate to the earth through molecular structures constituting the structure of earth itself, and so when we say life is carried through by space dust, it is not far fetched to say that this so called space dust forms part of the earths matter, or that earth itself is part of this matter.
Thousands of tons of cosmic dust are estimated to reach the Earth’s surface every year,
Each stardust grain existed before the Earth was formed.
The density of the dust cloud through which the Earth is traveling is approximately 10−6 dust grains/m3.
Microscopic contents like atoms are actually inverse correlatives of galaxies in magnitude. Entering through to the level of an atom to its nucleus can theoretically constitutes a breakthrough to an entangled galaxy.
These microscopic organisms constitutes not merely the smallest and basic components of life but from an inverse magnitude they are the largest and most ancient life forms. This tells us two things; first, the universe is not on its own something different than the conception of it in the mind of an organism, in other words the universe is in part among the factors forming the order of the observers reason. For example, if an insect has only the conception of a tree, part of that conception is a universe which constitutes all the chemical components of a tree. (This is the zero-point energy principle . The universe is a “slab of nature” which is the abstraction of a duration of an idea disclosed in that are all other possible necessary idea having their own distinction, and we pick out these as an abstractions of a whole, but really it is a discrete process of a rational change.
Second, the very developmental process of a life form constitutes the structure of what we identify as its environment. In the less obvious case of the single cell organisms, they constitutes the oldest and perhaps the most numerous forms of life in earth. For one thing they found their developmental emergence thriving in water.
Primitive cells likely used self-assembling fatty-acid vesicles to separate chemical reactions and the environment.[4] Because of their simplicity and ability to self-assemble in water, it’s likely that these simple membranespredated other forms of early biological molecules.
The transition from single cell organisms to multicellular organisms is the basis of structuring a kingdom of life on land.
The unicellular protist is a free agent, comes together into a group forming a colony which creates a structure that limited the freedom of each cel into a specific role, but for a more advanced form. This later development results in the production of all plant life. Our common image of a fish leaving water and going on land to mark a breakthrough in development is not a lone event but has been repeated in the past. When unicellular life found its success in the water, what came rise out of their development is the multicellular structures that would have their developmental success in land. The earliest plants are thought to have evolved in the ocean from a green alga ancestor. Plants were among the earliest organisms to leave the water and colonize land. The evolution of vascular tissues allowed plants to grow larger and thrive on land.
The highest mark of development from multicellular stage is the beginning stages of the true Animalia kingdom. In Darwinian evolutionary theory connections such as these are overlooked for the sake of maintaining specialized knowledge on each class of life independently, but we end up with is the invariable ontological conclusion which ignores the obvious connection between points of development in life.
leaf bug
For example, when an insect is observed to exhibit characteristics that make it appear like a leaf, evolutionary theory from Darwinian point of view simply concludes that this is the organism adapting to its environment. The organisms is presupposed without explaining how it came to be as if evolutionary thought should not explain the origin of organisms only their behaviour exhibited before observation. Even though it is true that the insect is adapting to its habitat, this tells us nothing about the nature of the insect itself making this change. adaption in this sense is the organisms ability to be conscious of its environment and demonstrates what it is conscious of in itself. This can only be true if at one point in time, the plant and the insect constitute the same substance.
The fact is that the Insecta class is a developmental result from the Plantae kingdom. The development of insects out of plants takes on the reverse model in contrast to the development of the unicellular protist into the multicellular organism. The unicellular microbe that sacrificed its individuality of free agency to join the group forming the structures of a multicellular organism like a plant, later rejoins its individuality and comes out, as a living seed, a more structurally complex organism, in the form of an insect.
insects eggs emerge as a unit, and they hatch relatively together and grow at the same right with a short childhood span and straight into adulthood. as if they are ready for “war” because their life is a battle to survivor. Each parents beings about a mini army of offsprings only 1 or 2 of which survive into adulthood, the rest scum to the hardships of nature, killer, usually eaten by another. the short childhood span of insects unlike humans have a long childhood starting with infancy, into early childhood, into adolescence, into early adulthood, adulthood, middle age, elderly, senior.
Insects are a true alien life, as their ancestors emerge into the earth from an infinitesimal dimension of space in the form of microbes, and build multicellular structures on land so as to arise again as individuals capable of free locomotion habitable to the environment. This is adaption in an extraterrestrial level, how a life form makes a planet it’s home.
The development of the Insects class constitutes the most numerous life forms on earth, but they do not exhibit extensive size, they are more minute and are closer to the micro scale. The development towards large individual members of a species takes gold when life returns into the water.
Sea life
The focus on the Insecta class on land does not exclude the simultaneous group of insects thriving in the water, but we do not classify them as insects, they more classify the Crustaceans taxon. In fact the breakthrough of insect life to the diverse classes of fish creatures is found in the largest aggregate on earth, the waters. Life experiments with extensive size of creatures in the water, organisms begin to develop macroscopic sizes and the necessary organs
These insects return back into the water and synthesize a greater size to be the new life forms of fish. It was in the water that the test of true size had its operation.
The most advanced organ systems that man led would later on adopt is engineered during this stage of development. The rasiptory in fish (Add gills selection here)
Neurological and nervous system in crabs
Muscular and reflexives system in jelly fishes
An advanced life form is the synthesis of other life forms , this means that
Darwinian evolution paints a picture of evolution having a particular and definite trend of moving forward in a particular direction of development. For example, the classic idea of the chain of evolution where a fish walking outside of the water and evolving on land is an abstraction of a particular life experience.
Darwinian evolution assumes that this particular direction of development is the general one of life. The way Darwinian theory arrives at this fact is from a observational standpoint, we have ourselves as an already developed reference point and all we need is to trace back the steps to the more primal forms of life beginning with bacteria, into sea life, etc. Darwinian evolution does provide multi varied trends of the same development.
For example, The theory of whale evolution for example provides us with an inverse path of development but we do not adopt it as the general path of development but only as a possible route of development because it is outside the standpoint of the conception that derived it as a path of development. This particular sequence of development is based on the desire of the mammal to go back into the water, which is an inclination that is a general trend in evolution, life tends to return to the water to develop out of it in a more complex form. This is not a one time reoccurrence but occurs numerously throughout the evolution of life on earth. The suggestion here is not to imply that evolution is a relative process derived from the point of view of the organism because there is an obvious capacity acquisition that belong to some animals not found in others precisely due to their long term adaptation and experiences in an environment. However the claim being suggested is that in a deeper more fundamental level of nature, there are multiple paths of evolution constituting a simultaneous gradient of potentials. From an absolute eternal time scale all periods of development constitutes the same potential.
This process of development is the actualization of a possible path being
To demonstrate this we only need to look at our present moment of being here provides already all the possible variations of potential beginning from the primal to the most advanced. For example, at a micro scale the human body is constantly being attacked by viruses and bacterial infection. The different between a virus and a bacteria on its effect on the body is thusly; a virus is more primal because it is a condition that imposes its a time duration on the body, a virus changes the condition of the body and has a lifespan in which this condition peaks and fades, in some cases, the extent of the condition is determined at the same intense rate. But a virus is not an entity of its own independent from the body that it is changing the condition of.
A bacteria however is a separate and individual entity that harbours the body as a suitable environment for development. When a bacteria spreads it has utilized the body as an environment from within which it derived information about fundamental elements of nature. For example, if an abscess develops in the mouth, it is initially localized but depending on how clean the mouth this, the bacteria is able to spread. When the mouth is dirty, particles from the food consumed is accumulated by the bacteria and dissected into its basic vitamins. After some time, there are two path ways of development for the bacteria, first it can slowly overtime maintain itself internally in the tissue and slowly get deeper and deeper in the body, which is the safer option but more work because time is spent fighting the bodies immune defences,
the second path is to spread by riding another microbe found from food and attempt to go externally deeper in the body, which is more risky because the bacteria would ride a food particle in hopes of landing on a tissue more deeper in the body where vital organs are and hope to enter a micro tear in that tissue and harbour itself. The reason why bacteria hope to enter deeper into organ tissue is because each organ has a fundamental task of catabolic metabolism of pure and fundamental vitamin elements, for example of bacteria infest the liver, they can get a pure source of vitamin k, magisim etc.
Evolution as long term re-emerging cycle of self-consciousness
Evolution is not linear, it is infinitely circular. The cycle of consciousness, going in to a particular and out as a universal. Or rather what is implicit in is the universal and what is explicit out is the particular.
Darwinian evolution has limited the idea of evolution to such a specific perspective that we now fail to see evolution as a mechanics part of a larger process of being. Two Darwinian presuppositions are erroneously taken as fundamental principles of evolution that are inconsistent with the general picture of development in the universe. First the idea that the organism develops by adapting to the environment and second, evolution is a process of survival.
The first presupposition seems so obvious that the environment is the ground by which organisms adapt to and are therefore challenged towards development. This fact on its own is not wrong but the presupposition that is concluded from it makes it seem as if the organism is a result, a bifurcation from the environment. This view is inconsistent with ancient and classical modern ontological notions that all assert the environment to be a reflection of a fundamentally abstract principle, which is to be taken as the basis for an organism, this abstract principle we know of as a derivation from mind.
German idealism of Kant and Hegel and even the more contemporary English tradition which whitehead belongs to elaborate the Ancient Greek idea that mind is the most fundamental substance in the universe and that the environment is an abstraction of the ideal capacities of reason. Mind is not any object in itself because it is the mere conception of a thing, the potential and the capacity for an idea to be conceived. But mind has its power in extending its thought externally into a reflection which becomes an abstraction of its potential realized into a reality for an experience. The realization of a conception takes the manifold of the environment, and the organism we associate as being a part of the environment is really the singularity of freedom manoeuvring within each part forming the conception.
Classically before Darwinian attitudes, it was always held that mind is the living agent which is actively modifying its environment and in the more current works of whitehead we find the idea that the environment is not only changing the organism but that is really a feed back loop of the organism engaging in modifying its environment, in other words, the environment is a meditation between generations of organism belonging to the same lineage of development, organisms change the environment, so that the environment changes the off spring organisms of the future generation.
Secondly, the process of evolution is not for the mere purpose of survival. This point was made by whitehead who claims that organisms are generally deficient in survival value. And although the quality of living gets better as organisms evolve, that is a byproduct of something more fundamental than mere survival. or in other words survival is for a reason and purpose beyond itself, survival has an aim, a goal, or a “telos” in mind to actualize. And sometimes individuals forms of the species are sacrificed for that goal. Hegel calls history “a slaughter bench” where peoples are sacrificed for the purpose of their species idea. For example most explicitly we see this in the mayan tradition of human sacrifice to appease the Gods, or we see that when there is war between two cultures where two cultures sacrifice the people of each other for the promotion of their own idea, or even today we see the government sacrificing the freedoms and livelihood for a specific political goal and agenda. in every time period, the general population is sacrificed in one way or another for the purpose of an idea for development.
Peirce showed that, if we posit a certain primal habit in nature, viz. the tendency however slight to take on habits however tiny, then the result in the long run is often a high degree of regularity and great macroscopic exactness.
Peirce took the notion of longevity to be the measure of habit, that is to say, the notion of persisting for a certain period of time itself is the first form of habit
fallacy of induction (define) where the repetition of the same thing at a reoccurring rate over a definite stretch of time is taken as the conclusion for a phenomenon to be factual. We assume that the sun will always come out the next day because it has always been coming out every morning. This fallacy of induction is the attempt at answering the difficult question of when the future happen? It is assumed Galway the future happens after present and the present is after the past, such that once something goes into the past, it is gone forever and no longer exists. We generally look forward for the future because it is something that will and is going to come, and so we say “I cannot wait for this and that to happen” or that “I am running out of time, I am going to be late for that appointment” as if some future event is going to be missed. On the other hand we ignore the past because we say it is gone. However the past exists as much as the future because the moment that is going to come after the present, has just passed a moment that has come before it, and so once a moment happens at the present it is no longer the future it was at that one point in time once it is past. And so a future moment becomes the past as long as the present is occurring.
Monkeys in Stone Age
Some Scientist are now claiming that monkeys have entered into their Stone Age due to evidence of tool usage. For example orangoutangs are seen spear fishing, chimps using stones to crack nuts etc. Human ancestors started to apply tools around 30 thousands years ago. So by time monkeys get to where we are now, say 30 thousands years in the future, we would already be in a different quantum dimension and be reason itself, and monkeys would be where we are now at this present point in time evolved to look exactly like us, wondering about reason and intelligence in an alternate dimension.
This seems to suggest that evolution is a long term process of self-consciousness reemergence. Where there is a series of simultaneous development that are at different levels of advancement and the precede and proceed each other in space and time. They form a series now understood as quantum tunnelling and exhibits an indirect relation we know as entanglement. For example, modern experiments with rats show that if a particular group of rats learn the pattern of mazes at one location, that will contribute to making it more easy for a completely unrelated group of other rats at a distant location to learn the same pattern of maze. This suggests that organism belonging to the same species and life generally in a more complex manner is connected more closely at one dimension where at the other dimension they seem to be separated.
The process of evolution is one extending infinitesimally and quantum tunnelling and it is more of an abstract process
The relation is inverse yet immediate and what is immediate is the meditation between externals.
The point at which modern humans now are chimps there was already a developed intelligent race, that has already bypassed us into a different dimension but when we were chimps we could have not known or been conscious just like a chimp now would not be conscious of you as an intelligent being and he would just think your another moving, acting, being like himself, gives the old expression ‘monkey see monkey do’ great meaning.
Evolution is spirit itself is adapting to reason so that evolution is actually the “soul” evolving. The material conditions are bifurcation of the level at which the soul is at. For example from a bird perspective your environment is the sky such that the ground seems like the sky as the sky seems from the ground.
The idea of a wormhole explains that when we get two different position in space and place them together in the same place such that they become the same point, you can restrict the amount of time to get from one to the other, as they both now constitutes the same time. This fact has greater implication than the reduction of time to a lesser period but rather concerns the fact that two different dimension can be operating simultaneously within the same space. That there are parallel dimensions operating simultaneously and they maintain a discreteness such that not to explicitly intrude into each other.
This is the way temporal duration is ordered which can explain why rats in one place learning mazes has an influence on a completely separated unrelated group of rats in another location. The explanation is that these rats are connected by the same genetic spectrum which constitutes a more fundamentally impeded dimension grouping what appears to be separate rats at one level of macro-scale is really the same genus at a different level of micro scale, genus related to psyche.
Natural habits evolve get better, more skilled
Peirce argues that evidence from empirical science show that habit and deterministic law are not the same thing. The universe exhibits varying degrees of habit but does not display deterministic law. The difference between habit and determinism is laid out by the nature of the conclusions derived from direct experimentation. Whenever an experiment is carried out regularity is shown to be a partial, varying, and approximate aspect attributed to the particularity of the phenomenon under investigation, but beyond that there is no evidence to show anything like a total, exact regularity which governs the patterns of the particular phenomenon other than those found part of the phenomenon.
This however does not disapprove an ultimate determination governing the particular phenomenon also found generally in other phenomena, but only that the phenomenon and its determining factor constituting its regularity form a disclosed system. Peirce on the other hand explains the habits that nature does display always appear in varying degrees of entrenchment or “congealing.” At one end of the spectrum, we have the nearly law-like behavior of larger physical objects like boulders and planets; but at the other end of the spectrum, we see in human processes of imagination and thought an almost pure freedom and spontaneity; and in the quantum world of the very small we see the results of almost pure chance. (Peirce philo encyclopaedia)
Peirce seems to be suggesting two conflicting views that somehow compliment each other. On the one hand the idea against determinism excludes the idea of a total enforcing determination prior to the habits which are in part derived from each distinct phenomenon, and their distinct determinations collect together forming a general determination. It is not that there is a general determination that governs distinct factors but that each distinct factor collect together to form the general determination.
If it is the latter case which is not exactly clear that it is, then that conflict with the idea that natural habits are themselves evolving because in the latter case these habits would belong to a behaviour of the same being. There is an inconsistency between the premises of empirical facts and the conclusion, of the conclusion is that habits are evolving they belong to the same behaviour, but the way we arrive at this fact is by saying that habit is not outside the particular phenomenon itself, then our pragmatism conclusion about being generally is that it is a particular phenomenon. (Being as an event whitehead connect) (habit is the behaviour of events)
For this reason, Peirce suggested that in the remote past nature was considerably more spontaneous than it has now become, and that in general and as a whole all the habits that nature has come to exhibit have evolved. Just as ideas, geological formations, and biological species have evolved, natural habit has evolved.
Peirce suggests that in the earliest stages nature was more spontaneous, yet in human process of thought there is the similar equivalent freedom of spontaneity. This contradiction seems to imply that there is a single universal principle responsible for the spontaneity in nature that exists at the earliest stages of the universe and persists in the developed human stages.
Sphinx being 10 thousand years old, the Egyptians preserving artifact of older more advanced civilization, salon talk with high Egypt priest, salon thinks that there was a big catastrophe before the arrival of Greek people, but the high preset says that this catastrophe is just one among many in history, that history had numerous advanced civilization come and go.
(Add Amazon here)
Adaption- Survival vs living
Survival According to Darwinian evolution is the continued existence of organism that best adapt to the environment. The “best adapted” in Darwinian evolution makes the sequence of life first environment then second adaption. This order does not provide sufficient definition of the qualitative aspect of survival known as “living”. Living exhibits the thriving element of survival which is not limited to longevity but the kind of patterns concurring within the duration of longevity, the content of a life exhibiting its quality.
The notion of survival is presupposed by adaption to the environment because the environment seems to exhibit harsh and unfavourable circumstances to the organism. To limit the life of organism to adapting to those circumstances seems to miss the mark on what the aim of living is because in this sense of survival living becomes mere senseless suffering. It is not obvious what survival means in relation to the harsh environment, let alone why an organism would want to adapt to the environment in the first place. The point of adaption to the environment seems to be the organisms ability to turn its unfavourable conditions into favourable ones, but this task is more appropriate for organisms living in their environment rather than the ones surviving. An organism’s survival may be adopted to the environment only so as to constitute it as a means for consumption for other organisms thriving in the environments. The difficult conditions of the environment are challenges for living organisms rather than circumstances they are victims of and the way such circumstances are dealt with answers precisely to what it means to adapt to the environment.
Organisms living rather than surviving exhibit determinative force of making the environment adapt to themselves. Whereas the determinative aspects of the organisms survival does not extend beyond its ability to find a place in the environment making it self the animate force of its habitat. Blending to the environment as opposed to moving beyond to change it serves as the fine line between the categories of prey and predictor. Most animals are inlay cases both prey and predator but there are obvious contenders that are mainly ones over the other in taking a higher place in the food chain. Predatory animals higher in the food chain realized that changing the environment first involves actually changing locations and expanding across different territories of habitat. The environment is something to dispense with rather than settle for. This is a form of inductive knowledge on part of the animal when the realization is made that within the same environment there is variability, then produces hypothesis that there must be variability of environments generally. Sharks are perfect example of exploratory predators
Animals that mate before they venture off if they die and do not return at least produce offsprings that are as curious as the parent to expand beyond their original habitat. Animals that mate after returning alive from their adventure mate to reproduce offsprings with the necessary genetics adapted to the environment explored by the parent. A case of epigenetic. (Find studies of epigenetic)
Changing the environment does in part depend on adaption to the environment. The aspect of survival as adapting to the environment is a means to the end of living in the environment by changing it according to the organisms needs and wants. You do not merely adopt to the environment to change it but changing the environment so to adopt within it. Darwinian evolution confuses this order by reversing it. The end of living is to continue surviving. But what is the point of that, to continue in the moment? The common proverb “to live in the moment” is an entirely naive suggestion for living because it is based on the assumptions that a) the present moment is the only real thing the living being has and b) as a result of this possession the living being can create it into whatever they desire, commonly a state of pleasure. Hedonism as the pursuit of sensual self-indulgence makes pleasure the highest good and proper aim of human life has no choice but to conflate pain with pleasure. The assertion that there is such a thing as pure pleasure mistakenly takes the abstraction of pleasure as the possibility of separating pleasure from pain. But any genuine psychoanalytical investigation of desire shows that pleasure is inseparably connected with pain. Especially in sexual domain some degree of pain is correlative to high levels of pleasure.
The strong attempt to be present at the moment is presupposed from the fact that the present moment is constantly fleeting. The present is never possessed as an individual state because it is a duration of the past transitioning to future and if we take this continuum as to constitute a stable state, in what sense is the insistency on the present actually maintains it as a moment?
say “so what?” this continuity results in a state of absolute determination I.e, the present, then the end is merely reversed to be the mean. Except the present as a state of absolute freedom is not inherently from a first person perspective as conception from particular individuality is accustomed to but rather the present as relation of past and future is really a state of conflict of opposite determination untied against each other. This brings us back to the second assumption of or common proverb “to live in the moment” that it can be made into whatever the individuality possessing it desires. This assumption seems to suggest that the aim of living is to minimize and cancel out all confections of time, which amounts to a state of nothing, but implicitly to cause a stalemate state of opposites really is a suggestion to exert the power of control on these opposites so that they are not pressing against the individuality which aims to control the contradictions against it for the ability to act in whatever way above all other determinations.
The problem is that the conflict of opposites are not external factors distinct from the individuality conceiving itself as separate and potentially above them, but rather their external separations is part of the same internal continuity. The present is already the moment where conflict already result in stable condition, its stability however is a mere continuity of the inverse relation of idea coming from the past actualizing itself in the future. The present is not a place where the individual can find peace by cancelling our thought of the past or worry about the future. Far from the truth the opposite is true in that the present is the connecting the past to the future. The present is meant to pass by that is the only way we can have sense of a present moment. When the Buddhist talk about being present in the moment as way of achieving nirvana. This is achieved by meditation which is the part of thinking that remains conscious of what is happening at the moment during its passing away. Mediation is to develop the consciousness of cinching the passing of the present. This is also why meditation remedies the fear of death and the acceptance of death because death is the passing away of the present moment.
indicates their reflection of internal are their very internal contradictions reflected to sustain the present power on the situation at hand possession of anything in to his sense would be
Surviving as way of adapting to environment is the organisms effort to assimilate the conditions of the environment into their physical constitution, which is not a mere blending to the environment because it is an active force to properly execute a replication of the environment in the bodies functions. ( add to the plant cell)
Upon this assimilation the organism analyzes the environment by breaking it down to its primary constituents. The change occurs when the animal synthesizes these elements in a manner sublated in the functions of its body. The rhino horn. Digestion is an example of this process, where the digestive system breaks down food into its minerals and the remaining matter is disposed of.
Trees for example are perfect example of having an implicit active role in the adaption to environment. Since trees do not exhibit locomotion like what is normally associated with active organisms, it seems that their role is purely passive. However trees constitute source of food for all living organisms but in a very special way because not every part of a tree is consumed by animals. There are so many varieties of trees but they all share in the process of bearing fruits. Most of the trees body can be consumed by large animals but not only are these parts very hard to digest, if animal resort to consuming all portions of trees, they will be subject to extinction.
Trees in order to defend themselves aside from sometimes being poisonous or defensive like having spikes, thrones etc, they bear fruits which encourage organism to eat but only in a designated area so that the tree will benefit by maintaining its overall structure as well as benefit the animals with nutrition which makes the animal view the tree as a apiece of vitality rather than a threat. Tree cannot stop micro orbs from feeding on all aspect of it and in this way they are pray to microorganism but the size differences between micro orbs and trees are so vast that allowing them to feast carries no danger of inducing scarcity