Section 75 (last updated 5.12.2021)
“Man begets man” or “life makes life”.
This phrase has the deeper inclination that the drive for evolutionary process is not merely a natural process developing on its own, but rather that the content of this process consists of life forms reaching a certain level of development whereby they make other life forms, those also reaching a level of development that influence the development of some other primal life towards development and so on and so forth.
Evolution
The ordinary logic concerning how evolution is viewed, organisms and objects that come after previous generations are considered the more developed because they are the result, the achievement per say, the newest form. There is good reasoning in this argument from the idea of heredity and genes. There is an overlap between any random moment in the parents life and it’s intersection with the moment of the offsprings conception. For example, I could be at work picking up a log of wood when I get a phone call that my son is born. Of course it is excepted to some degree, that he was due in nine months, but the aspect that seems random, when he was born and what point I was in my life during my conception, has a double meaning from two sides. On the one hand we can say the parents is so and so years ahead of the offspring because they have life experience, say I was 30 years old when gave birth to my son, so I have 30 years of life experience than he does. However the epigenetic idea suggests that he offspring has those 30 years of life experience implicit in their genes, they have inherited such experiences, and in fact begin with them and so therefore are even more ahead in time, the offspring has the 30 years of experience from the parents that if they Maximize on that potential, they have the 30 years along with the rest of their life. It is important to tell the relationship between the past and the future, how if the more developed form is part of a continuity derived from the earliest developed form, how the previous contributes to the latter.
The other side to the logic of evolution is counterintuitive and is thusly stayed: 1) the previous form is more fundamental than the later form because it comes first, 2) what comes first is more developed than what comes after because it has more time on its hand to develop, 3) what is more developed comes after because it is the achievement of the former and the version more closer to its expression. The assumption is that anything with more time on its hand should be more developed because it had more time to develop. However this is obviously not the exact case because we have trees that had thousands of years to live yet they maintain the same primal and necessary form. But the human being comes in “bursts” of development by way of the species developing the capacity of self-conscious reason, which is unheard of in any other life form, and the individuals of the species maximize on that capacity to produce achievements of it like science, religion, architecture, electricity, etc.,
In other words, things that come later in time are only more developed particularly, they are as particular versions of the former as possible
Common opinion on viruses
Modern science lacks understanding of what viruses are in and of themselves. Knowledge of viruses are indirect and are characterized in the following two ways: first, we know the effects of viruses on the body. Second, we know how a virus “appears” under a microscope. Both of these points do not tell us what a virus is, it only tells us how the body responds to a foreign substance, and the structure of how the viral agent appears to exhibit.
in the first case the term “virus” carries a negative connotation because it is defined from the subjective view of the bodies self preservation system, that it identifies the virus as a harmful and corruptive influence because it poses a real threat to it. There are general characterization that define what is required to be a virus, like for instance viruses replicates only inside the living cells of an organism, in other words, they lack the capacity to thrive and reproduce outside of a host.
This feature is taken to characterize viruses generally. However to distinguish a virus into a specific kind depends on the organ system it infects and the symptoms it causes, for example, STDs are viruses in the sexual reproductive systems and are called Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) . A virus has its identity based on the organ it infests and the reaction the body marks as a response. This does not tell us what a virus is but only the effects it causes on a host. The idea of a “host” is indivisible from viruses but knowledge of the host does not give knowledge of the virus.
In talking about the host, in the second point, when we observer a virus under a microscope, it appears to have a bodily form, a parasitic structure, and there are countless amount of different strains with varying difference in the way they look. The commonalities is that all viruses have genetic material, i.e, DNA or RNA, coated with a protein capsid, and some viruses carry enzymes and outer envelops with varying shapes. However viruses are not categorized based on their outer appearance but rather on their capacity to self replicate within the cellular structure and the effect on that structure.
It is not entirely known whether the outer appearance of the virus’s itself is part of its character or whether the outer appearance is also itself a host because given the fact that a virus can never survive without a host, means that it must have hijacked a lowly life form, and used that as it’s primal way of maneuvering about to inject itself into the more complex system of another host, as we notice for example, in the case of mosquitoes are a notorious host for viruses that transmit viruses to more complex mammals. what we see under an electron microscope may perhaps be a lowly parasite hosting a virus.
For example Ebola viruses are known for their parasitic worm like shape. It is a fact that viruses and bacteria have had a long relationship in evolution estimated to be over 3 billions years old. And we know in the body viruses can lead to bacteria, or vice versa, you can get viruses from bacteria. Bacteria hosts viruses and most viruses infect bacteria not people.
To understand what viruses are in and of themselves, the term “virus” no longer becomes relevant, however it will be continually used for its commonality in language to refer to a primal life form. Viruses are primal life forms that date back billion of years to the very origins of life and perhaps to the beginning of the planet earth itself. The association of viruses with primal life forms brings about wrong implications. One implication is that primal means less developed. Our modern notion of evolution is inverted. We think more primal means less developed, but from a temporal standpoint, a life form having come prior has had more time to develop. However the assumption is that throughout the entire evolution on earth, life was slow, it was still “figuring it out”, nature supposedly took billion of years to figure out the human physiology and it is this length in time that we marvel as the complexity of life.
This idea is derived from a fundamental assumption associated with Darwinian theories on evolution, that development moves in a linear manner beginning from a simple and primitive manner and complicates itself into a more advanced form. This is an abstraction observed from the development of any single life form, for example, moving through the embryonic stages towards birth we see cell multiplication process get progressively complicated to form the structure of the organism. This observation where life develops from a basic state to a more complex one is true at the particular level, however when it is taken as an abstraction characterizing the general development of life, a few unclear problems arise. First it is unclear as to whether this fact is universal because it is shared by each particular life form making up the whole of life, or that life as a whole is a particular thing that shares in this development from primal to advance.
This fact is derived from a historical view of nature, that we look back and we find in the earliest stages bacterial life forms, then insects, then reptiles, then mammals etc., each of the older ones less developed, while the later models are more complex.
Having a historical account of evolution is necessary because it is a kind of book keeping and track record of development, it does however come with a problem. Alan Watts explains
“For a while, it was in fashion in modern scholarship to say that Judaism gave us the idea of history, but Hindus have no interest in history whatsoever — or not until recent times, at least — to the total exasperation of historians. There is no way of finding textual evidence of the age of most Hindu scriptures, because they are only interested in human events as archetypal occurrences — as repetitions of great mythological themes. So if a document begins with certain adventure that happens to king so-and-so – whole everybody knew at the time – in the next generation they change the name of the past kind to the current king, because the story was typical anyway, and they just wanted to use the name of a king everybody knows.
On the other hand, according to our scholars, the Jews were historically minded because they remembered the story of their descent from Adam and Abraham, the great event of the liberation from Egypt, and the triumphant reign of King David. Then things go sliding downhill as other political forces become stronger and stronger, and so the people get fixed on the idea that one day is going to be the day of the Lord, and the Messiah will come and put an end to history and there will be the restoration of paradise. See, this is linear. There isn’t the idea of the world having been created many times before and coming to an end many times before, too. There’s a clear ascent from start to finish, from alpha to omega.” (Out of your mind)
The disadvantage of the cyclic view is that it does not explain the continuity aspect of development, but explains each cycle as a discrete event consisting of by a beginning and end, and then marker off by a new cycle, there is however no continuity between the cycles, how each cycle relates, specifically when one cycle ends, another one takes its place, there is no development in the idea where one event does not built on an other event, this means that al cycle must simultaneously exists. While linearity explains that events interlock and follow each other in a sequence, but it takes this duration as the absolute one, not reailze gets that events are abrupt and have a duration cut off from other events they might relate to.
the abstraction that life begins from a basic state to a more advanced does not explain the reason why life moves from basic to advance?, or what incentive that leads to this development? What is the drive that makes something basic turn into something more advanced? Darwinian theories on the one hand answer that time alone allows for this, that given a certain amount of time, complex life is inevitable to arise. In other words, it takes a very long time for nature to figure out complex life, yet while at the same time, our immediate observation shows that the majority of complex development has occurred within the shortest amount of time.
why has the development of life only occurred within a short time frame that is fraction of total time it took for life generally to arise?
that given enough time, life will eventually develop. If we assume that time alone is sufficient enough to allow for development, then naturally we might ask why has life not developed more within the span of 4 billion years, why is it only at this random fraction of time from where we stand life has developed the most? It seems oddly convenient that the majority of life’s development is congruent with the extent of our capacity to observer the development of life.
The idea is that life has always been there for billion of years ago and development is slow, up until a few million years ago, due to a series of random mutations, life suddenly began to drastically advance at a faster and faster pace. We see more development occur in the past thousand of years than in the last few billion. This however seems to be both logically and mathematically inapplicable
There is an obvious confirmation bias that sees the present moment as the most developed one.
Every moment at the present appears to be the highest point of development. This is because it is an achievement from the past which resulted in its present complexity, and there is also no future for the present to be compared with so that nothing can be compared to. This is an inherent uncertainty principle and a blind spot in time itself.
The trend from basic to complex is therefore based on a conceived range. As furthest back we can see up until the present moment, constitutes the range where development is judged to be a linear direction moving from a basic form to a more complex one. However beyond this range, before the earliest conceived point, and after the present into the future, are both unknown factors that constitutes the limit of the range of development. This is also the same problem with theoretical physics, the moment before the Big Bang, and the moments after an indefinite amount of years in the future, both cannot became predicated.
These unknown factors in time, like the distant past, and the deep future, are outside the range of development, which is where the abstraction from basic to complex comes from. The trend from basic to advance as a linear process fails to explains novelty in nature, I.e, what it means for something to be new, which is an integral element in the idea of development. In other words, any theory of evolution that fails to encompass a proper understanding of what it means to be novel, fails to be a theory of evolution altogether because development is marked off by these “new” changes. Darwinian theories reduce novelty to mutations that randomly occur.
It is assumed that the mere occurrence of an event makes it out to be a new one, that before something happens, it does not exist, but moments after it happens, it now exists and is new, and after a period of time where other events happen, that initial event is no longer new. Mutations are caused by random “errors” in DNA replication or repair, or by chemical or radiation damage. In other words, when anomalies are observed in DNA replication, they are categorized as “mutations” under Darwinian theories, in other words, when something unknown is observed and therefore cannot be explained, it is rendered off as “novel”.
This common sense notion on what it means to be new is both logically and mathematically inconsistent and is based on a very narrow but common experience, that it always seems to be the present moment. In mathematics, every number is implied before the duration of any single number. For example, in human experience you were not 28 up until you turn that age, in other words, being 28 is now new. Whereas in math, 28,29,30 are all there as part of a series which 27 belongs to.
This is what natural selection depends on, give a certain period of time, life is inevitable, is the same as, given a certain period of time, more advancement is certain.
The more time doing something get better at it. Even there is nothing, the more time being nothing, that just solidifies itself as nothing.
Up until so far we have made the point that no one really knows what viruses are, and that our common assumption of viruses are based on an abstraction of time. Now in order to initiate understanding viruses, it is important to recognize its relation to the trend of development.
The linear view of time concerning develops sees life beginning from a primitive state into a more complex one is supported by the linearity of magnitude, that life began out microscopic as bacteria and slowly grew out to be macro-scale animals, like mammals. And so Darwinian evolution is marked off by a microscopic ascent into a macroscopic scale.
In the same way that the trend from basic to complex undergoes fluctuations through vast periods of time, so too does the spatial magnitude from small to big. For example if we pay close attention to the direction of present day development, we see that with the development of technology is marked off by things getting smaller and smaller. In the first place what marks off the technological age altogether as the peak of development is the achievement of being able to transfer information at the microscopic level, through computer chips and electricity. we almost see the beginning of the macroscopic making its way back to an ascent down towards a microscopic scale.
(Add computer chip) (Monkey entering Stone Age, technological advancement, transforming information at the microscopic level)
If we reverse the scale of Darwinian evolution by not only seeing evolution as a linear process in two ways, both in time, from basic to complex, and in space, micro to macro; and instead see development as a cycle, the character of which is primal to complex and vice versa complex to primal, and when primal macro and when complex micro, or vice versa when complex micro and when primal macro, then we see that the cycle of development goes up and down, in other words, fluctuates, in time and in space. The double helix structure indicates this out and in form, this is how they bind.
At one point in time, a species developed so complex, that it was able to produce its own kind of primal life forms. The emergence of viral life forms may perhaps be gap, or the bridge, between when the highest evolved species reached the instance of making the primal beginning of a whole new species. Asking what is before a virus in biology is equivalent to asking what is before the Big Bang in physics.
The term “viruses” can be a word used to mark off an unknown species moments before the most primal life forms
. Theoretically life before viruses could have began at some macroscopic scale similar to human beings, but over years of development, they managed to develop their civilization to occupy the macroscopic scale, to fit within an atom. They developed towards this ascension in hopes of getting down to the most basic blocks of reality, the advantages are numerous, such as accessing new domains of energy, or simply having abundance of space, e,g, if you can fit the most amount of stuff in the smallest of spaces that is the solution to real estate.
The most developed species is able access the genetic structure of reality itself. The DNA strand is a piece of reality, “a slab of nature”, is an indeterminate state of possible event, these consist of the vibrating strings from string theory and are encapsulated by atoms. A DNA is a molecule which is a bunch of atoms stuck together forming a spiralling latter. When you access this you are able to determine a life sequence in time, the duration of all the events that comprises the duration of a lifetime. The capsid of viruses is a very advanced form of encapsulation enveloping a piece of reality, or a timeline, and as it’s conception, it takes on particular and fundamental shapes and structures.
A virus is simply a basic structure disclosing DNA strand. Viruses just indicate basic and fundamental structures, they are basic conceptions of DNA. In other words, the shape of the capsid serves to function in accordance with the character of the DNA replication process. Influenza viruses belong to the “corona” family because of their “crown” like distinct features observed in the capsid, and these glycoproteins are equipped to deal with the cells targeted by the DNA strand in the virus.
They are indivisible from bacteria because bacteria are more advanced conceptions after viruses.
These basic structure almost appear more technological than they are biological, although the lines are blurred at this state.
These basic structures are the beginning of a construction of nature. When a species become so developed it is no longer affected by death because it no longer possess an egocentrism, which simply means they are not limited to a particular morphology of a body. Instead they directly access the gnome of nature, the genetic ingredients to form any specific body. This lack of particular body escapes the problem of death, however it introduces an ultimate state of flux, in that they are in a constant stage of uncertainty concerning everything.
They have all the information to determine any particular thing, however they loose their distinctive capacity to be able to determine this information in a particularity, they will loose themselves as everything if they do not determine that capacity in something concrete and particular. Viruses are this basic way of sustaining this infinite access to the genes of possibly making anything in particular by a process known as “Incubate”, which means develop slowly without outward or perceptible signs. Our common acquaintance with this is when an infectious disease develops inside the body before symptoms appear. However in more general terms it is a biological process where something is kept and sustained so that it develops. For example keep (eggs, cells, bacteria, embryos, etc.) at a suitable temperature so that they develop, like birds for instance, sit on their eggs to keep them warm in order that they hatch.
Virus as an organic planet
Viruses are the most numerable organisms on earth. We can say that there are as much viruses as planets in the universe. This interesting correlation hints at a universe within a universe. So called “parallel universes” are parallel not because they are separated by space, as if one universe is beside the other but both never touch or interact, because then the question becomes why do they not interact, especially if we say space is the domain where we observe objects to interact. Parallel has to be maintianed as such, parallel. in other words, there has to be something that maintains two universes to be parallel to each so that we cannot just assume there to be parallel universes without explanation into how that is the case. Moreover why can not we say that this ”something” which maintains two parallel universe from ever directly interacting with each other, and by that means serves as the piler which they can only interact indirectly; we can not we say that “something” is “anything”. In other words, an arbitrary part in the place of one universe serves as the means by which the other parallel universe indirectly interacts. This place however is not arbitrary because it not the cause but rather the effect of such indirect interaction in the first place. It was the result made into being the point of interaction between two parallel universes so that both universe can remain parallel and in an indirect relation with one another. In physical terms, it is like the gravity maintaining the equilibrium between two objects in space locked by a gravitational rotation. One universe is intercepted under an intermediary object locking it off from another universe parallel to it, but because this parallelism is not one where two objects are separated by space and therefore have a lack of interaction, they are intercepted within time and therefore have a hyper super-interaction
we can call that the finite object somewhere and potentially anywhere on one of the universes. It has to be asymmetrical and must be present on one universe and not present on another universe because that is one aspect of it being a finite, and the other is that the one universe that contains only one known planet with life, is contradicted and opposed by a parallel universe, which is its opposite counterpart universe. In the latter universe, there is not only 1 planet with life, but rather every planet is alive. And this universe has so many events simultaneously happening within it, that it takes on an infinitesimally small size. It is a known proposition uttered by McKenna, but has roots older in science of theoretical physics, that the more time advances, the more events simultaneously occurs with each other, and as a result in order for their interactions to be occurring simultaneously with each other all at once, I.e., every single events must interact at the same time with all other events, and all events as a totality must interact with each one event that makes up the whole.
The dimension of viruses are another universe wholes life form developed to such a degree that each hosting a one dominant unified species, took on self determination and is interacting with other planets of the same developments. And this entire universe of all living self determined planets are disclosed and happening within the numerous, or relatively short numbered, organism that constitutes the many species on earth, one of which is the rational animal, the human being.
Viruses are living planets
A virus is simply a DNA strand enveloped by a membrane. This envelope of reality slowly starts to grow and complicate itself into complex structures and eventually organisms like bacteria. These bacteria’s hold the DNA as their mind, which is reality itself, and determines accordingly to their growth and development. Or that reality is growing through them.
These viruses are planets that begin to take on figure and form of their own, and develop a positive interaction with other viruses that are planets to form universes and galaxies that are on their own right organic and rational, that is what we call a “cell”.
These structures developed to conceive all known objects in nature like trees, animals, vegetation, and eventually lead to a self-conscious being which is approaching as close of an ideal representation of themselves as possible. Nature is at home with itself. The cell is the most basic unit of life and it is ontologically the structure result of an inumerable set of rational planets coming together to forming a living being.
The fallacy of result inferred from multiple contradictions
There are few assumption that because are stated together are falsely taken to explain the whole idea, this is a logical fallacy that because a set of statements are stated together each of which cover a certain angle about a topic, is assumed that a comprehensive account on the topic is sufficiently stated without the need to connect them together.
the fallacy is not in the logic which outlines the contradiction properly together in a valid structure. To do so, one has to realize that contractions are only such because they are not properly connected with each other, but rather insisted on having a connection where one is on the opposite side of the other, reverse the side, and you may have a valid connection.
How rabbies controlles the host to spread itself, makes it aggressive, and foam from the mouth so saliva can spread .
Evolution within evolution
Drakes equation, quantity, it is mathematically and logically irrational to suppose that only in the past million of years life existed.
Viruses are advanced life forms that developed their civilization microscopically. Animals and humans are their conceptions, they use our thoughts and experiences as currency.
Development is infinitesimally determined
They are at different dimension, they are too small to be touched.
Simple to complex
The assumption that the world begins from simpler towards complex is on the surface ungrounded because it is not obvious what “complex” means? Evolution demonstrates that there is progressive complexity in the development of physiological operations. Ontologically however progression from absolute principle is digression of the infinite indeterminacy to finite determinations, such steps are positive because they are negations from an ultimately null principle, and in this way they are conceivable as some definite object for study. The infinite principle starts as the absolute point and is more complex than any abstraction of it because the ontological understanding of complexity is judged on the power for existence, generation, rather than the details exhibited for analysis.
The proposition that the world is first complex and develops towards simpler forms assumes in the beginning potentiality is first complex because of infinite possibilities, and the move to making that actual involves particular abstractions, when taken on their own independent from the whole of their possibilities are by contrast simpler. Whether the abstractions of possibilities into particular determinations are simple because they are analyzable or simple in composition is not such an obvious question because complexity depends on the particularity of the quality which is not determinable by abstraction of components said to be its constituents. For example the empirical analysis of biological life form seems more accessible than the analysis of inorganic matter because the space occupied by the former is smaller and more condensed than the latter therefore it is more isolatable and examinable. However, the measure of the space disclosing the set of activities does not determine the amount of the activities disclosed by it because as we see in a singularity an infinite measure of mass is disclosed by the smallest space.
the amount of activities is not measurable as 1 quantity equal to a single abstraction of body because the mere abstraction of body as 1 quantity does not tell us whether it is redundancy of the same quality grouping many bodies together or that the body is indicative of a unique quality separating bodies as different groups, both statements assert the same thing in different manner, do not explain how quality determines quantitive measure but only that it ought to. For example a species is differentiated from another not by the amount of members making up the population but how the population conforms to certain kind of form associated among set of individuals differentiating them as distinct population from other groups not partaking in the same function (add some specific species with low population and one with large, insects constitute the highest population ofliving organism on earth, ). It is an interesting question as to whether there are more unique connections concurring among qualities in the smaller space disclosing biological life form as opposed to the vast space occupied by inorganic matter. The point is that we do not have to reach out to the outer most regions of space to find the most mysterious object. For example, DNA is more mysterious than any inorganic mass because it is the longest molecule yet takes up the smallest space (add how it’s power is judged on generation rather than quantitive length and how the nucleus remained from the beginning, the bands that wrap around it are the information being communicated passed by light presupposing itself as other. DNA is the longest molecule because the nucleus is the property that remains from the very beginning. The nucleus is akin to blackhole and all the other parts of the cell around it are like light around the black hole. DNA is the physical mechanism of the way of consciousness communicates with itself, leaves itself, looses the idea than comes back to it. This is exhibited in the very physical nature of the double helix, both sides of the information go away from each other than reemerge back meeting at the same point only to expand away from each other once again. Add to consciousness rediscovering itself. That is the infinite process. We take the cognitive process of Forgetting to be the inactivity of mind and the lack of information. However to for-get is identical with being consumed with the activity such that to lack analysis of it. For get is to loose one self in the activity which is where information is gathered. To remember is to analyze the information that was experienced)
This brings up important distinction in the definition of what constitutes “natural”
From complex to simply, chemicals are non-linear interactions
The notion that the world is complex in the onset and moves towards simplification relates to the movement from unknown to known. The need to know, is feature of consciousness, and this need for exploration seems to be determination of nature. Any physical entity no matter how fundamental possess formula consisting of combinations of elements. For example, how does hydrogen involve physical patterns found in helium, nitrogen etc(use actual example). If it is more atomically fundamental than them? It seems to be a universal feature of physical composition no matter of the atomic structure that bare chemistry is boundary-“limit”- disclosing an abstraction of particular kind of relations. Any particular chemical element invokes boundary disclosing behaviours prevalent among other elements. The reason why chemical elements are categorized based on their atomic structure is because each chemical element is primarily geometric structure, the proton being the positive building block of the form. For example, the tabular arrangement of the elements depends on “periodic trends” of recurring chemical properties.
Periodic trends are specific patterns that are present in the periodic table that illustrate different aspects of a certain element, such aspects are behaviours like atomic radius metallic character and reactivity etc. These trends are based on the periodic law which states that if the chemical elements are listed in order of increasing atomic number, many of their properties go through cyclical changes, with elements of similar properties recurring at intervals. In other words, chemical properties of the elements recur in predictable way when the elements are arranged in order of increasing atomic number. In quantity it is stated that the atomic number is merely increasing but in quality this increase in atomic number is what is required for the change of geometric forms, like a square involves more angles than a triangle, helium requires more protons than hydrogen.
These cyclical changes are process of organism, it is the reemergence of generation to decay with the mediation being the degree of processes maturity. For example after arranging elements in their increasing atomic numbers, many of the physical and chemical properties of lithium are recurred into sodium such as its vigorous reactivity with water, which again recurs in the next cycle starting with potassium. This is in the same way how you can find a triangle implicit in a square. Principle of organicism is Aristotle’s notion that the oak tree is implicit in the acorn. How can an oak tree be implicit in an acorn? The reason why this example is so philosophically prominent because it demonstrates the drastic physical transformation of the entity that is not explainable
The reason why chemicals always come in combinations relates to the logical principle of predicate (explain how one principle presupposes the other based on the axiom of equally necessary but not necessarily equal. Hydrogen supposed oxygen as its proposition and oxygen presupposes hydrogen as predicate. ) For example water is the relation of h2o, means that water is the abstraction of hydrogen and oxygen in relation. Object that is combination of other objects discloses the conception of its components, yet as their conception it abstracts their relation as conceivable formula. The whole is the conceptions of its parts and the parts are conceivable because of the whole.
The world is at the beginning complex because it requires to be unwinded, unknotted. (Add to infinity as a knot). Complexity is condensation, and this is the idea that complexity towards simplicity is the unknotting process that becomes in its turn more complex. the unknotting of the most complex principle therefore is proved to be even more complex and this is the reasoning behind the notion that the world is progressing towards further complexity.
1034
“This presupposed un−conditioned is therefore the groundless immediate, whose being is nothing except to be present as something groundless. When, therefore, all the conditions of the fact are present, that is when the totality of the fact is posited as a groundless immediate, this scattered multiplicity inwardises [erinnert] itself in its own self. The whole fact must be present in its conditions, or all the conditions belong to its Existence, for all of them constitute the reflection; or, determinate being, because it is condition, is determined by form; consequently its determinations are determinations of reflection and the positing of one essentially involves the positing of the others.”
(Critique whitehead general trend of evolution is to go higher and higher) It is inconclusive to define evolution only as the process where life develops from lower life forms to higher forms because this understanding although does explain the universal nature of development, at the same time does not explain the way the path of progress is maintained. Evolution is not merely the direction of some predisposed process because this requires the more fundamental explanation of evolution as the relation that maintains the form of origination. Evolution is only said to be general direction of growth insofar as it concurs relations that maintain reserved aim.
Aim constitutes for the activity of progress subsistence because stability is only continuity of some definite determination. According to whitehead the only stability in the process of evolution is progress because aim maintains on track the advance of activity determinate from beginning that serves as end point.
The lack of advance is still an advance so far as there is aim from which divergence still necessitates the aim of the activity. But stability as we mean the remaining in same overlooks how a thing is not everything else. Something is only stable as remaining the same thing because it is not everything else that is in constant flux of change. A thing is only stable so far as it maintains itself through process of flux. Stability is the manavouring of itself through every form of change bestowed. In order “to progress” requires that a thing constitutes for progress a determinate element. Progress means both the maintaining of change as determination or the determining of change.
Both of these mean that the stability of progress is the maintenance of determinate being. (find where you say stability as remaining in one place still has the aim of staying in one place which presupposes the negatives that aims to divulge that aim into the movement elsewhere) because as we shown it is impossible for there to be no aim even with process of lack of action. The problem of not being process still involves the active aim to insist on having no aim which being itself an aim, aims to alter an impossibility, having no aim. The insistence on lacking aim is the negation against the determination for aim. The question of stability in evolution is not whether there is aim or not but the determinations that holds either or, as their aim.
In the presupposition that stability is only progress is assumption that the determination for aim always wins the battle against the determination for no aim. But this fact misses the point because as we stated regress still constitutes progression as it takes aim as the standard from which its activity is causing a divergence from, that is progress from the negative. However there is something logically true to the fact that progress involves the determination for aim as being the foundational principle for the determination that works to lack aim. The process of inverse determinations concerning aim are not the dead end where progress is stuck as stability because this is the wrong understanding of how the latter serves as the former.
Progress constitutes stability precisely because of the struggle against each involved in the inverse nature of determinations. The idea of progress as fundamental activity of evolution involves the difficulty of novelty. The notion of novelty involves the logic that when an achievement is actualized the actualization of the achievement during the development acquires the fitness of skill that surpasses its achievement. During the splitting off of species from genus, what we take to be primal organisms at one point in history constituted the most advanced form. Life forms we now take to be primal are at some point the newest model of development.
Evolution cannot stop short in explaining only how new life forms originate but why old life forms at one point constituted an advancement even with the arrival of new and more advanced life forms. It seems that evolution is not only the process of getting from one life form to another but evolving is the internal relation of the interactions between currently living beings. Evolving is not merely the path of getting to some end but this path seems to be the effect of activity sustaining. This means that evolution is passage where one life form enters the life of other forms.
Evolving is the transactions between organism and not merely the general trend of development. It is in ancient terms the study of the soul in relation to body, in modern sense, mind matter relation. There is an implicit process where life forms are able to transform into each other not only in a linear manner of development but also as regression as accord with the law of fatigue. During the general trend of development animals advance and regress across hierarchies of development. This points to the fact that evolution is universally an ethical process for the individual organism.
Evolution is examination of the power of exploration concerning the idea. (The idea of reincarnation is basic intuition of the fact that individual life forms are subject to being other life forms based on ethical merit but it falls short in explaining how this actually takes place. It usually resorts to the classic misapprehension of the soul as able to take on any body, which as Aristotle points out the body and soul are identical in existence and one cannot exists when the other is not present. However the idea that life forms transform constantly can be explored scientifically beginning with Aristotle’s premise that body and soul are indivisible. But here we are already faced with a problem that the earlier notion of the soul leaving the body purports to solve. That is, when the body dies, how can the soul of the decease become that of another body? This question assumes that the soul of the individual organism is somehow unique and is reserved in order for its body to transform into that of other life forms. But the soul of the organism is its mind.
When the evolutionary transformation occurs the body is simultaneously changed into some other organism because matter is the substratum that conforms to the idea. What is in fact reserved is not som identity of the individual organism because because that is indistinguishable from the species, and the species so far as the individual changes does not automatically change, an individual ant is simply the expression of the nature of ants. The idea that the soul of the organism so far as not being determined by the body but vice versa, the soul is always changing because the soul is rational, it is mind always in thought, the transformation of one body to another happens instantaneously with the change in thought of one idea to another. Sensible experience narrows the notion of body to those experiences that can be felt, seen, etc. But forgets the broader dimension known as “tangible” which as noun is said to constitute perceptible touch but is not reducible to this extent because of its more fundamental definition meaning clear and definite real.
(Add to Descartes clear and distinct) tangible experience is where bodies generally operate within and this dimension for example is where molecular and atomic bodies operate within, which from a perceptible sense is the more abstract . This constitutes the activities of experiences. The experience of death brings with it the automatic change of the body the organism which deaths occurs too, one single body becomes billions of microorganism. We assume that when a body dies the microorganism that decompose it come from somewhere external from the environment. But this is based on the assumption that the environment is somehow separate from the individual, an assumption that cannot be made at the molecular level because the distinction between organism and environment is very empirically ambiguous there humans are more complex because we do have more of an individuality but the nature of the human species is that to be individuality) what is being reserved is not the particular organism but rather the experiences of that animal. But how can the experiences of the organism pass on after its death, through what channel does it continuity so as to transform into the body of a different organism?
There is no sudden break in the time between the animals death and the passing of its experiences into the transformation into different organism. This happens simultaneously. For example, most ants remain within a short distance within the colony. Some ants however venture off into vast distances away from the colony in search of food. There is an implicit ethical and unconscious hypothesis operative in the conduct of the ant being adventurous and wondering off in search of food, that is, the possibility of finding more quantity and quality of food. Under this logical assumption the ant ventures off away from the colony and ends up finding food confirming its hypothesis but in the process dies before making it back to the colony. It is empirically true that at the same instance the ant dies, microorganism begin to automatically consume the corps of the ant. Microorganism are harbour the changing forms of elements as environment for their transformations. For example, different degrees of viral- certain viruses spread through air like flu as they travel across organism in small liquid orbs. Some viruses like hiv spread only through constant and they exists only on relatively solid surfaces like skin.
These microorganism being adequately fed by the corps of the ant develop the fitness to overcome parasites. The microorganism having fed on the ant not only possess the content of the ant as food for energy but also harbour the ants genetic information whereby the experiences are transmitted through the same environment bacteria and ants generally love, back to the species of ants. This is carried to the invasion of the parasite whose in order to survive the viral invasion infests a host like a bird. The bird dies and ants eat is somehow the information comes back to the ants where the colony feasts and the next generation the ants develop wings(?)
The virus is not just in you, that is after it infects you, but before it does so, you are in the virus, in other words, it is a fundamental form that disclosed you, and watches your behaviour, and if it sees weakness, that is opportunity for it to be attracted to you to enter.
Pandemics
these rational planets have made themselves explicit in this era. They are incurable, unpredictable- can happen at any moment and at any time, and can happen at any level of intensity, from mild to deadly and to anyone without what appears to be any reason. We cannot even provide direct evidence of their existence but we know they are undoubtedly there. what is however in doubt is that some people are using this so called “invasion“ against humanity as an opportunity, to control, profit, rule and conquer.
Pandemics are contributors, canons, pushing forward human evolution. But this is not pleasant from the individual point of view because there are two forces in play against each other. In older times, plagues took on a more physical condition, meaning that the physical conditions of man was not developed. In the Bubonic plague for example during the dark ages, the human race was faced against a super deadly bacteria that infiltrated the human specimen and killed more than half the population of Europe and other places around the world. This plague is a result of the unhygienic conditions that humans lived within. The bacteria itself grew and developed in those conditions.
The important feature of a bacteria is that it can develop in almost any environment given enough time, for example, even if take soup, which is the fatty compound used to get ride of bacteria, and keep it on a surface for a certain length of time, bacteria grows and even adapts on it. The trick of soup is that it is a quick solvent that when you place on a surface like your hands, and mix water with it, it captures any bacteria on that surfaces and carries it away from the surface. The reason why soups cleans objects with water is because it washes them away fast. But take that speed away, and keep soup on a counter for long period of time, it starts to develop bacteria on its own. The point is that the bubonic plague can be called a true pandemic in the classical sense, that there is a true viral attack on the human body, and the resolution to that is change the human condition, by making it cleaner, by isolating the sick from each other and from the healthy, by developing healthy habits, cleaner environments etc., these aspects developed after the bubonic plague improving the conditions of human being. As a result, the bubonic plague resulted to some degree in the modern way of life that we utilize to this day, the frequent washing of hands with soup, taking baths, cleaning after defecation, organizing waste into special places, having efficient sewage and plumbing systems etc.,
The most recent so called “pandemic” faced by the human being known as the “corona virus” pandemic is unlike any other pandemic experienced in human history. It is not technically speaking a “pandemic” in the classical sense because there is no real discernible viral bacterium that can be isolated and identified as the specific culprit attacking the human system, nor does it exhibit any physical symptoms that can identify it as a distinct virology, it is very similar to the classical corona virus known as the flu, or influenza, which actually was a pandemic of its own a 100 years earlier, to which the human body developed herd immunity and adapted to it.
Gene editing
This most recent pandemic is not physical like all other pandemics, but it is rather mental. The force in nature in this plague is not a bacterium like all other plagues, but instead it is rather some other force, be it the human being itself, or some greater force unknown, that is attempting to take control of the human mind. Certain human beings are trying to take the controls of the mind of other human beings.
There is a silent war being fought over the development of a new technology emerging on the horizon. This new technology is known as “gene editing”. Who controls this technology will able to determine the future nature of the human being. It can be both positive and negative. One group is trying to access this technology to trial its effects on the human population. This includes changing or manipulating the human physiology. This is done for the sake of implementing a certain worldview onto all people. It is also to harness the thoughts of people, suck their thoughts as energy. In exchange it is also to control their mind by giving them idea not of their own, takes their own ideas and giving them ideas not of their own.
The gene editing technology will be a sophisticated harvesting method of genetically modified organism or GMO. This method is already implemented in the development of agriculture and food. Most food today is GMO and to some degree there are some positive effects, even though there is some negative effects. The way GMO works on a basic level is related to selective breeding, where weaker strains of the same species are selected off, or killed-off, which in turn allows other strains to grow and thrive. This means that certain qualities belonging to certain organism, let’s say the size of an Apple, is maintained, while other qualities like its smell, or its taste being too bitter, is elected out. And the best quality of each strain are interbred together, let’s say the size from one strain of apple is mixed with the sweetness from the strain of another apple, and this results in an interwoven strain containing both qualities. This process is aiming to be implemented onto the human being.
The idea is that a vaccine is to employed within the human system. This new vaccine is unlike any other previous vaccine in the classical sense. Classical vaccines introduce a weakened or a dead strain of a viral bacterium into the human body so as to trigger antibiotics in the body that recognize and develop memory of the virus so that when the same virus appears again in the body, the antibodies recognize that and can deal with it accordingly as they did before. A classical vaccine allows the host to preadapt to a virus before a natural one invades its body. But this new vaccine does not introduce any strain of virus to the human body, but Instead what it does is that it introduces an RNA code, this RNA code is infinitely multiplying and constantly changing — it is a potential DNA strand, or rather the code for the potential to be any DNA quality.
DNA is impossible to change once it is part of the physical structure of a thing because it is identical with what the thing is, for example the DNA for brown hair is identical with what it means to have brown hair. B it in RNA where DNA is not yet determined in a certain way, it can be so be determined in a certain way, the brown hair before the hair is brown, this is an epigenetic feature. This new vaccine introduces this RNA strain into the human body, a potential for any DNA, and attached with it is another technology, known as “nano bots”, nano tech, or microtechnology, which consists of two aspects; first, it is some kind of very tiny small “camera” or recording device which can take an imprint, like a blueprint, of this newly introduced RNA strain layered out on top of the hosts DNA, and can transfer this data to a software somewhere accessible on a computer device.
The other and second aspects of this nanotech is that it is equipped with some kind of manipulation device, either tiny pricks or needles that can be controlled by a software from a computer device. The idea is that the combination of a recording device and the manipulation tool on the nano-bot , this nanotechnology is able layer the artificial RNA on top of the hosts natural DNA, and take a recording on this relationship, it will see that, the hosts DNA is set in a certain and definite way, but the RNA on top of that is indeterminate, uncertain, and randomly mutating, and constantly changing. As it is seeing one strand constantly changing on top of the fixed and still one, it is able to use the nano bots pricks and select off certain DNA components, and in turn, determine in that place other components derived from the artificial RNA strand. The body will adapt and take that aspects from the RNA as if it’s part of its own DNA and its becomes part of the DNA. This can change mental and physical traits and behaviour.
Our contemporary modern scientific understanding of DNA is most developed in positing an empirical analysis. This means that modern science has a good forensic understanding of DNA, in other words, an empirical analysis shows where a DNA is located, and how it looks like. A physical analysis shows that the location of DNA constitutes the nucleus of a cell, at the centre, and around the nucleus begin the distinct components of a cell that perform their respective functions. The stipulation is that the nucleus of a cell is the factory house generating the components making up the cell. If we go deeper into the nucleus itself, the physical understanding also shows how a DNA looks like as opposed to a RNA strand.
The RNA appears as a half strand, an incomplete helix form. While the DNA strand is a complete double helix form. DNA is complete because it is a determined sequence of qualities, but more broadly qualities are also events. A DNA is a determined set of events for the organism. While RNA is an incomplete set of events, a set of potential events. This single illustrations RNA is an abstraction of RNA that comes in a complex of infinite RNA bundles, they are incomplete. RNA is known as messenger carrying instructions from DNA for controlling the synthesis of proteins, although in some viruses RNA rather than DNA carries the genetic information.
The problem with the physical descriptions for of the relationship of DNA to cell, and than the cell to the organicism, is that the importance of the dimensional differences between these levels of reality is not taken into account by the mere biological account of them. The general biochemical outline shows that DNA forms the cell, and cells form the organism, so the common conclusion is that the organism is made out of its DNA, like a shirt is made out of thread. However this description, although may be true from the point of view it is analyzed, does not explain the dimensional difference between the DNA and the cell, than the cell as compared with the organism.
Changing DNA changes the destiny of the organism, it’s life path, events in time.
Virology
Contemporary modern virology claims to have a comprehensive illustration of what goes into the physical composition of a virus. The initial claim of virology is that viruses are the most basic living or proto-living structures, and so their composition is rather simple to illustrate. Our initial hypothesis at the beginning of this section is that if there is so called “alien” life, which is another word for unknown life, that life would be more developed in time, meaning having had more time to develop and maximizing on that development. Moreover, the more developed a race is, the more minute and microscopic it becomes, this fact we can derive from the general trend in the development of technology, that it is annually becoming smaller and smaller.
The idea is that what we identify as the most basic living structures, I.e., viruses, are in fact the “missing link” or rather the very moment where the evolution of life took on an inversion, inverted or “flipped”, meaning that the evidence for the most basic structures are evidence of those structures being made, and produced by the most complex developed life. In other words, when life became so developed and advanced, nature started anew, from the primal position, but this time, this primal basis is being made and manufactured by whats on the other side prior to it, the highest peak of life. The highest life form started to reproduce the most primal form of life, and this point where both meet each other on the same circumference of the circle is evident by the study of viruses. Even thought viruses exhibits the most basic physical structures, they behave in the most complex manner. For example, the virion is composed of viral structural proteins and nucleic acid
The way they behave is that they manipulate DNA structures, they construct, reorganize DNA. This cannot be a “blind” task because than an order of something would not exhibit a form because a form is based on some conception, whether that be from an external conception or a self-conception.
“second inviolate property of viruses is that they do not reproduce by binary fission – a method of asexual reproduction where pre-existing cells split into two identical daughter cells. For viruses, the process of reproduction is akin to an assembly line in which different parts come together to create new viral particles. In general, viruses contain only one type of either DNA or RNA) that carries the information necessary for viral replication. Nevertheless, it is clear now that some viruses contain other nucleic acid molecules; for example, in retroviruses, cellular transfer RNAs are essential for the action of the enzyme reverse transcriptase.