Section 81 (last updated 07.02.2021
Alienation disconnected from true essence when the creator worships the objects they create
estrangement- making normal things abnormal and abnormal things normal. Relates to being ignorant, a disconnection from the essence that makes the thing. For example, if the essence of man is to be informed and be rational, estrangement is their ignorance and blind following orders.
The nature of man
Kant- on the character of the species
We do not have any thing similar to compare man with. For example we do not have another rational species, like aliens, to compare man with, and so he is left as a unique organism standing distinct from all other animals. While it is true that all other animals are different in their own respect, they still all share the commonality of not possessing the capacity of reason, I.e, they are not self conscious. In this way the human being is the only terrestrial being that is known to exists.
E. ON THE CHARACTER OF THE SPECIES
“In order to characterize a species of beings, two things are required: we have to apprehend it together with other species we are acquainted with under one concept, and to state its characteristic property (pro-prielas) – the quality by which it differs from the other species – and use this as our basis for distinguishing it from them. – But if we are comparing a kind of being that we know (A) with another that we do not know (non-A), how can we expect or demand to state the character of the one we know, when we have no middle term for the comparison (tertium comparationis) ? –
Let the highest specific concept be that of a terrestrial rational being: we cannot name its character because we have no knowledge of non-terrestrial rational beings that would enable us to indicate their characteristic property and so to characterize terrestrial rational beings among rational beings in general. It seems, then, that the problem of indicating the character of the human species is quite insoluble ; for to set about solving it, we should have to compare two species of rational beings through experience, and experience does not present us with a second such species.”
Kant assumes the proposition that he cannot answer, I.e, the insoluble nature of rational beings in general.
this general idea of rational being is derived from the lack of knowing any other rational being aside from the human being, and from this inverse induction; first we begin with having only one thing we are trying to figure that has no point of reference with anything else. Second, we must find the quality in that thing that goes behind it and is universally applicable to things that are unknown. However the idea is that first, we begin with the assumption that there is an unknown thing that is alike the known category we are trying to figure the distinct nature of, and second also the nature which is shared with other things alike, whether they are known or unknown.
Kant, concludes that through sensible experience we do not have knowledge of any other rational beings except the human being. The problem is that we do not have any other being like man to compare man with, but we must derive from man the quality that then would be applicable to any being that would be comparable to man if there would be a comparison. Kant goes on to answer the nature of a specific rational being that we know of, which is the human being, what we know about the human being, and from those characteristics of man, we can derive universal characteristics that would define any other rational being in general. The question concerning human beings universal nature is that whether he has something in himself that excludes him from all other known living beings on earth that we do not identify as rational, but also if he has something which is shared with beings that are unknown who’s origins are obviously outside earth as we have no other species like man on earth.
Man has a character that “he himself creates”
“All we have left, then, for assigning man his class in the system of animate nature and so characterizing him is this: that he has a character which he himself creates, insofar as he is capable of perfecting him-self according to the ends that he himself adopts. Because of this, man, as an animal endowed with the capacity for reason (animal ration-abilis) can make of himself a rational animal (animal rationale) – and 322 as such he first preserves himself and his species; secondly, he trains, instructs and educates his species for domestic society; and thirdly, he governs it as a systematic whole (that is, a whole ordered by principles of reason) as is necessary for society. –
“animal ration-abilis”
animal that is capable or able of of reason –
with the Latin term “abilis” meaning — “Suffix. -ābilis m , f (neuter -ābile); third declension. -able; able or worthy to be (the recipient of an action).”
“Ration-abilis” characterizes the human being as a species that makes it different from all other species, and it is the feature we take to be the universal in all potential rational being that we may not know of.
Man brings “discord” into “concord”
Humans create order out of chaos, but only insofar as chaos is the means for the order, with the former being the process and the latter the end result, and we see this throughout history, that the process of history involves chaos, but the result is always order, and specifically the life of individual men are usually sacrificed for an end result only enjoyed by later generations.
“- But in comparison with the Idea of possible rational beings on earth, the characteristic of his species is this: that nature implanted in it the seeds of discord, and willed that man’s own reason bring concord, or at least a constant approximation to it, out of this. In the Idea, this concord is the end; but in actuality, discord is the means, in nature’s schema, of a supreme and, to us, inscrutable wisdom which uses cultural progress to realize man’s perfection, even at the price of much of his enjoyment of life.”
“Technical”, “pragmatic” and “moral” predispositions
“Among the living beings that inhabit the earth, man is easily distinguished from all other natural beings by his technical predisposition for manipulating things (a mechanical predisposition joined with consciousness), by his pragmatic predisposition (for using other men skilfully for his purposes), and by the moral predisposition in his being (to treat himself and others according to the principle of freedom under laws). And any one of these three levels can, itself, already distinguish man characteristically from the other inhabitants of the earth.”
1. The technical predisposition. Mans own physical design is made for the potential of manipulating nature in a rational way, to transform his ideas into technology, to produce what is within his mind, outwards into an object in reality. Kant says;
“Whether man was originally destined to walk on two feet or on four (as Moscati proposed, perhaps merely as a thesis for a dissertation); – whether the Gibbon, the Orang-Utang, the Chimpanzee and so on are destined [to walk upright or on all fours] (here Linné and Camper disagree with each other); – whether man is a herbivorous or (since he has a mem- branous stomach) a carnivorous animal; – whether, having neither claws nor fangs, and so no weapons (were it not for reason), he is by nature a predator or a peaceable animal: the answer to them is of no consequence. In any case, this question could still be raised: is man by nature a sociable animal or a solitary one who shies away from his neighbours?”
The human hand
(40,000-year-old cave art, first painting of hand)
The proof that man is rational is not only in his behaviour or rational intention but it is also built into the very structure of his physical being.
“The characterization of man as a rational animal is already present in the form and organization of the human hand, partly by the structure and partly by the sensitive feeling of the fingers and fingertips. By nature made the human hand fit for manipulating things not in one particular way but in any way whatsoever, and so guided reason in the mind of man, and indicated the technical predisposition – or the predisposition for skill – of his species as a rational animal.”
- Pragmatic predisposition, the ability to use other men to fulfil the purpose of the species, the purpose of slavery in history.
“II. The pragmatic predisposition is a step higher. It is man’s predisposition to become civilized by culture, especially the cultivation of social qualities, and his natural tendency in social relations to leave the crude state of mere private force and to become a well-bred (if not yet moral) being destined for concord. – Man can be and needs to 324 be educated, as much by instruction as by training (discipline). The question here is (with or against Rousseau): whether the character of man’s species, in terms of its natural predisposition, fares better in the crude state of its nature than with the arts of culture, where there is no end in sight?- It must be noted, first of all, that when any other animal [species] is left to its own devices, each individual attains its complete destiny; but in man’s case only the species, at most, achieves it. So the human race can work its way up to its destiny only by progress throughout a series of innumerable generations. In the course of it, the goal remains always in prospect for him; but while his tendency to this final end can often be obstructed, it can never be completely reversed.”
The pragmatic predisposition is the development of man by way of other men, either by way of cooperation or force, to control his crude individual instincts by entering upon a social communion to achieve a higher goal, that if no individual man can achieve on their own, each must contribute a share to a whole that will later be enjoyed by future generations. Slavery for example is a perfect example of the pragmatic predisposition of man because man has recognized first, that he has an animal instinct within himself, and second, that animal instinct is present in other men also. And so in order to control that animal instinct within himself and hone that towards a sublation for achieving a higher and more rational end, man sought to dominate that instinct present within himself by dominating that instinct in other men. The sacrifice of the life of a few individual men is made for the purpose of achieving an end that the species as a whole would later on enjoy, but the conundrum is that in every present age, that sacrifice for the future is always made.
J ANTHROPOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION
I86
“The sum total of what pragmatic anthropology has to say about man’s destiny and the character of his development is this: man is destined by his reason to live in a society with men and in it to cultivate himself, to civilize himself, and to make himself moral by the arts and sciences. No matter how strong his animal tendency to yield passively to the attractions of comfort and well-being, which he calls happiness, he is still destined to make himself worthy of humanity by actively struggling with the obstacles that cling to him because of the crudity of his nature. Man must, therefore, be educated to the good. But those who are supposed to educate him are again men who are themselves still involved in the crudity of nature and are supposed to bring about what they themselves are in need of. This explains why man is constantly deviating from his destiny and always returning to it.”
When Kant says “cultivate himself, to civilize himself, “ he does not mean only the individual taking responsibility for himself only, but part of this “himself” is his species also, I.e., other men, are part of “himself”.
This is how this idea looks like in the domain of science, Kant says:
“In the whole human species, the drive to acquire scientific knowledge, as a form of culture that ennobles humanity, is completely out of proportion to a man’s life span. When a scholar has forged ahead in his own field to the point where he can make an original contribution to it, death calls him away, and his place is taken by a neophyte who, shortly before his own death; after he too has taken one step forward, in turn yields his place to another. — What a mass of information, what inventions in the way of new methods would we now have on hand had nature let an Archimedes, a Newton, or a Lavoisier, with their diligence and talent, live to be a hundred with their vigor undiminished! But the scientific progress of the species is never more than fragmentary (according to time), and has no guarantee against regression, with which it is always threatened by intervals of revolutionary barbarism.”
The goal of man is to contribute his share to whole of knowledge available to the species. An individual man can further advance the whole of knowledge available to the species. This means that after the death of an individual man, the whole body of knowledge available to all future generations after his death, ought to be edged forward, or rather is enhanced by adding more nuance to it, if he has contributed his fair share of information to the total body of knowledge available to all people after him, he has done his own particular purpose in relation to the species.
Moral predisposition
The moral predisposition is the best measure of weighing in the merit of one man against the species. This is made in the context of answering the question of whether man is by nature good or evil? The most appropriate answer seems to be that at the individual level man is influx and is capable of being both good and evil; man is good because he has the freedom of choosing, and in that choice he oppresses his instinctual desires for the purpose of imploring laws of justice that go beyond his immediate wants, but rationally knows to be better ways of behaving for himself and his communion.
While on the other hand, with the same capacity that he can do good, man also has the freedom to choose evil, and he can act bad even with the tendency of knowing that he is acting bad, and for this reason some thinkers say that man is inherently evil. However the comparison between man and species is that, as to whether single men are good or bad, the species seems to always be moving in the trend of doing better. However this itself can also be an abstraction because the species is the concept of the nature of men, and so it is dependent on how individual men act represents the species.
And if the species is represented by the few best, but if the best of them act in the worst way, then the species does not have a good representation; while if the species is represented by the majority, the majority of men are always flailing and are the sheeple of the few, then they too are also not the best representation of the species. The species therefore must be represented by an ideal vision of man, his potential; which is where the concept of the species is best represented, the species of man is the potential for his ideal form, which the process of history is working towards, and which the failings of individual men are only the workings and process towards this ideal achievement. And so we cannot judge the process of development, which involves the imperfect realities of men, to be the true representation of the ideal vision of the species.
There is however a conflict between the ideal vision of humanity as a species in contradistinction from the passion and desire of individual men. Hegel says that the passions may be selfish and negative, but the result they bring about in terms of change of history is almost always positive, the intent may be different from the result, and we have to take this dissolution as part of the process of progress.
“III. The moral predisposition. The question here is: whether man is good by nature, or evil by nature, or whether he is by nature equally receptive to good or evil, according as one or another hand happens to mould him (cereus in vitium flecti etc.) – in which case the species itself would have no character. – But this [last] situation is self-contradictory. For man is a being who has the power of practical reason and is conscious that his choice is free (a person); and in his consciousness of freedom and in his feeling (which is called moral feeling) that justice or injustice is done to him or, by him, to others, he sees himself as subject to a law of duty, no matter how obscure his ideas about it may be. This in itself is the intelligible character of humanity as such, and insofar as he has it man is good in his inborn predispositions (good by nature). But experience also shows that there is in man a tendency to actively desire what is unlawful even though he knows that it is unlawful- that is, a tendency to evil – which makes itself felt as inevitably and as soon as he begins to exercise his freedom, and which can therefore be considered innate. And so we must judge that man, according to his sensible character, is also evil (by nature). It is not self-contradictory to do this if we are talking about the character of the species; for we can assume that its natural destiny consists in continual progress toward the better.”
What constitutes “The true realm of freedom”?
SOSC 3552.06/POLS 3085.06 essay
Date: Oct.22.2013 Professor: Ted Winslow
According to Marx, human being is the potentially rational being, i.e. a “species being” capable of becoming a “universally developed individual”. This idea of the human as being universally developed is the ideal vision of man, not man within a particular age in history, but rather what would man look like if is fully developed. When fully developed, these individuals produce within “the true realm of freedom”. This production is characterized by three universal values: the ethical, aesthetical, and intellectual values, further elaborated as love, beauty, and truth.
These three universal capabilities are what any rational being would possess if they fully developed, that is, the intellectual relates to the value of truth, to possess infinite knowledge about the universe, the ethical relates to the value of love, which is the currency exchanged in a fully developed social setting, and more broadly how would people behave within a society and how they would relate to each other. and lastly the asethical which relates to the value of beauty, which historically has its place within art, but ultimately concerns the development of the technical predisposition of human beings resulting in the advancement of technology.
Production within “the true realm of freedom” has its ethical content in “relations of mutual recognition” (Marx Comments on James Mill). This paper examines how “relations of mutual recognition” constitute “the true realm of freedom”.
End in itself activities or “free activities” of appropriating truth and beauty within the ethical aspect of “relations of mutual recognition”, constitutes “the true realm of freedom” (Winslow Historical materialism 2007). First, we must examine who is capable of “free activities”, and what is meant by such an activity, before examining how this activity is characterized by “mutual recognition”.
Marx’s “universally developed individuals” produce within “the true realm of freedom”. This is based on the anthropological idea that the essence of human beings is the capacity for the “universal”. “Universally developed individuals” possess the powers capable of actualizing three universal values of truth, beauty and love. Such individuals “need, capacities, pleasures” are an expression of the “universal” (Marx Grundrisse). These individual’s production is then governed by the “universal”, i.e. they do not “reproduce…in one specificity”, but rather in “totality”(Marx Grundrisse).
“Universally developed individuals” appropriating these universal values in an activity actualizes eudaimonia, i.e. a truly happy existence. According to Aristotle and Marx, ‘reason’ governs this existence, and philia, i.e. true love or “mutual recognition”, is its ethical content. Producing within “the true realm of freedom”, by “universally developed individuals”, is characterized by philia, and thus is a eudaimonic activity (Winslow Historical materialism 2007).
Marx explains that both “art” and relations of “love” require developed capabilities for their appropriation:
“Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love only for love, trust for trust, etc. If you want to enjoy art, you must be an artistically cultivated person; if you want to exercise influence over other people, you must be a person with a stimulating and encouraging effect on other people. Every one of your relations to man and to nature must be a specific expression, corresponding to the object of your will, of your real individual life. If you love without evoking love in return—that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent—a misfortune.” (Marx The power of money)
Marx explains that “relations of mutual recognition” must be both reciprocal and mutual. Synonymously with artistic work, it must be recognized mutually and reciprocally. Both, however, require developed capabilities for their actualization and recognition.
Developed capabilities include rational and ethical aspects, or what Aristotle outlines as virtues, of which there are two types: the moral and intellectual virtues. For instance, a “universally developed individual” possesses both phronesis, i.e. practical knowledge, and, episteme, i.e. theoretical knowledge.
This individual makes use of these virtues when partaking in “justice”, which according to Aristotle is the practice of “complete virtue […] in relation to our neighbor” (Nichomachean Ethics Book V). According to Aristotle, “justice” is the ultimate virtue because it requires and encompasses all other virtues for its actualization. In other words, it is the application of all verified, in relation to other.
These developed capabilities, e.g. “an eye for beauty of form,” as well the experience of such beauty, is the true “currency” exchanged in “relation of mutual recognition”. Producing in “the true realm of freedom” is an exercise of praxis, i.e. end in-itself activity. “Free time”, in such an activity, “is wealth itself” (Winslow Marx 1971 257).
More time is made for the enjoyment of “free activities” in “the true realm of freedom”, e.g. spending more time playing beautiful music rather than making the instruments required for such music. “The realm of necessity”, i.e. instrumental activity or poiesis, is consistent with “the true realm of freedom”, insofar as, they both are an expression of the “universal”. Producing in “the realm of necessity” is “universal” since it also requires developed ethical and rational capabilities to create the necessary ‘means’ for the ‘end’, e.g. in order to play the best piano music, one requires the best piano. This is explicit since the end determines the means with “the rigidity of a law” (Winslow historical materialism 2007).
Both realms are antithetical to “alienated” labor existing in capitalism. In “the true realm of freedom”, real wealth “of the individual depends entirely on the wealth of his real connections” (Marx the German ideology). This realm is antithetical to the idea that the quantity of commodities one possesses is true wealth, instead, it is internally related to the quality of relations one has.
Marx outlines “the true realm of freedom”, i.e. how humans produce if they “carried out production as human beings”, in this sense:
“Each of us would have in two ways affirmed himself and the other person. 1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and therefore enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also when looking at the object I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses and hence a power beyond all doubt. 2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man’s essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man’s essential nature. 3) I would have been for you the mediator between you and the species, and therefore would become recognized and felt by you yourself as a completion of your own essential nature and as a necessary part of yourself, and consequently would know myself to be confirmed both in your thought and your love. 4) In the individual expression of my life I would have directly created your expression of your life, and therefore in my individual activity I would have directly confirmed and realized my true nature, my human nature, my communal nature.” (Marx comments on James Mill)
Marx outlines that production within “the true realm of freedom” is universal both individually and communally. Although it is individuals who actualize the “universal”, it can only be done in relation to others. This ultimately characterizes relations of “mutual recognition”.
First, Marx explains that making use of ones developed capabilities, and appropriating in accordance with the “universal”, fulfills individual joy.
Second, others deriving “enjoyment” from appropriating the object, also fulfills “enjoyment” for the originator of the object, i.e. the enjoyment of others is a necessary aspect in the individuals enjoyment.
Third, since the product is “universal”, appropriating it exercises the “universal”. As well, the originator of the object is recognized in the appropriator’s “thought” and “love” for creating the object.
Fourth, the creator derives happiness when the appropriator derives happiness from the product. The “universal” value of love is fulfilled when an individual “confirmed” his or her “communal nature”. This quote explains how the “universal” intellectual and aesthetical values in a product, actualize the ethical value between the creator and the appropriator of the product, accounting for “the true realm of freedom”.
“Universally developed individuals” possess the developed capabilities required to produce within “the true realm of freedom”. Instrumental activities are the necessary means for end in-it-self activities. In this realm, more time is made for the latter; however, the former must also be an expression of the “universal” to be able to produce the latter. Producing within “the realm of freedom” actualizes joy individually and communally, and this constitutes the “universal” ethical content of “relations of mutual recognition”.
3-layers of reality
The ordinary sensible, technological, and mental
Corresponds to the human nature predispositions, what we can observe about man to differentiate him from all other animals, which his technical, in the shape of his body and how he shapes other bodies; in the pragmatic predisposition which is the sum total set of his social relations, how he relates, but in turn, how he is related to by other men, especially how he uses them to further his goals and implementing that into changing abs making society; and finally the moral predisposition which is how he conceives the world and operate within it, in the psychological sense how he wills a behaviour to the world, and in turn how the world behaves back to him. the last concerns the mans particular relation to the universal of the world, which could be an unknown aspect of himself, or rather himself in a different aspect of space and time.
1)We have the sensible, which is how you see the world in the manner you are born with. 2) The technological is how you see the world through the lenses of a technological achievements, through a 2-dimensional small plain, like a phone. And 3) through an ulterior state of mind, like on drugs.
The latter is the detachment from ordinary sensible experience by way of drugs, it makes it 2 dimensional, and this mediates the process of the sensible with that of the technical, the observer and his object, by viewing a lack of distinction between them, the 3-dimensional which is what ordinary sensible experience deals with, combine that with the 2 dimensional mental perception that the object exhibits, and the observer made his object to exhibit, the object is at the image of the observer, and within that image they merge into the same totality of reality that encompasses the revolved one given by nature, the natural condition. How your body would behave if it was left alone by the mind. The mind which left behind is identical with the environment it takes as distinct and outside itself.
Altering mind, drugs, make 3 dimensional sensible reality merge with 2 dimensional technology,
ethical
The Genealogy of the human race
History
Species being
(add this to evolution homoerctus) Human nature according to Marx is species being- the species of species the human being has the qualities of all forms of life into that one form. Instead of actualizing the universal forms into himself as their one form,
Reason produces form
Hegel elaborates the Aristotelian idea that Reason (which is the quality of thought) is substance of activity in the world. Also like Aristotle, Hegel states that Reason is more fundamental than matter. This does not mean that Reason can exist without matter, but that matter is simply the efficient causation of Reason, insofar as, Reason produces the form, the essential character that gives the material object the kind of function that makes it the kind of thing that it is. Hegel elaborates Aristotle’s idea that Reason is the thinking about thinking by explaining what this means. Hegel says that Reason exhibits infinite logical relations. This infinite nature of Reason divides itself into finite abstractions, each of which characterize the infinite as a whole.
Each abstraction from reason consists of a particular logical relation which exhibits form. Form is both the structure of the idea, as well as the activity that keeps that form the kind of idea that it is. Inherent in the very nature of form are what we identify as quantitive properties that constitute the material object. Each finite abstraction from the infinite nature of Reason manifest as a material object. And every time one finite abstraction manifest, it presupposes a subsequent form, and each subsequent form is the resolution of the predicate.
When fully developed
This is only a brief outline of Hegel’s idea because it’s full analysis requires a much larger explanation. Yet nevertheless, we can see that the material world is held by an infinite relations of form, and this process culminates into a particular form that consists of all forms that led to its completion and this process goes on indefinitely. But more defiantly, the form that reason arrives at which captures all of its pervious forms, is just simply the present state in time concerning its process of thinking about thinking. At this present, which is already a moment of your past, the form exhibiting the universal nature of Reason is what Marx calls the “species being”.
Marx is a very misunderstood philosophers like his teacher Hegel. Marx defines the human being as the “species being” in light of Aristotle’s definition of man, that something is, only is, when fully developed, and in light of Hegel’s idea of the particular form that exhibits the universal form; the species being is the material nature which constitutes the totality of all forms leading up to its development. From the very basic logical forms, to the geometric relations, into the chemical compounds, and to the biological spectrum of life forms, the species being captures the most stable and ethical representation of all that into one form. But this form is not exempt from development because, likewise all the forms that lead to its development, it is in and of itself a form leading to the development of the ideal nature of Reason itself. How it does this is precisely the question of transcended.
The human being is that when fully developed is self-consciousness. Nature when fully developed is self-conscious reason. The fully development of nature is therefore equal with the full development of the human being- which is self-conscious reason. The full development of nature is therefore the full development of the human being. Right now, nature is not fully developed.
An understanding into the human being provides the synthesis between The laws of nature and quantum mechanics. The term the “human being” is adopted from Aristotle. Aristotle’s notion on metaphysics exerts that something is only truly itself when fully developed.
World history
“Can only come to know a man once he is dead”
Hegel defines world history as the progressive development of the universe culminating in the history of the human being. World history indicates how human history constitutes universal history. World evolution aims to explain how the human being came to be the “species being” and why the universal is achieved with this species. Hegel’s understanding of the human being is adopted from Aristotle. Aristotle defines a thing from when it is fully developed. Aristotle does this to counteract the problems with abstractions, which is what an empirical analysis falls victim to because empirically the nature of a thing is associated with when it was observed, hence you look at something and say that it is is now for my observation defines its nature.
”can only know a man once he is dead”
Aristotle is famously known to say that “you can only come to know a man once he is dead” (paraphrase) because than your can look at over his whole life and judge the entirety of his actions not just a particular actions at a particular point in time. A man is judged to be good or bad only once he ceases to exists because as long as he continua to exists he is changing and can be on or the other, but when he stops being, that is an end limit to his timeline and anyone can reflect the entirety of his lifespan and see whether he was truly a good or a bad man.
The human being is understood to be the “species being”; this means the human species can do what all other species can do, the human being is not merely specialized to a specific nature within a specific habitat but is potentially universal in their activity, can do many things at the same time, and can adapt to any environment not being limited to one. This also means that the human is the one species that is every species
The term species being captures the ontological understanding that species partake in the process of achieving a final species. That there is an ultimate goal in evolution which development is moving towards actualizing, no matter whether that goal is numerous, repetitive, cyclical etc., The particular forms of life contribute to the resolution of the universal concept only because they are already determined by the universal. The countably infinite variations in species and their genius, as vast as they are in quantity, do not contradict the finalization into of evolution into one species.
The reason for the need of a final species is because that species would be the “ideal” of all other species, and that development necessarily requires the aim for an ideal, otherwise we would have no reason for the need for things to get “better” and better”. This aspect of development, which is the qualitative and what we mean by evolution in the first place, that things are evolving, which is changing towards a more improved version; this basis of evolution has to presuppose an ideal to aim for. The question becomes; what is capable of forming an ideal? Or rather where does this capacity for an ideal originate from in nature? We cannot merely say that this capacity for setting out an ideal, and then acting towards actualizing it comes out of no where; or that it is somehow a random occurrence that sprung out of nature, because than we would have to suppose two contradictory points.
First, the presupposition that nature, in the form of a mere environment, somehow begets organisms, which are able to actively act and determine things within the environment, yet that same environment is somehow only passive and only changes in accords with cycles and what seems to be predetermined laws of nature, which springs up the question of who determined such laws? Are they natural in the sense they come out of their own accord, or do we say “God” is the cause of the laws of nature? If we ask these questions together, we have to synthesize the idea that something natural happens on its own accord with the notion that God is an ultimate principle of nature. God is the ultimate principle of something happening on its own accord, this is the ultimate power of nature, or that nature is the character of God whereby the ability for thing to happen without a reason why they happen, is the ultimate quality. And so nature itself as a definition of being an environment sustaining a determining organism within it, itself also belongs as the nature for an ultimate principle whose determining quality of the definition of nature. In other words, nature as an environment is simply the complication of a set of different and distinct determinations maintaining their own subsistence against each other, nature is this total relation. From one point of view, nature appears to be the complication of a passive set of rudimentary determinations like rocks, wood, sand, water, air, lava etc., all these elements that cannot be said to be organisms as their structure does not exhibit cells with a nucleus all working homogeneously towards a particular function, Yet their relations always constitutes the function of a “habitat” which is to to provide the necessary resources for an organism. And so what we take to be the cause of an organism, I.e, in the sense that we observer organisms to have sprung out of their environments habitat, really from the inverse position, the environment is operating towards providing the necessary needs for the organism, as if the idea of the organism was prior in the mind of nature so that making the environment the servant of the life forms it sustains. Moreover if we zoom in further and further into the microscopic make up of a rudimentary element, we notice that the entire surface of its operations, is contaminated by microbiology life forms, who are the basis of what we call organisms, they are the basic structures of cells, with their proteins, mitochondria, membranes, ribosome, and ultimately the transaction value anc currency of these organs, Dna itself, contained within the matrix and space.
These processes are contained within an organism. They are not floating out and about formless, but rather combine together to constitutes the form of a living being whose asethical value we have no clue of and simply label as a “bacteria” or a “virus”, little do we know that these primary and basic life forms we take to be primal, from one position appear to be basic, but from another, they are the missing link, or rather the bridge, between an advanced species, and all the species we categorize as coming after and more advanced then viruses and bacterias. As we say, just like the environment is the host of the life forms we observer in nature that we call mammal beasts, insects, birds, reptiles etc., these same animals are the environment and hosts of billions and billions of of micro-orbs that use these animals as the environment they breed, develop, manipulate, and grow on.
Each species in moments in time seem to have no business relative to any other species as they aim for sufficiency among themselves, they aim to survive at the expense of other species; but sufficiency towards what? Even sufficiency in and of itself assumes greater sufficiency. Meaning that sufficiency is the skill of an activity whose aim is an ideal goal, otherwise, it would not need to be sufficient in executing a task if the result is not to be ideal. You can do things flamboyantly if the result is not optimal but abysmal.
When looked at from the objective standpoint each species are not separate from each other bearing no relation. The very distinctive and diverse nature is evidence of the working towards the final specimen. The variety in material variation is synthesized in a finer form. Dinosaurs for example are the transition period between cold blooded reptiles, fish, amphibians etc. and warm-blooded birds and mammals. It is almost as if their extinction marked the completion of this transition and the beginning towards the greater qualitative forms of life.
Nature does not aim for quantitive variations in species, in that when species become excessive, as it did during the Mesozoic era, nature calls upon the convocation of Reason in the world to moderate; or that moderation is the convocation of Reason in nature. Nature however is also not impotent in that a good amount of reptiles, fish, amphibians etc. are not excluded with the development of mammals. One species does not abandon the other because it developed further, in that the aim of one species is not indifferent to the other but that each are constitutive of the same aim.
Species being particular that is the universal
Consciousness in this sense is universal so as to be particular; that it must already be everywhere before it is to be somewhere, for even the somewhere if taken on its own constitutes in and of itself everywhere. The end determines the means within the rigidity of the unity. World evolution is the process of the “species being” as the actualization of the universal as the universe. The “species being” is the stage in world history where self-consciousness takes the form of universal consciousness; the return for itself as what is set out by itself.
Consciousness finds its universal in the particular when the particular itself finds the universal. The positive and the negative are no longer in contradiction but find their place in the definition of the other. So far the following question is satisfied; why is universal consciousness relate to the particular form of consciousness? The answer demonstrated above however does not satisfy the recent understanding of consciousness; that the existence of consciousness in the particular form is made to exclude the existence of the universal consciousness. That the existence of one is necessarily made to exclude the existence of the other.
Transcendence
The way to achieve transcendence is explained by the way the human being achieves Reason. Now it is important to describe the process of how life forms came to develop knowledge by way of sense perception, desire, the understanding and finally, rationality. The actualization of Reason by the human being involves the synthesis between the ethical and the asethical. The latter is defined by the form that logic achieves, whereas the latter is defined by the process of logic that gave rise to its form. The asethical process of Reason gave rise to the material object we perceive including the form of the human being that is able to recognize that very perception. God is the unity between the universal and the individual.
figures out the notion of transcendence. For him the actualization of reason causes transcendence. The way to achieve this is ethical (ted), the way the individual reacts to their external relations, how to treat other ethically, explain Aristotle ethics, is the way the operates in terms of internal relations. When the individual (me) treats acts ethically in his external relations, he programs the true form of logic into the internal relations, so when the pershiable bodies decays, that form of logic achieved by the individual remains as the notion of matter. The individual attains what Spinoza calls salvation, they enter into a state of pure reason. This state is more fundamental, and according to Charles Peirce, it is in the present and at all moments enagaged with matter. So when the individual reaches reason, his logic becomes the operating mechanism for the external relation. In the first place reason produced nature precisely for that very reason, to take its thought as an object.
The understanding is the mechanism for achieving reason. Say the faults of the understanding. The understanding is the purely abstract realm we usually associate with reason. In the understanding the mechanism of the imagination is at work. When sensation grasps the object, and the intuition its idea, they go through the imagination where ideas and objects are floating and associated with each other Willingly and infinitely. The understanding exhibits analyzation, higher version of desire, in which objects are associate with each other. But in order for their association, they require reason. Otherwise the understanding retrieves back to the imagination where any object is associated with any form devoid of any concrete reality.
Reason is therefore required to resolve the understanding by producing the true relation between the object and its form. Reason does this by accessing the intuition which in that stage there is no distinction between form and matter. Reason is the highest stage of the Intuition. In fact the intuition is the instinct of reason, the mechanism that produces the idea from reason. In reason there is an internal relation, which first starts off as a self- relation, explain geometry of logic, the circle is the internal relations of the laws of thought.
——
20#- Historical timeline of the same consciousness
In phone pictures Hegels- history same artichate
Human history is one mind understanding itself. There is however a difficulty here, if we say that all the knowledge is already present and the process of that is recollection of it, then we still have to answer to the cause of all the preexisting knowledge before the consciousness of it trying to gain it. If we say that knowledge is created by virtue of its discovery, then under what basis, what arbitror, can determine the truth of knowledge. If God then, what is the nature of god that allows it to be the substance for truth? These are difficult and fundamental questions.
I was also thinking of adding a historical timeline of how such philosophers, throughout out the years, say their opinion on the same metaphysical topic of reason? Like how did the idea of reason historically develop through the figures we read? I was thinking of providing a brief timeline. For example,
Plato(date) -Aristotle (date)- scholastic religion aquinse (date)- modernism then pragmatism
A continuous stream not much time separating the philosophers- generational
Give a timeline and say how the there is a correlation between the time frame of each thinker within the time frame of each era within the other. As will see, the development of this idea is generational. It is aprox within 100s of years philosophers within the same era talk about the same era, until the transition of a different era, which is the sum total of each generation to consisting the whole era. For example scholastic era from modern is this much years(. ) which is almost the same life spans of each philosopher after another for example (Descartes Spinoza, Kant, Hegel)
(Pre-socrates- Socrates Plato Aristotle, and then the post socratics, like the great mathamaticans and logicians)
(Aquinse, ….
Gaps in evolution
There are gaps in the development from life form to life form that makes it not obvious how life forms connect together to form a series of development. When we look at the chain of species that constitute the development of life, there is always a “missing link” from species to species that leaves unexplained how one comes out of the other. We cannot directly pinpoint a certain species and say it was the bridge between amphibians and reptiles, we can only look to certain characteristics that some animals share.
Evolution is one of the feature shared by all life forms is characterized into different groups of genus consisting of animals sharing similarities. In this picture we have for example a genus of related plants, insects, amphibians, reptiles, mammals etc., however there remains an open and ambiguous boundary, a “gap”, between each genus that does not explain how one lead to the other. It is an assumption of evolution that certain life forms are more developed than others and therefore the more developed have something that the less developed lack, however we do not think about animals in this way because we do not say that an animal like a fish or a plant is lacking anything, since it is a complete and self sufficient organism in and of itself. In other words, any organism no matter how developed it is, is a result of nature. What we do not see however are organisms that are extinct and those are not results of nature, as they no longer present they are processes that lead to some development. The only idea we have of organisms are ones that are complete and results. But in order for something to be a result, there must have been a process of exercise to achieve that result. “Nature does nothing in vain”, even its attempts and trails.
Between chimps and humans, there are unknown species, either they got “extinct” or they are in a different dimension, that form an infinite series of trials and errors until getting to the specimen we know as man. Not that man is the complete and perfect result, but that any relation between two different animals involved this range of different attempts at getting from one to the other, either we know of such animals or not.
The idea of individuality is taken more seriously than family history. In one sense the idea of individuality gives the benefit of doubt to the individual before us needing treatment as if they are born fresh and have control over their future existence. And to some degree this is not entirely true because after all the individual is an expression of the whole lineage to which they belong. The individual is an expression of their ancestors in the literal sense, that is, they carry in them all the mental experiences of the past submerged in their unconscious.
Human race like running a race, the components of which are the self-competing factors of development of the same substance.
Race spectrum of development
Race is the spectrum of the species. Meaning that the multiplicity of racial groups are characteristic checkpoints of the species levels of rational development. This can be proven by looking at the genetic potential in any given individual from any given race. In the same race there are individuals that exhibit darker and lighter physical characters. This is perhaps a feature from genetic mixing which is often contrasted with the idea of a pure race, for example is there such a race as pure Caucasian or pure Africans?
The notion of a “pure race” is an abstract category, like the circle in geometry, it cannot be directly perceived by sensation. Yet its presence is so fundamental that it serves as the grounds for racial distinctions. Even though there are lighter and darker blacks we recognize by perception, they fall into, and are expressions of, the pure black race. Pure races mix with each other but their mixing does not dissolute their pure form in the sense of being categories of human development.
Modern humans are a mix of archaic homosapian and Neanderthals. This fact however should in no way serve as a prelude to the absurd notion that there are no developmental differences between races. This fact is true in the very same race such that the same race itself involves racial distinctions. Two people in the same race with their obvious physical difference when they mate may bring about an offspring that is darker or lighter in features. For example two blond Caucasians may give birth to dark haired Caucasian, or two dark Africans may give birth to a light skinned African. The reason for this goes deeper than the obvious fact that in the parents linage there must have been lighter or darker features. The reality is that the offspring derives their characteristics based on their intrinsic development acquired from the parents and the linage as a whole experience (check this)
(Add this to extinction is development)
It is commonly estimated that 99% of all species that have existed on earth are now extinct. Based on this people argue that extinction is so prevalent that to argue against it seems to be an absurdity. This statistic suggest that the 1% living are just the remanence of the 99%, what lingers on. When left uninformed this naive assumption leaves us with a concept of extinction that does not contribute to an explanation of how from the few that survive and the most that die. development is measured by the standard of extinction only seems to tell us that things are passing away, that the scope of evolution is ultimately annihilation, which is itself a teleological argument but one that sees dyeing out as the end state of life.
It is no surprise that this view is limited as it seems to be the placing the life experience of an individual life form abstracted onto the the life of species. The experiences of the individuals is assumed to explain the general character of the species, that because the individual life comes to an end, the species life also comes to an end. In an individual life form, the duration of existing passes from living into dyeing. This cannot be the same for the being of the species. We must therefore ask a different question, what is the relationship between the less than 1% species currently living have in common with the 99% that are said to no longer exist? Moreover what does it mean for a species to no longer exists in the process of evolution? I ask this because even the idea of a species, which is meant to bind individual life forms together based on essential characteristics, can be viewed as an individual entity in contrast to the genus. However the idea of individuality in the context of categorizing life seems to be a superfluous one.
Categorizing, the genesis of, life never takes the individual life form as distinct from its species, in fact, an individual life form looked at individually tells us nothing about its essential nature. It is only when life forms constitute groups, and individual life forms are pressed against the collective, that we develop an informed concept of life. For example, in nature the idea of individuality does not exists outside of humanity because all animals exhibit themselves in groups either directly or indirectly, either by being in groups and sometimes when taken out of the group they die like some insects, or when they situate in a particular environment that their species is found.
The idea of individuality in the sense of life forms being physically exclusive from each other describes the quantitive measure of the species, that life is divisible into separate entities each of which expresses the idea of the species. The notion of individuality in evolution is really one of complexity theory because it looks at the species being the process having a large number of seemingly independent agents and how they spontaneously order themselves into the coherent system of fulfilling the idea of the species.
The idea of an independent organism constitutes for the species the element of chaotic processes because the individual encompasses the essence of the species into a will that is able to determine it in a manner that perhaps may change it. However because the individual is dependent on the relations of the species such that the individual is a product of the species, their determinations are in the first place arise from the order and pattern of the species function. In the same way that the individual organism is related to the species in this manner, the essence of the living 1% intimately correlated with the role of the so called dead 99% of species. In fact, the current living species are the result and the achievements of their decadents such that they are but the same organism in an updated manner.
Here we come to a quantitive difficulty because the 99% greatly outweighs the 1% in population size of life forms, that is, whatever is living now is only a mere fraction of what no longer exists. And so the idea of chaos seems to be suggestive of the majority of the process of evolution than the process of order. If evolution is activity of creation, the majority of the activity involves destruction while the effort of creation is subpar.
This quantitive difficulty is however only a problem when taken as true independent of the notion of quality. Introduce the notion of quality and this quantitive problem is easily solvable. Quantity maintains life as consisting of separated and distinct entities. The measure of quantity takes an already separated entity and finds distinct parts within that. In quality however what is maintained are not separations but rather combinations. Quality looks at the synthesis of the distinct parts, their essential nature, and refines that by producing it into what quantitively is taken as constituting its own distinct individuality, but qualitatively as the entity that encompasses the sublation of all distinctive entities.
In the scope of evolution, the 1% of life forms serve as the synthesis of the 99%. How can different species synthesize to form new ones? The answer is obvious from the notion of the genus. The genus is the synthesis between different particular species into a whole. This can be looked at in two ways of scale: the macroscopic scale portrays the entirety of life forms as part of one ecological system, say the earth, that in itself appears more general, less refined and more primitive then the parts that constitute it. The microscopic scale shows
Familia, animalia and so on. The point is that all the so called “extinct” life forms do not simply cease to exists but rather combine together, not merely sexually, forming genus. The process of evolution is activity of refinement, sculpting the object into the idea. And all previous species simply exhibit a qualitative trait that is combined with another trait belonging to another species that form one animal. The natural value of the life form is precisely determined by the kind of quality they exhibit. In fact the entirety of the organisms living purpose is to portray particular quality. And the combination occurs ultimately by the passing of qualities onto an organic singularity. From this view it is no surprise that the combinations of the 99% result in the refined 1%.
By definition species is more specific than genus.
For the last century we see a lack of advancement in the research concerning the understanding of human nature. Development into the science of human nature is halted due to some emotional out cast of some individuals deserting this research on the grounds that it is “racist”. Those who claim most to be interested in the so called elimination of racism, at the same time keep the term as ambiguous as possible.
Everybody is “racist” by nature insofar as they recognize someone else different in genetics and they make judgments about traits that stand out by mere perception. If by racist we mean discriminating based on traits, than vision and the understanding itself naturally does this. This does not mean there are no such things as prejudice which is what defines racism as automatically hating someone based on their kind and culture. Prejudice is wrong because it is simply an ignorant attitude as it enforces an emotional reaction towards someone based on too little information, it is not enough to hate someone just based on their colour of their skin, this is too little of information to base a proper judgment.
What makes it an irrational way of behaviour, a primitive way, an emotional response governed by a lack of reason is that it can be a wrong judgment to conclude something solely on skin colour for example. There are however clear generalities that go into describing and distinguishing races from each other, found in degrees higher or weaker in some races over others. The investigation into the nature of the human being is to outline how the human being is a species different than all previous species and how it is the present stage of development involving divisions among itself. The races of the human species involve as much as differences and peculiarities as different species of animal have between genus’s.
Plato Republic: One of the earliest accounts of human nature is found in perhaps the most popular philosophical literature known to history, in the republic of Plato. Yet often this piece of genius is identified as an account of morality, justice. Yet what is meant by justice in the republic is simply the harmonious nature in the soul of man, and such a harmony takes on a macrosim into the social relations of humans, that is, society. Plato proposes that individual human beings are not equal in capability. Their common grounds is simply that they share the same nature of thought, yet they do not employ thinking in an equal manner. For Plato, human beings possess specialization in their ability to reason, and such a specialization is hierarchical by skill.
For Plato, individuals are naturally born with the ability to reason in one way verses another. (Explain this in greater details) (some are born to work, some to protect, some to lead… these are not just practical abilities that cohere society. They are also ethical activities that constitute the nature of the individual. For example, the nature of the worker is not a result because of coercion from society but rather that the worker possess the nature, or. Modern terms, possess the genetics of that of a worker.
If we look at the “order” of “primates”, we see that their taxonomy includes two distinct lineages, strepsirrhines and haplorhines. Both diversify out of
euprimates (true first primates), and each respectively diversify into various familias with varying genera. For example, list what came out of haplorhines and strepsirrhines.
Modern humans are classified under the order “primates”, suborder “haplorhini, super family “Hominidea”, Family “Hominidae” . There is a difficulty in ascertaining the exact lineage of the human being. The extant “great apes” today have been around for more than 10 million years depending on the species. Whereas the extinct Immediate ancestors of the human being, like homo ercetus, where extinct (check when they were extinct)
The question is: if progress is the key principle of evolution (you should have already said whiteheads progress not stability before this), why are the closest ancestors of the human being died out whereas the great apes, who are less in development, both mental and physical, still persist today? This so called difficulty is not a case against the idea that progress is the principle but is rather is its evidence. The word “extinct” is one of those scientific terms that is often applied to particular cases alone without qualification of what the universal implications of the term indicates.
The reason for this is that the concept of extinction does not really have a universal meaning, outside the fact that groups of living organisms, in what seems as isolated incidences, no longer appear on the scene today. For example, you do not see the extinction of life generally, but only individual life forms appear to come and go. The reason for this is that extinction assumes an absolute elimination of particular species, without explaining the relationship between those species who are extinct and who exists. The idea of extinction presupposes that species are isolated beings shearing no form of existence.
If on the other hand we assume that the relation between species at the very primarily level is that they are all varying forms of a general existence, which is what the whole science of taxonomy is based on, then we see that different organisms are not individually isolated cases, but are attributes of an underlying life form. The so called extinct ancestors of the human being are not eliminated in the sense that they no longer exist, rather, they have moved on, developed into a recognizably differing form than what they previously held. And for the case of the more primitive primates, they also are not eliminated by virtue of a more advanced form.
Less developed organisms are not excluded by virtue of more advanced ones. Even the less advanced organism are forms of development. They belong extant as recognizable archetypes of genetics, reference points in the development of life form generally. Extinction is therefore indicative of development. Whereas the extant is the persistence of life, its stability. The Latin for extant is “extendere” which literally means stretch out. Stability in this sense is not a static position of something but is rather the persistence, and persistence is a continuity. In the case of evolution, continuity is exclusively defined by progress, or development.
For Whitehead they only stability is progress. This is why extinction cannot exists as universal because anything other than progress is nothing, there cannot be extinction because by its very definition it is the absence of being, and the absence of being presupposes itself as absence in the presence of being. Extinction in the presence of progress is absent. Now fatigue (make sure you know what fatigue is.)
-but if progress is the principle of persistence how is the universe decaying?
The universe is decaying on the one hand supposes that progress is the only stability because the universe must continue becoming in order to be, so the decay is the necessity that progress be the principle of persistence, otherwise what already developed may not continue to develop. This means that the persistence is related to novelty, it has to continue being created. On the other hand, the decay of the universe supposes that what was once true is changing into something else, and that change assumes such a transition where the same thing changes from A to B and B is not A. A is the changed state that no longer exists for the sake of B.
The point is that there must be an underlying substance that endures the change. But if evolution is change in this way, why are less developed things exists in the presence of better ones, why is there a choice of the good when there is better? And this is because the good and the better are not separate constituents, they are a range. They are both forms of development in each other, the good is better because it is good and the better is good because it is better.
The good is not excluded by virtue of the better, because the good is the better before it is good, before human came, the better was ape.
Thus far we have exclusively identified that the extinction of the archaic primates is not there elimination from life but is rather their development whereby they adopt an advanced form. Invertedly the extant great apes are the persistence of the development. Both these points however seem to operate exclusively from one another, what is therefore their relation that maintain them as inverted forms of development? The underlying substance that defines the principle of evolution, i.e. Development, is consciousness.
Consciousness is the substance which maintains the persistence of extant life forms, as reference points in its development, and advance forward the development of extinct life forms, as the ideality of its final cause. It is here appropriate to introduce another key mechanism of evolution that is overlooked today, that is, final causation. Final causation defines the nature of consciousness as the factors of development. Consciousness, the substance of mind, proposes an idea, and takes the steps to actualize it, and the very process of actualization includes efficient causation.
Law of fatigue explains stability, law of reason- novelty, explains progress.
When the mind sets an idea as its final causation, it sets it as a goal in its mind.
Genetics is the memory of experience. When the parents undergoes an experience, the knowledge from that experience gets cemented into the neurological structure of the brain, which becomes processed into a DNA ready to be passed on by the chemicals of the reproductive systems. Now of course an organism undergoes a variety of experiences, each of which transfers into a DNA strand. The offspring therefore acquires these experiences of the parents, (along with all other genes cultivated throughout the whole of evolution) in their very neurological and physical nature.
The offspring does not possess any obvious recollection of the experience underwent by the parent, but rather develops the implications of the experience. For example, if the parent experiences aggression during his life span in his particular environment, the offspring is more likely to be born with thicker and stronger horns, or if the opposite true, the parents rather experience a demur and mundane life experience, their offspring might develop a reduction in protective gear, as perhaps a greater ability in climbing trees or breaking down food with teeth. These acquisitions of trained inherited by the offspring are not merely given but must rather be selected by the knowledge the offspring derived by being as a potential conception of the parent. They carried what is necessary out into the environment. These are just to show that the knowledge derived from the experiences of a life form are integral to the advancement in its physical being.
Explain how racism is a stage in the development of self-consciousness, and how it is remedied by moral laws, which in terms of genetics, is leaning towards the mixology of the human races into one homogeneous new species that (might) diversify into varying familias, genus and so on.
-anthropology is the study of human nature, but today it is taken as study of culture (find where you wrote about this)
In present history we have the process of multiculturalism- which is not only political, but we said that politics, like the republic is related to natural justice, the natural organization of a species, morality and genetics.
Multiculturalism is the stage where human races mixes genetics. Superior genetics from each race will be passed on cancelling out inferior genetics. For example, the black races superior genetic in kinetic physical movement will be synthesized with the Caucasian races superior genes for logical skill.
The word “natural” means innate movement, and this belongs to a determine consciousness. Refrain from imposing on this view an already predisposed conception of God, this will only hinder this inquiry rather taj supplement it. I ask the reader rather not to generate any personal belief in God, put that belief aside, and rather I ask for the reader to begin with no belief in God but rather the wanting of a belief that perhaps may be proved true and this can hopefully move the belief to perhaps a scientific understanding of God. Demonstrable is science but is derived from indemonstrable.
The entire process of evolution is the figuring out of the ideal specimen that expresses the idea of self-consciousness. The process towards the ideal specimen does not begin by narrowing down the one ideal form from all the species. This is an erroneous logical assumption concerning how the process of species unfolds derived from the intellectually unchecked knowledge of sensation. Sensation produces the intuition that there are a collection of varying forms from which consciousness can select from the better option.
This however in the first place supposes the existence of objects that can be chosen, yet the process of consciousness does not involve a chronological activity of first production than selection, but that somehow the activity of production must be integrated simanltously with the process of selection. For then the ability of creating something then recognizing its ideality are not separate affairs in nature. How the development of species actually progress by way of natural disposition involves a diversification in creation. If we look at the development of life forms, we see that each genus subsequent to the predicate involves a branching out of species.
The tree of life
Look at the chimpanzee or bonobo erogenous zones in comparison to human and we see the exact same organs but an aesthetic development.
Our inquiry of consciousness this far has been what it is as an element in nature, but we have not yet made consciousness in connection with self-consciousness. The latter concept explains the kind of being consciousness manifest in nature so as to express Reason. Because only in the expression of Reason consciousness can be said to be the activity of Freedom in the world. This is of profound importance because our entire inquiry conceives that the material substance is entirely caused by freedom, or as Whitehead calls it, creativity is the absolute principle of the world, it is the origin to everything material.
We therefore need to point it an instance in World history where consciousness manifest as an object, and it is that object it refers to as the self- it is at home with itself. Only when consciousness identifies with its object as its self then can we really say that it manifested as an object. And this manifestation into the particular object is the seed where it can once and for all recapture everything that it created. It just however begin as a seed.
The development of life thus far we explained took on a qualitative process which resulted into a species being- that one species that characterizes every other species by possessing every quality in each different species and formulated all into the particular quality that captures all qualities- the particular that is the universal.
In the physicalogical sense- this is demonstrated by the development of the homoinade family finally achieving that one mold that can serve the specimen body to carry on the ethical aspect- which is each took on a particular body in nature, this is the diversity of evolution where each individual species is the particular sum set of quantity that takes on the actual ratio of the infinite ethical qualities of Reason. The entire process of life as the development of evolution is the process where consciousness aims to find the object for itself.
Consciousness must find its object because it has already created the universe at large as the necessity for the creation of the object. It is important to remember that this is a rational process meaning by this that it is a dialectic of logic. The universe must necessary to first made into the infinite so as to produced the finite. It is in this infinite realm where consciousness now has to create the particular object from the universal necessity it produced so as enable this capability.
In this transitioning of its logic, or better to say the dialectical converse with its logic, brings us to where consciousness needs to be in order to become self-consciousness. This comes with the development of the ideal specimen as an object which can harbour the seed of consciousness. From this consciousness can actualize itself universally in the infinity which it took to be the object for its ability to becomes itself as an object. This far we engaged the idea that the homo-erectus served its purpose by being the initial move for consciousness simply by adjusting its physiological structure.
This ingenius move proves to be the first evidence where the material substance formulated by the rigours process of evolution finally took control of its physiology rather then being determined by the shift of the natural laws. Consciousness taking control of its material substance is nothing new to life but perhaps has already occurred with the very initial organism that even started life. This time however it was different because once the homo-erectus gave rise to its head outwards it demonstrated consciousness of its desire.
A recognition that it was finally able to begin determining its willing- and what else is its will but a rational one- the one which desires the actualize itself. From this point on, the history of evolution begin to take on an exponential rate. Whitehead explains that history in life takes on a more rapid rate in development with each generation of life which is evidence for actualization, or simply this just expresses process. Process is defined by actualization otherwise there would be no movement to being. The world is never static but in constant change. Once the homo-erectus made its physiological shift, we must ask, why did it go existent? As it surely was advantageous over all other animals as it analysis its perception. This understanding is derived from the Darwinian idea of the survival of the fittest, which is a mistaken conception on how evolution develops. It does however express how species relate to their environment but says nothing about what this relation produces.
The extinction of species is simply the indication to the achievement of their propose and so they are not discarded insofar as no longer exists, but rather take on a higher form and exists in better conditions. The Neanderthal is the achievement of the homo-erectus- the same being in a higher form. Although we lack empirical evidence that helps to support the claim that the homo-erectus bears any relation to the the Neanderthal, we definitely have evidence that supports the idea that Neanderthals had a significant relationship with archaic homospaians (reference the article the study is made that says we inherited our immune system allergy from Neanderthals and we share genes).
It is clear also to see that the homo-erectus did not just branch off into one other higher form of itself, evolution does not work this way. Rather this development, and every development in evolution, takes on a diversity of results. Diversity in evolution characterizes the synthesis. Out of one branch many, the many being the expression of the one. When one species branches out into many, the many are the culmination of its potential ideas taking on an actual existence.
Pragmatic predisposition tyrant- Kant
Once the Neanderthal passes its developments on to the homospaian- those developmental not only include biological ones but even instrumental one, the Neanderthal with the conscious perception adopted the use of tools and comes with that the domestication of the environment. The passing on of tool to the homospaian begins the domestication of nature. The agricultural revolution. These developments however are alway in transitional relationship. As the development of tools is still continuing, the domestication of the environment is its result which also in its development transitions into its result- this being- the pragmatic predisposition. It is here where things start being interesting in world history.
The modern human being at this point begins to occur. And this special feature of the human being as it is now is that it not only looked to its environment and took it on but rather the human being started to become aware of itself, by taking control over others. But how did this taking control however because according to historical reflection, there is always one human being controlling all other human beings. The famous attempt to answer this question we see is with Hobbes state of nature, which is as mistaken as it is famous. Explain it… How did one man came to control all? This transition occurs in the diversity of the species, and so now we have a spectrum in the species of the human being- capturing the essence of matter as extension and consciousness as Freedom. This relation is seen in the pragmatic disposition of the human being.
The tyrant rebelled against his nature.
The human being in this stage, like any stage in evolution, is a spectrum of consciousness. But why is the human being as a species a spectrum of consciousness? The question can be answered by asking the question in its inverse way: consciousness as freedom is expressed as a spectrum because it is in this way that conceives itself as free. The conception of what it is as essence is the only way it has freedom. When the human being looked into the other for utility the human being really first looked into the self and became conscious of the capabilities that defines its specific nature, and with this outlook the human being begin to rebel against his own nature so as to understand it.
The individual who first rebelled against his own nature is the one that expressed that rebellion in the other. This expression manifest as making use of the other in accord with the desires. The individual who first came to realize their own nature is what we have came to call in history the tyrant. We call this individual the tyrant because their application of their powers proves to be an unethical use. But how can one individual gain control over so many other individuals? Surely it could not have been by force or coercion although that is the method applied to maintain control. physically the tyrant is out numbered. The tyrant went against his own nature by not conforming to the harmony of the species, which sparks interest from the point of view belonging to the rest. This enables everyone to recognize that there is something different on the part of that individual.
Bear in mind that this is an unconscious process happening in the species- unconscious because it is implicit, working behind the knowledge of the species. The species then adopt that individual as the guiding hand to derive the consciousness he has that everyone else does not. Most who are not the tyrant where unable to express outwards their nature but still needed that recognition so as to have consciousness of their essence. They conform to the will of the tyrant in which a display of human nature is seen in the social relations of the species- the master-slave conflict.
The very initial stage of self-consciousness assumes to become itself first occurs when consciousness transforms in such a way where it converts onto itself. This conversion is the making explicit of itself because what it is as itself is knowledge of what it is itself. One way that it derives knowledge of itself is by making itself the object of knowledge and having the means to perceive itself as that object. The sense perception for example is one primary way that it derives knowledge of itself as an object. The sense perception conceives knowledge of itself as the object and that knowledge is brought outwards so as to become conscious of it. It is important to explain that transition between the two because that very transition is itself a stage and a result that takes on a concrete form where the process is itself the result and vice versa.
Before consciousness becomes self- consciousness- or what we mean by the latter that consciousness becomes aware of itself as conscious, we see that it emphasizes itself by bringing itself outside of itself. This is done mentally in the unconscious element of the mind- the unconscious psychological state. This internal process becomes exerted outwards as an external process. The latter takes on the form of expression, and this itself is an action subjected to ethical consideration (peirce the normative science). Expression comes in many forms but all forms of expression involves the process of relation- either relation with the self or outside the self- in our sense it is a social relation which is itself an ethical relation.
Consciousness to deserve that name of being a fundamental kind of recognition requires a “rebound” response determined by its own initial self determined action. This “will” or what we mean by willing, the way to do something, as common expression goes — “if there is a will there is a way”, the will in the natural sense, is the tendency towards the action of which is the result of that determination, the tendency of the apple is to go down, that is its natural position, but we do not say that the apple has a “will”, the Apple is an adjective, a recipient, of its circumstances. the will is active when it’s tendency is self determined
In this initial stage the consciousness emphasize itself and in this emphasization which is an expression, it is disassociating itself and separating itself from itself. This separation is the first stage which the consciousness then be aware of itself. But his awareness of consciousness happens not on an individual level but rather at a universal level. Only at the individual level the disassociation of consciousness with the self happens. And this disassociation is the cause, it’s effect is the kind of relations people have. And from such relations the species as a whole begins to be aware of its consciousness. This is the process of the subjective putting itself outwards as the objective.
The subjective is the means of perceiving the objective and the many different conceptions of the object is what is being emphasize outwards as consciousness. Consciousness is knowledge- but every kind of knowledge- including true and false knowledge. And only when this true or false knowledge become universal ways of relation, we become aware of it. But those who are becoming aware of it are not the species as a whole but rather individuals- for only when individuals become aware of it, they awareness shapes the species to the next kind of idea.
The struggle of the races
There is a struggle between the races in modern American time, but while this struggle appears on the surface between one race as opposed to another, it is in fact the inadequacies that the race has within itself projected onto the other. The struggle of the races is the struggle of the race with itself, problems it has with its own development, and problems of the self. Different races acquired different degrees of development in cultures, technologies, religion etc., but among thing different races also developed different way of dealing with the problem of the self. This problem of the self is present in every individual, every person has internal and personal struggles that they have to overcome, they are moral, physical, social, and the way the individual deals with these problems determine their evolutionary fitness level.
While the problem of the self is an individual problem in the sense that the person must deal with their own unique issues, the issues they deal with are not all that unique but are fundamentally human issues. These human issues like dealing with the vices to attain virtue, how to have temperance against lust or gluttony, how to be just to other men, how to appropriate truth and beauty etc., these are the problems that human being contend with, and while different individual deal with this differently, different races generally also deal with this differently at different periods in history.
In North America, the current racial tension between the lower economical class which consists mainly of “black” individuals as opposed to the more middle and higher class of suburban America consisting of whiter folks, exhibits an implicit tension, but it is characterized by the issue of police violence against so called “minorities”. This specific example is used to claim that people of colour are disadvantaged, oppressed and targeted by a class and race on a higher position within hierarchical structure. The narrative is that black people are more oppressed. The question however becomes a psychological one since every individual to some degree is oppressed by the natural conditions of life. It is stated that some kind of people are more oppressed than others by the very others they are claimed to be more oppressed than.
The same facts that do not support this narrative are used and twisted in support of it. It is stated for example that black men are mistreated by police officers, however it is also a fact that black men pose the greatest number of people who commit crimes, so it is only natural that those who commit crime will be more likely to have encounters with officers, it is also true that those who commit crime are also more violent and therefore more likely to have violent encounters with officers. The question becomes one of expectation, what do you except, that officers have to be nice and calm with individuals who are violent? There are two counter critiques to this argument, first, it is said that black men are more prone to crime due to their lower economical conditions within society, and therefore this already preconceived condition of oppression puts them in the situation of crime. The second counter argument is that irregardless of whether black men commit more crime or not, they are actively and directly targeted and hunted by the police, that is to say, they are “racial profiled”.
Concerning the second critique there are no evidence to suggest that black men are sought out after by the police because the prejudice, which there is to some degree, is personal to the individual officer, so that is difficult to quantify whether certain individuals have prejudice against black people or not. The reality is that people are prejudice, people are racist, but this is not necessarily a negative thing, it is part of human and natural instinct, it is negative when it is organized and systematized, either socially or within the individual character, that is, judge every individual on the basis of their colour, is a naive methodology to operate under,
As to the first critique, one has to ask why certain type of people are in the kind of conditions they are, or why the occupy the level in the hierarchy that they do. The answer is not simply that they are victims of some other group because even if we take this answer seriously it only suggests that evolution consists of varying degrees of development. We also have to ask what kind of development did a certain type of race reach in the context of human evolution? This is not to excuse or to enable mistreatment of people by other people, but it is to outline the reality that throughout history at the same time periods of different times in history, we see different levels of development by different races, there is different development in culture for example, and these races do come into contact and conflict naturally arises, and the more developed race has occupied the less, or in other words, had colonized them. We can take this fact as a negative one to suggest that the more advanced race is the more evil of the two by virtue of the lesser one being the victim. However development sometimes involves a rigidity and is not a smooth process. We have to ask how slavery for example lead to the development of the black race and race altogether.
We can say that black people have always been historically disadvantaged, which although is a true fact, it is not true if it is used as to suggest that their so called “oppressors” are bad. In the context of history being a slave and a master cannot be said to be bad or good, we can look at certain mistreatments of people and judge it to be bad from this time period, we can even look at the whole institution of slavery and say it is bad, but to come to this consensus, history must have gone through the development process that slavery has necessarily lead to. We take for granted our ability to judge a pervious time period as being bad or good, but to come to this knowledge, history must have gone through what we judge today as bad, at that time it was necessary because it was necessary for development, now it is bad because it is a more primal and crude time.
Let’s take for example the historical context of the building of America. Before North America was founded by Columbus, which now we are finding he was arguably not the first, there have already been an a long established settlement of the Spaniards people in what we know today as South America. Historical standard for the cradle of civilization, the “true” beginning of society, is dated back to Sumerian and Babylonian civilizations, in today’s region of Iraq. These early societies are around 6000 years ago.The standard for what makes a society is their ability to record keep, or rather write and read, this was their ability to communicate their thoughts to each other and throughout history.
So this empirical standard makes us capable of calling them the first society is because it is the first society that we have knowledge of, knowledge of their cultures, ways of life, philosophies etc., however this does not mean to suggest, which is taken to suggest, that societies we do not know of have civilization. Just because we do not know a civilization or have a means of knowing its way of life, it does not mean a civilization is not complex or advanced. It is certainly true that there existed complex civilization that we do not deem the start of history because we lack the evidence that enables knowing and studying them. It makes sense why lack of knowing something would result in seeming it not to exists, however it does not make it correct.
When the Spaniards settled into what today is South America, they found an already developed yet broken down and deregulated civilization. They stumbled upon the late Aztec empire in today’s Mexico. The Aztec empire was the most recent of a period potentially stretching back hundred of thousands of years.
Buying salves form middle eastern, Americans wanted good quality products to be shipped over
It’s not up to you to develop, you do not develop, development happens to you.
These characterization are not limited to certain race but are generalizations in the sense that there are poor white or in that manner any race that are poor, also there are rich black people living in the suburbs. However our measure of the differences between the races is not by looking at the best of each race because the best of each race is generally similar, they live good. But to look at the moral deficiency of a race we have to look at the worst of each race, is the worst of a black man worst than the worst of a white man or not?
These protests are also a power check, to keep the system balanced, to remind the authority of their role “to serve and protect” and not to abuse or mishandle. It is these passions of the protestors which is in part irrational, like looting or defaulting to crude issues like racism, which cannot be said to exist in the same manner as it did before in America, that can produce rational outcomes.
Two kinds of racist
The word “racism” is commonly associated with a negative connotation but this negative association with the concept is chosen as the dominant side of the term by the kind of racist that define it as negative. Discrimination based on race is not necessarily a negative thing, it is negative when there is only an important aspect attached to it, like anything else, it is only bad when there is a wrong doing. Sexual selection for instance is inherently racially discriminatory but in the positive sense. For example, if a man is attracted to Russian women we do not say that is a bad thing, this is called preference. Even though by being attracted to certain kind of people, you are invariably excluding other type of people. If in turn we say someone hates someone only because of their race, then that is bad because of the aspect of “hate” in that equation. It is the wrongdoing that is associated with the racial aspect that makes it negative.
If hate is an indispensable factor in defining racial discrimination as a morally negative factor, while “love” in the aspect of racial discrimination makes it not bad, then emotion plays a fundamental role making the concept of racism studied as a fundamentally psychological phenomenon Before it can e said to be social or political or whatever. If we view race in light of its positive aspect, then it is easy to see that the positive side is the organic and natural side, and that a negative view is more of a pathology than the nature that human begins with.
America is both south and north and it is characterized by multiculturalism. North America is the more popular identification with the America because it has best appropriated the mixing of the genetic pool the best. But all countries in the South America have strong mix of genetics, Brazil having the highest number of Japanese people outside Japan, Mexico being one of the biggest multicultural cosmopolitan city etc., In North America the first language if English than second Spanish, while in the south it is generally inverted Spanish or Portuguese than second English. Of course multiculturalism is not unique to the America’s and is found all over Europe, in fact it originated there, but it’s modern variant is a characteristic of America. By modern variant means the combination of a constitutional and democratic government operating under a free market model economy. Constitutions and common law originate in Europe but their modern form in relation to the economy originates in America.
Historically we have seen that when a country allows for a variety of different races to come together, there is naturally a lot of mixing because people naturally desire novelty in genetic potential and lead towards mating with other races . Two things happen in a multicultural society, people either default to their own race, and this is due to the fact that they are not competitive in the sexual market; the other case is that people mix with other race, and this is marked off by succeeding in the sexual marketplace.
The reason why the latter defines sexual success is because it takes going beyond the barrier of race to find a compatible mate, for two people to come together from two different races means that they found something in the other that transcends there mere race and therefore did not default to the commonalities of culture, religion, race etc., their relationship is more based on individualistic characteristics. The point is that the factor of racial discrimination is not in and of itself inherently negative, but we are made to believe that from the propaganda of a group trying to enforce their ontology, their worldview, as the dominate one.
Individuals who promote racism as being a negative element have a deep self pathology against individuals that reminds them of themselves. When a politician for example
Gene editing
The current so called coronavirus pandemic of 2020 is aligned perfectly with the development of an advanced new biotechnology can be called gene editing. The political strife happening around the world, especially in the United States of America, is an implicit battle to gain control of this technology which will determine the future of the developed world between two opposing groups with conflicting ontological belief systems concerning the nature of the human being and its place in the future of a developed country.
One group disguised under the term “democratic” argues that it is on the side of the disadvantaged people of society, but their true aim is to take advantage of people generally by producing a socialist like system, where individuals depend as much as possible on governmental aids and services, so that in the long term, individual can waive their basic rights away, so that the government can implement technology’s on people like tracking system and gene editing systems. The other group associated with the “republican” party, counteracts this vision of the future by aiming to maintain the sovereignty of the individual held under the constitutional rights of freedom that made America what it is today.
5g theory
—-
Hegel. Phen of mind 82
“This is why animals have different claws to differentiate themselves from universal being” (maybe use in ch. 1)
In evolution, the process of development occurs in this abrupt manner. In evolution, what is understood by gradual or progressive development is defined by abrupt changes. The being, which is the substrate remains throughout the change and in this way we say that there is a gradual or progressive development, yet the changes that occurs to the being or substrate is abrupt. Aging for example, childhood to puberty is abrupt in that the change is drastic and recognizably different, however it is subtle and gradual in that it takes a certain amount of time, or it is a part of a certain duration of time, it is continuous within a time duration.
Idea of the human being
The “human being” is an abstract idea and a universal idea that is not limited to people at a certain time. The human being is the idea of a rational being capable of self-consciousness. Since the only beings capable of this feature are the present modern human being, we conclude that we are the only human beings.
However the human being in the modern sense more refers to the homosapian at this stage in development. For Aristotle refers to the human being as that bring when fully developed. And what trait characterizes the human being? Reason is the only defining element of the human being
Science of as-ethics: the movement of consciousness in locomotion is beauty
How is mind related to nature? If nature is this determined system that only has a cycle of change- two compounds colliding into each other- mind in this system has the free determination to do otherwise- and so if mind is this free agent- it becomes the cause for that determined effect.
Anyone including individuals from different cultures will stop, whether aware or not of what is happening, when bird flock together and produce what seems to be random patterns. But what we call random patterns is in fact the kind of thinking produces by the birds as a collective consciousness. But what is disagreeable and often controversial is when we begin to identity certain things as beautiful an others as not. Then the common question goes: by what standard is one person more beautiful than the other? Bear in mind how ridicules that question seems if we ask it to life in general- to say that horses are more beautiful than donkeys sparks no more interest than laughter.
But to say that one human is more beautiful than that other is a matter of disput. But why is it a matter of dispute when the value of beauty is entered into the realm of the human being? It is because we from the start obscured what we even see as beautiful. Collectively the beauty of the human being as a species can only be appreciated intellectuality rather than visually. Because the beauty of the Human being is what can be produced by the mind as the organ of self consciousness- and that organ forms the object into its self consciousness- in the same way a flock of birds form each other as an object of movement. But when we are talking about the beauty visually in subject terms- what we take a body to be beautiful- that also is something that is not relative but rather a fact.
The visual beauty of the human being is Health- because it is that which reflects life- if life is alive that in itself is beautiful. But health itself is a kind of rational uniform one that reaches the highest peak of consciousness. It is ridicules to argue that certain animals species are not beautiful is because we appreciate each species in their own account to be beautiful because each species on their own expresses a specific dimension of health. Health in this sense is understood as the condition of life where consciousness can flourish. Each individual species allow for a kind of consciousness- even if we say horses are more beautiful than donkeys- that does not mean donkeys are ugly. Even insects we are scared of but we don’t necessarily call ugly and in fact still appreciate their beauty.
How come however we cannot identify certain people as beautiful and others as not? This is because in the realm of self-consciousness, the dimension of health takes on a different toll. Our very own naturalistic fallacy tells us not to make moral assertion on how the human being ought to act based on how the natural world, but it does not tell us why it is a fallacy, it just merely indicates that they are different and therefore one should not be based on the other.
This is partially correct because although it recognizes the difference between human life in contrast to all life in general- even though human life itself is one variable in life in general- it holds a position that enables it to be distinguished from every other life. Especially in ethical conduct, how we relate is different as much as it is the same with other life. This ethical difference between humans and other life is derived from the fact that humans are endowed with self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is the level where consciousness reaches recognition of itself- rather then previously it was aiming to make that recognition available.
Upon recognizing itself the ability of voluntary determination becomes an aspect in its self relation. In this sense the ethical process is now different. We see this difference in two ways; first, because consciousness reaches a stage of recognizing itself, it becomes more immediate in producing the perfect specimen of itself. The object whereby it can lay must itself be at the same level of asethical value so as to correspond to its rational. But it’s rational value is only achieved with the kind of determination it sets its consciousness in expanding its own reason.
Stoned ape theory
Mushroom
The idea that life is scarce
It is today a common belief that science adapts as fact that life is scarce in the overall universe and it is only located on earth. This is an example of a ‘fact derived from a lack of fact’ which means that because there is no direct evidence to suggest that there is life in space, or that the lack of evidence of life in space, is used as a fact to make the fact that there is no life in space.
Since there is no evidence to suggest there is life in the universe, that in turn is used as a fact that there is no life in the universe. This error is a result of the need for science to make facts. Science is in the business of making facts and therefore it cannot be left stranded with uncertainty about something it claims to be its subject. And so if there is a lack of evidence concerning whether there is life out in space, which in other words, means that it really does not know, modern science must make a decision between claiming that there is no life in space due to inconclusive evidence even though there probably is life in space, or it can claim there to be life in space without any hard evidence to point to. Empirical science obviously risks the truth of life being in space for the sake of maintaining hard evidence. that decision becomes the resolution to the contradiction.
Modern science chooses to make as fact that there is no life in space based on its lack of fact that there is.
Our modern worldview is governed by many assumptions of scientific materialist ontologies that dictate how we view the universe and our place within it. In recent times scientific materialism has shown its true corruption in the healthcare and medical domain, assuming that the human being is under attack by some kind of virus strain and that the solution is to this “invisible enemy” is by enforcing control onto those who host it, by changing human behaviour, movements, and relations. The materialist doctrines employ a bombardment of so called facts as evidence for their policies, but the facts themselves are neutral, and the connection is not so obvious between how the facts relates to the enforcement of some law.
They can point to the rise of daily cases, and the fact that the virus has a higher infections rate and spread, and they use those as a means to enforce laws that disable people from gathering, require people to utter compliance with the popular opinion of the pandemic, and moreover require people to adapt obsessive compulsive behaviour like walking 6ft distance from others, wearing masks, standing in lines, constantly washing hands and applying sanitizer chemicals onto hands, etc., the claim is that there is a new strain of virus, they call it “novel”, but it is only novel because it is uncovered as a strain. It belongs to one of the oldest viral families to accompany mammals, and all the sudden it is new. The association of a virus as “novel” is simply a rebranding for the purpose of fulfilling some sort of political agenda.
to fulfill a certain end which is political in nature and which has nothing to do with actual nature itself.
Among the assumption that life is scarce in the universe, scientific materialism believes that the universe is an empty, cold, and lifeless place, that there is no ultimate end or purpose in the universe, and that any purpose that may have arisen out of it is a mere coincidence of probability, given enough tries of nothing being there, eventually something becomes. These ontologies of science are the root of evil in the intellectual domain because their sole purpose is the ultimate deception concerning the true nature of reality for the aim of mind control and governing the world views of peoples in accordance with a skewed and blind view.
This so called evil which hides behind the word “science” does not have the virtue of aiming for the truth, it does not seek knowledge for its own good, but rather uses knowledge as a means for the end of satisfying personal gains of controlling nature, trying to beat nature.
The notion that there is no life in the universe is in part due to a lack of evidence thereof, but it also comes from a place of arrogance impeded in a vicious aspect of the human understanding. When the human understanding derives a certain understanding of the universe, one would assume that the mind would react positively to that, however the mind may turn against its own knowledge. The underlying psychology of the understanding begins off as curious and receptive towards truth, it is eager to learn, but upon receiving the facts of nature, it develops insecure about them because it realizes that it is a finite, and particular flash in relation to the ultimate scale of all possible infinites.
The human understanding when compares itself to the universe feels as if it is insignificant and that it will never achieve any semblance of complete knowledge. This feeling of insecurity turns into rage and anger, this is the part where actions against truth takes fold, it shuts it down, tries to obscure it, fights it, etc. Eventually this anger develops into resentment which is a long term inability to come in terms with the
The other side to this is when the human understanding makes the leap towards reason and finds itself there, sees itself as part of the universe, as particular actualization of the whole.
There is contemporary evidence that suggest the Ancient Greek philosophers underwent journeys to an oracle where they consumed “tea” mixtures containing psychedelics where they experienced a life transforming and spiritual experience.
The allegory of the cave depicted by Plato is not just a mere allegory but it is rather an account of his spiritual experience on drugs. The beginning of a man looking at the shadows of a cave represents our perception of the world through the senses, the object we perceive are analogous to shadows of more real forms that we do not perceive. When the man is dragged out of the cave by force, that represents the uncomfortable experience of that drugs provides as it takes us out of our ordinary perception of things.
Lastly when the man is taken outside of the cave and he finally sees for the first time, he is blinded by all the lights coming from all the objects, he is overwhelmed by all the different smells, and textures etc., as if before when he was in the cave, his senses are inactive. The experience where he goes outside of the cave is analogous to seeing the true forms of things, which provides a much more vivid experience for the senses, and the senses are also much more enhanced under a psychedelic experience.
In fact there is a theory which suggests that the evolutionary “leap” from the “missing link” to the modern human has been stimulated by mushrooms containing psilocybin or other psychoactive chemicals. The “stoned ape theory” proposed by Terrence McKenna argues that the extinct hominids species of the homoerectus developed an upright positioned and where among the first human ancestors to move across continents. The homoerectus migration ventures along with them being omnivorous, they came across and picked out and consumed an array of new and different plants, among of which was mushrooms containing psilocybin, a highest psychoactive chemical.
Over generations of consuming these mushrooms, the epigenetic argument, is that there was a rapid neurogenesis development in the mind of these ancient hominids that developed there senses, their visions became clearer and more detailed, their sense of smell can distinguished between a variety of qualities, there taste is more vivid, all of these happen under psychedelics. It is also a fact that humans have the most developed senses in this way, humans have the best vision, smell, taste etc., but the way it is better requires more clarification. For example a dog can smell things from further away, a hawk can see furthest, but human vision can synthesizes colours with objects the best, it can associate smells with recognizing objects the best, it is not in the reach but it is in what is called “sense awareness” that humans senses excel. Sense awareness is a property of the mind, it is having consciousness of things sensed and not merely sensing them, for example a dog may smell something from far away and recognizes it goes towards it and finds it, but once finds it, he does not possess consciousness of what it is. Whereas the human senses developed consciousness of what things are so that when you perceive an apple, you do not have to think about it being an apple, it just is received by your perception in your mind as an apple. Whereas a dog or a cat may not know what that is but may place it in a general category, either it is food or not, either dangerous or not etc., they only see how things pertain to them, not things in themselves.
The layer between the core of the earth and the surface is a giant mushroom, the brain of the earth, it is the biggest Deilvery transmitting system on earth and perhaps is the oldest form of vegetation.
The earth is an organism who’s production are it’s potentials, like the human being,
If we zoom out enough into space, objects that appear distant all the sudden become close.
The speed of light is measured by how long a thing can stay in a speed of light. So that when we say 1 million light years, this means that a thing was at the speed of light for that duration of time. This is how far a thing keeps zooming out of infinity.
If we zoom into the molecular structure of space we find life,
The stoned ape theory can be taken further if we assume that life on earth was somehow determined by advanced life on some other planet. The idea is that some advanced race planted the germ of life in space, that germ inhabited earth, and developed and complicated itself until reaching the highest mammal state, which is a primate, at this level, the primate found certain diets which harbours chemicals that unlocked dimension allowing the ape to reconnect with the advanced race that set the germ of life on earth in the first place. The advanced race reconnected with its product and saw the state of its development towards consciousness. At that moment, the alien race helped determine the process once more by accelerating the development of primates into self-conscious human beings, the reconnection awaits once again.
The way the advanced alien race planted the seed of life on earth was not from the outside in. It is not like the fictional image of a flying saucer coming down on earth and planting life because even if this is the case, this simpleton abstraction does not explain how they can arrive on earth in the first place. The explanation that these saucers can travel million of light years in space is simply not feasible because they would have to maintain a physical structure that would be present on earth for million of years at the speed of light. Any physical structure would be dismantled at the speed of light. The way an advanced alien race could reach earth is if they do it from the inside out, they would have to be coming out from an infinitesimal dimension of spacetime.
The way this occurs is when a life form becomes so advanced that it is able to zoom into the molecular and atomic structure of spacetime. Entering enough into a smaller and smaller state, when an object becomes so small, it reaches a so called “quantum state”. In this state among its many definitions, size becomes non relative, what is big and what is small become the same. In other words, if you go out away from earth at the speed of life, the distance between things that are vastly apart shrink drastically. Inversely if we zoom in and from the microscopic structure, things that are so minutely close to each other, like the atoms forming the same hand on a human, become vastly distant apart. In both of these inverse determinations, the result is the same, things that are vastly apart come closer, and things that are closer become vastly part.
Advanced aliens are able to go into the microscopic structure of spacetime that they are able to see the entire known universe as the same size of say an apple. From this point of view, two galaxies that from our present position that appear to be so vastly distant, are in fact two micro points close to each other on the scale of the known universe. In this way, an advanced being would able to naturally select among billion of stars and their planets habitable environment for setting forth an evolutionary process. Some advanced being with an immense ability to minutely measure the distance of the earth from its sun, and was able to forecast the changes in its relation with the stars and the changes of the planet and the star itself for billion of years, has determined that earth, has a good life duration that can suscitate an evolutionary process spanning a few billion years. Implanted in the area between the core and the surface of the earth a mushroom like organism which overtakes the entire interior and partial exterior of the earth. The fungi kingdom is perhaps the oldest living organism on earth. Ejected out of these fungi are spores containing organisms that would be what we know as vegetative and eventually the Animalia kingdom.
Brain is a mushroom, and when the monkey ate the magic mushroom it was as if the most advanced form of mammal life form reconnected again with the most primal, the fungi mushrooms. This reconnection is also the exact moment akin to the connection where the most primal form of animal life, the monkey, reconnected with the most advanced alien life that set it into motion.