Section 16 (first updated 12.25.2020)
The question of what is nature(?) [or what nature is?], can be stated in this manner:
If you leave something alone, without interference, how will it develop, and what will it become?
When talking about what is natural, the physical question of materialism ontology can be paraphrased in this way; How do objects return back to their “natural” position? If they are otherwise NOT altered.
The usage of the term “natural” in the physical context means default, which is the state that cannot be otherwise, it is the return “place” to all altered (deviated) states. The “deviation” of an activity from an original source presupposes the “original” source to be the “true” default of the activity. In morality, a course of action is considered “right” when it is “true”, meaning what the activity “ought” to become, or what is its essentially purpose, what was it made for to do?
An activity considered, say as a “deviation” from, what otherwise, is a true aim, can be said to be “unnatural”, if it goes against the self-preservation of the “thing” in question. The self-preservation is not just the continuing of existence, but also the activities it must perform so as to continue existing, this for a fish to swim, for a cow to eat, and for a man to think. Even if “man” is sustained into continued survival, if he lacks thinking, he does NOT truly exists because his existence is akin to a passing moment unrecognized by being, like a leaf falling away into other things, at that moment, it became no longer itself. The implication of ethics into the purely physical domain constitutes a necessary relation, when the full explanation of a phenomenon is unknown, and requires explanation.
The “moral” is NOT merely human relations with each other, but more broadly in ethics generally, the relations of the – observer with the phenomenon. What his reality presents for him is an object wherein the observer finds himself within. That state of reality we can consider as defining the concept of Nature. The present circumstances the organism finds himself in. Nature always assumes that something is first, that occupy the environment of any living organism.
Default
A “default” position in legal terms is “a failure to fulfil an obligation” and therefore, one must return to a less optimal position.
In nature and biology, a default position is a primary condition or a “behaviour” of objects, such that, for example, if you throw a set of objects in the air, they all naturally fall within the same approximate space, pulled equally by gravity.
These elementary universal conditions of physics constitutes for any behaviour (or action), a default position whereby they return to a more primary source, so that the process can begin again, i.e., to begin the process again. In order to “begin” the process “again”, there must be a predisposed being “before” in order to begin the process.
Nature is a set “default” feedback loop of being beginning before being. If you notice the course of history, especially archaeology of anthropology, we notice a general trend of backwards time, ie., there is always more time as you go backwards. In the future, there is no time because nothing happened, everything is only potentially true. Whenever a new “human” (rational) civilization is discovered it is always either, older than we think they are, or we find an even older culture before it. There seems to always be an older culture even older than the culture we think is the oldest.
Modern archaeology is characterized by 2 features; first, the effort in maintaining the marginalized measure that human civilization is of 6,000 years old, and second, concealing cultures older than 6,000 years.
The life of the process is the deviation away from the initial (primary) condition, its origin, and then a “return” backwards towards that origin. How far it deviates away from the origin, will constitute the length (and extent) of its life course. The return towards the origin is matched at the end.
The default principle is that the end always constitutes for the process a return to the beginning.
The default state is “many” and variable. For example, some objects fall faster, while some objects slower depending on size and weight, e.g, the heavier the object the faster it falls. The fact of objects being subject to gravity is actually a special and unique condition in nature. In other words, it is a controlled experiment within a “controlled” environment.
Space Gravity
In the largest majority of the known universe, the conditions of gravity are NOT the same as they are on earth. In the vast “outer” space, objects do NOT “fall” to the “ground” because a) there is no “ground”, i.e, the context of ‘up and down’ is NOT yet established between objects of varying masses, and b) the differences of magnitude between the same object within itself, is NOT determined in the same way as objects appearing under “ordinary” conditions of gravity. In the latter case, the difference between the “presence” (how it appears) of an object against its lack of presence, or the object in the space it is contrasted against, the area which encloses it, has established an equilibrium where one takes the place of, where the other one is NOT.
There is “no” ground in space because objects are fundamentally spherical shape, whether flat or multi dimensional. In either case, the curvature of the plain always escapes a particular location that can be said to extend into a definite horizontal extension. The land on the extreme extension of its observable limit, is continuously falling into a curve without ever achieving a connection. The extension of substance finds an end-point NOT when it is observed from a 3 dimensional dimension from a first persons point-of-view, but rather, when the extensions is observed from the “outside” of itself, from a third-persons point of view, the objects always appears as a limited conception of a peculiar object.
The peculiarity of the object is wherein the infinite process takes an inward extension internally within a singularity disclosed by the limitation of the particular object for perception. The limitation of the object itself conceals the infinite singularity extension by disclosing it within its quality. In other words, no point can entirely go “straight” on a curved surface because the curve will always “fall off” the extended horizontal trajectory of the objects’ motion. The extension will always extend away from itself only to than find rediscover itself from the other side, it meets with itself and therefore becomes the very “thing” that it was all along.
Mass
When objects are thrown in the air, while they are on earth, they fall with an equal and proportionate force towards the ground, but they exhibit different rates of attraction to the ground depending on their own distinct mass. In other words, all objects on earth are equally subordinate to the total earth’s mass, but they contrast with each other disproportionally depending on their own respective mass.
The concept of “mass” is especially interesting because it concerns the maximum number set of relations between distinct components occupying the closest approximate space between each other, such that they are differentiated by a vast empty space they do NOT occupy, or as occupied by another group of distinct components. Objects in space do NOT equally “fall” towards a larger object, but rather they equally attract to each other forming the same mass.
The same mass is attracted towards another mass vaguely proportionate to its own, until they reach an equilibrium in space where they become locked in an orbital motion in relation with each other, e.g, normally the smaller mass orbits the greater, and the greater orbits another greater etc., and so on and so forth.
The orbital circuit we see out in space constitutes solar systems, is actually the very same form (shape) that constitutes each object stuck in the orbital motion, i.e, the orbit of planets is the same spherical form as the spherical form of the planets themselves that generates them as independent masses in space. If you zoom-out away from a solar system, you find it to be the same homogeneous point in space orbiting another solar system in a web of galaxies. These “abstractions” of the universe are only finite (limited) moments in the process of spacetime.
Mass is a “large body of matter” with no definite shape, because mass only looks at the “in” content, inside a shape, and NOT the outer external form that discloses the matter inside its borderlines.
Mass is always a limited quantity and therefore a finite quantity divisible into distinct measures of the same indiscernible form. When we look at our solar system from a distant point in space, we notice that a solar system is the sum of its parts, all the planets orbiting a star, but go further away from that system, and you notice it too be the same point of energy in space known as a star orbiting galaxies. The star is both orbiting other stars, and is being orbited by other objects like planets.
The conundrum is this: how does the same “mass” of variables appear differently depending on the distance of the mass from the observer? When it’s close to the observer, you see all its variables distinguished form each other, but farther away, those same distinct variables unify into the same form that distinguishes (makes up) each one of them. The same form makes them up in two inverse ways. First, the same form groups together a set of objects making them the same mass. Second, that very same mass distinguishing them into distinct variables, also at the same time simultaneously makes up the mass forming each distinct variable
The Eleatics – ‘no’ motion
The line between the orbit, and the actual body of the objects’ mass, is NOT as differentiated as it may seem. In other words, they are the same thing.
The significance of this idea is more prominent when related to pre-socratic ideas of the universe lacking motion, like for example, the Eleatics resisted the idea that change or motion can ultimately happen. The latter is a theory with many limitations, however; if we take away the essence of the idea, it suggest that the universe as a “whole”, exhibits the same form as the single objects that constitutes it. In other words, there is ‘no’ delineation in motion between all things together, and the single units of things consisting part of the whole. Therefore, nothing truly moves because each part is equally in its place constituting the whole of all things. Whether the “whole” is one complete unit among other units, or is the whole of those units together, ultimately forms the same mass, and that mass cannot move outside itself because it is self-contained, it makes up everything and everything is made up of it.
Direct experience shows another scenario, that all things are moving, always taking on a different position in space in relation to (“top”) each other. The idea is that, if you take the “whole” of all things, or a thing as a whole, each part constituting the whole cannot be in distinct motion from other parts because the parts forming the whole will then dissipate the unity of the whole into nothing. The whole is only the harmonious motion of distinct parts such that they form the same and single whole. That “single” whole is a derivation of itself infinitely into distinct possibilities of itself.
The whole therefore does NOT move because it cannot, since if the whole does move, then it will only be a part, moving in a harmonious flow with other parts, and that would just be the whole. This paradox in motion is a limitation of mass as conceived by an observer. The observer can only conceive a “limited action” of the total mass that can form the whole of nature, and it is this reason why objects appear to be in distinct motion in relation to each other. The space between them is ‘part’ of the general whole that cannot be identified by a finite observation. Objects appear to be moving their own way in the universe, but if we truly extrapolate this process outwards more macroscopically, we notice that although certain objects have different rates and direction of motion, they all exhibit the same form of motion, e.g., all objects move in a spherical manner in the cosmos.
‘First’ Law of Motion
The important phenomena left out in the early Eleatics equation of motion, is the observer phenomenon in contemporary – quantum mechanics, which is; the observer is always limited in conceiving the whole of all things, no matter how infinite the whole is independently from its finite conception. The whole is only “complete” insofar as being independent from the part that conceives it. However, the “partial” perception of the “whole” of all things, is extended beyond itself by what it cannot conceive into being, and therefore that constitutes its essential existence. The world is always observed as “parts” of a whole by the observer, and therefore the mind recognizes what we understand as “conventional” motion. First law reiterates the former explanation above of how we recognize “motion”.
Newton “first(s) law of motion” states that:
“everybody remains in a state of rest (uniform) unless acted upon by a net external force”
The “external force” is a “net” because it is “independent”, i.e., the “net” is the quantity “leftover”, meaning it is independently existence, from the total of all relations between greater quantities, which ultimately is a “result” in that interdependent “amount”. The observer always mitsintentinally causes a shift in the stable conception holding (maintaining) the world.
The observer always views motion in the universe, and this was Aristotle’s rebuttal to Zenos‘ paradox. Even if the universe “itself” as a whole, indifferent to the observer, is stable such that no “motion” can be said to actually exists, cannot be presupposed if the world is never in the form that discloses part of it. The universe is never “fully” in its finite form, because it is always beyond itself as distinct finite forms separated from each other by their inherent limitation, which is the infinity. The particular objects we observe are abstractions distinguished within infinity by their observer side of the equation.
Zeno Paradox
The paradox presented by Zeno reiterates the idea that motion does NOT exist, demonstrated with an analogy involving a turtle, and an olympic runner. We can all agree that the runner is faster because they cover more area of land in a shorter timeframe. However, in the ultimate sense, in the grand scheme of all space, the runner is not faster than the turtle because there is an infinite amount of space between them. The infinite space between the runner and the turtle is microscopic, and therefore it is infinitesimal, and NOT just infinitely macroscopic, e.g., large scale aggregate oil space separating stars or galaxies.
Zeno paradox is basically defined like this:
“At every instant an arrow is at one place, and the tip of the arrow, a point, takes up zero distance. No matter how many instants we add, we never achieve a finite distance, so the arrow cannot move”
An “arrow” is simply illustration for an extended length towards a point of zero space, i.e., there is no distance in that area. The dynamics of this notion can be stated thusly:
The space between any two objects moving at the same rate as each other, is always also moving at the same rate as the object disclosed by it, therefore ‘no’ two objects can ever truly surpass each other in total space. This “moving” within the same space is a state of inertia because there is always a smaller area wherein it can be reducible to it. This “smaller” area within space always a greater area of space to always remain stable for the infinitesimal duration towards an in infinitely-small-point. One object can never surpass the other ‘no’ matter how much faster it goes because the space between them is simultaneously moving along with the objects moving within the space separating it from other objects. Space “acts” as a dimension concealing any relative difference between any two distinct abstractions of objects.
Halfway
Zeno aims to prove that there is no motion ultimately, in the ultimate sense, there is no motion in the grand scheme of the universe.
The Zeno paradox depends on the idea that there is always “half” a space between any complete duration between one point towards another. The “halfway” of space between any two objects itself has also a half of space. Any complete duration has half of space, and half of that space, has also half of a space, continued on to an infinite regress. In other words, in an area of space, there is always a mid-point between them (halfway), such that, in order to take a full step forward, moving from one point to another, that presupposes a midpoint between the initial position of the step, and the end point towards which it lands on.
The half of a step, is another step in-between that step, and every time, that halfway space itself also possess a halfway space, so on and so forth. You can never make a complete step beyond that space, which also possess half a space. The beginning and the end contain the middle, therefore the middle, is always stuck in-between the start and the end. If the middle goes beyond the end, then it becomes the end, and if it goes behind the beginning, then it is the initial start of the process.
If there is an infinite amount of space between two objects, whether it is micro or macro, that space must be covered first, halfway, then they must go half of the remaining way, continuing in this manner, there will always be some small distance remaining between any two points, such that no single point can ever truly surpass another point on a series, such that the series itself is simply the order of a number set of points coming after another, without ever surpassing the place or position of each other.
The idea of space totally, will never be reached. For example, if there is a finish-line that the runner must cross in order to defeat the turtle, at an infinitesimal level, there is always a smaller amount of space that the runner must first surpass in order to get to the point he is after. Every time the runner takes a step forward, he must first take a step half way before that, and he does this every time at an infinite rate because there is always a point he must first cover in order to get to the next.
Aristotle reputed Zeno paradox on the ground that it lacks practical truth, it is only theoretically valid, but in reality it does NOT hold merit because it can be disproven by simply taking the actual step forward, and getting to your destination. However, the essence of the idea remains true, in that, motion in the general scheme of reality is NOT present because nothing is beyond that which no single thing can go beyond. The runner will never surpass the finish line, if the point he is aiming after keeps getting pushed one step further ahead of him, he will always be trying to catch up to that point one step further ahead of him. Both the turtle and runner occupy an in infinite space that they both fail to entirely cover. The turtle and the runner are unequal in how they cannot fully cover infinity, but they are both equal because they equally fail to cover infinity, they are equally disclosed within it.
No matter, whatever the magnitude is between the interactions of the objects, there is always a greater “area” whereby they can interact within. However, this “greater” area, which is NOT a surplus, but rather is a “net”, is actually concealed within a smaller area disclosing the object from the inside-out. From within itself, it falls into a smaller area located within itself. The greater area is a net value contained within the object, whereby the “greater” is the smaller area always can become even smaller infinitely.
The frame of the object acts as the reference frame that the infinite can utilize as a dimension it can go “deeper” and “greater” within. Deeper because the area is always falling within a smaller area of space within the reference frame (outline) of the object. Greater because the smaller area within, is infinitely becoming smaller (infinitesimally) within the form of the object. There is always an area within the object that can become smaller, the function of the “greater” is in the capacity for a smaller state to always continue to become even smaller, or for a greater state to always become greater. The capacity to become higher or lower in magnitude constitutes the function of the Alph number. When an area within a greater area becomes smaller, the factor of the greater is now the area disclosing that even smaller area. When an area becomes smaller, it is smaller relative to a greater area. The residual is always a greater area left behind a smaller extension going deeper within it.
Quantum Entanglement
The area discloses the infinite set of possible number of ways the total extension between any infinite set number of objects can extend into measuring.
No matter how far apart objects are separated by space, there is always a greater space disclosing that interaction. The latter idea is found in the modern notion of “quantum entanglement“, whereby particles (the most basic forms of objects) always exhibit the same – “angle” of rotation – no matter the distance between the space that separates them.
Particles are distinguished by infinite distance, but they still move and behave in the same way. This idea actually suggests that the way the universe is, can be”ordered” by ways of events, rather than what we observe as objects. Events disclose objects and they determine for them the nature of their interactions of motion. The universe is ordered into parallelisms of events instantaneously occurring, and only interact in exhibiting the same form of motion outside them. They are separated by space, but mimic each other in behaviour and direction of motion. This idea simply suggests that the same event concurs across parallel dimensions of time.
In the totality of space, this makes sense when space is infinite because both objects appear on it as abstractions of time, sequence of events disclosed by a single form, or moments of that process, distinct events occurring right after one another. However the process, if it truly separates moments into distinct objects moving in space, then it must disclose all separate objects into the same manifold. Objects therefore do NOT ultimately move in space because infinitely speaking, there is ‘no’ more space to move into, space ends at an infinite point. Objects only exhibit motion when they are relative to each others’ path in time occupying a sequence of unfolding events.
Zeno example – If we paint the image of a turtle moving slow, and the Olympic runner moving fast, the olympic runner is only moving fast within his own disclosed space, but that space is inherently distinguished from the space disclosing the turtle, therefore the runner never truly surpasses the space that hosts the turtle if they are in different dimensions, which in the totality of nature, they are NOT necessarily in the same dimension, even if they are within the same area of space. You can still be in the same space but occupy different dimensions, i.e., size in reference to speed of time. Size alters speed, and speed in space alters time.
Warp Drive
The hypothetical proposal of “warp drive” assumes that the spacetime fabric continuum can be extracted using high levels of energy such that a “piece” of spacetime itself is separated within the whole of spacetime, and can be made maneuverable within the general plane it was extracted from, and it can be made to move “faster” within that plane, by actually surpassing the piece of spacetime it was extracted from.
You can separate space into distinct cubes, and layer them onto each other extended towards an observer, and infinitesimally away within the observer. The observer is the reference frame that a spectrum extends into a range between a greater area of space (macroscopic space), and a microscopic) area of space, zero space, or infinite space. This means that space itself can be divided into distinct units of measure (e,g. like cubes of an XY axis graph), and these cubes can be manipulated to surpass each other at different levels of (speeds) motion – backwards or forward in time. Events form the past (backwards) in time by remaining as infinite possibilities of objects, and future (forward) in time by occurring each right after one another. So that if one object is moving faster on space within its own measure of time.
The measure of time at a different area of space only observes that object moving relative to the space it is disclosed within, the object never truly supposes the space that contains it, it is always stuck within space no matter the rate of speed it covers. No matter how fast an object goes, it never surpasses the space that contain it, and because it never fully covers its own space, it can only change reference frame relative to other objects changing reference frames of time (events), it never actually surpasses that same infinite space disclosing the other objects.
Unoccupied Space (inertia) 111
Objects truly separated within space are also dimensionally separated by space.
Space is a dimension disclosing different dimensions of objects NOT just objects appearing to be different from each other in size. This means that if space is a dimension separating objects, then space is also a dimension that is separate from other dimensions. like time for example. However, time and space are different dimensions of the same entity, call it the object, or motion of it. This means that if there is one object occupying space, than that space the object is occupying is also, separated by more space that the object is NOT occupying, and therefore there is space that ‘no’ two or more objects can ever occupy.
This inherently unoccupied space stands as a divider between the space that objects occupy as the difference between their dimension.
For example, if you take 1 continuous line ever extending forward, besides a point, that is NOT moving, within a pure plain space, it seems that the line and the point are in a static position. The line cannot infinitely extend outwards away from the point because then the point would be surpassed and can no longer appear relative to the line. The line must therefore extend towards a limited point, wherein it stops, and appears to be itself, or it extends away from itself finally reaching the limit of space, or space as its limit, it falls within the space and loops back to the earliest point in space it stared out from the extension.
The heavier the object, the faster it falls down, and in a more straight downwards manner. But also the lighter the object, the more in a slanted it falls down, and the slower, for example a feather goes down slower than a metal ball. However in a pure vacuum, with no interference of air, gravity, or other elements, they fall equal at the same rate , whereas some objects to NOT fall vertically down, but sway on an angle falling more horizontally, for example, a parachute diver does NOT fall straight down, but falls on a slanted sideways angle with the interference of air. These examples show that the animation of motion takes into account the totality of variables in relation to each other in forming the event.
The basic answer is that an uninterrupted object will remain itself as long as possible, until it becomes something else. Every object undergoes through a process of “degeneration.” —The object will slowly, over a stretch period of time, start to loose more molecules than it produces. This decline in gain, and surplus in disorder, will dismember the object from a subatomic level, until it dissipates into the the indeterminate flux of spacetime.
Self-externality
Nature is understood by the idea of self-externality.
Nature is the negative of itself and this constitutes the positive determination in which nature as nature exists. This externality is portrayed as the indifferent subsistence of each component isolated from each other; and that this otherness is the negation of negation and therefore there is no negation, but what exists positively are a bunch of things different from each other, but their nature is these differences within a commonality. Each particular body in nature is conceived external from every other in relation and this externality constitutes the resolution. The concept of nature then possess no notion of freedom but only necessity as contingency. The logic of the negative is the abstract essence of nature, Hegel explains;
“Nature is to be viewed as a system of stages, in which one stage necessarily arises from the other and is the truth closest to the other from which it results, though not in such a way that the one would naturally generate the other, but rather in the inner idea which constitutes the ground of nature.”
When nature is conceived by its own working, each particular stage is taken to produce the other stage. For example, atomic stage gives rise to the molecular, and the molecular to macro-scale. that any given particular stage possess the ability to give rise to another. That the particular is able to multiple itself without that aspect of multiplication as being the Universal. The capability of one stage given rise to another is merely taken as something given.
Explain how the dialectical process, which is reason or consciousness is in the working behind each of these external staged as sustained.
“Precisely this externality is characteristic of nature: differences are allowed to fall apart and to appear as existences indifferent to each other; and the dialectical concept, which leads the stages further, is the interior which emerges only in the spirit.”
Nature appears as a series of objects emerging out of other objects, or this transition in time, is actually the stages occurring to the indifferent substrate as it develops into tis identity. Nature appears as a process of an indifferent substate undergoing stages of development characterizing its identity.
Natural Paradox
#71 (first articulated – march.17.2015 – Reason is self-creation (automeiosis)
Scientific materialism creates a paradox in the conceptual analysis of the universe. On the one hand, the laws of nature are seen as static, determined, mechanical operations; while on the other hand, there is an element of nature involving spontaneity; indeterminacy and freedom. The former is understood by a set of formulas each of which, have logic as the underpinning. But the question “where does this logic originates from?”, is dismissed as requiring an answer because in the crude pragmatic doctrines, which empiricism relies on, the utility of something alone is sufficient enough for the basis of its full explanation. In other words, you do NOT require an explanation of how a phenomena came into being, if it is already present. However, it is incomplete if we exclude the process of Becoming from Being, if Being is itself a process of Becoming, then the essence of its explanation is NOT revealed.
The very basis of the scientific method is deemed NOT related to the scientific method.
This is characterized as the the categorical paradox in the ontology. On the one hand, the laws of nature are seen bearing rationality as the basis, this is the way science can be applied to an understanding of nature. But while on the other hand, the source of this Reason, whether it be a life form or the human mind, is deemed unrelated to or somehow independent of the rationality in the world it inhabits. Modern science is grappling with the relation between reason in the world outside the mind and reason in the mind within the world.
The laws of logic, governing the understanding in the mind, is the sublation from the “laws of Reason”, governing the world. The understanding always presupposes the laws of Reason in the world. The laws of nature are mediated by Reason and the human mind. Reason mediates the human mind with their nature, be it external or Internal. 1) If reason is Internal, then the mind possess the capacity to determine itself in an environment with intent and base action on principles and rules that it fins within itself. 2) If the mind is external, than the world is set in a way that yields a necessity for the mind , the world outside the mind is predetermined in a rational way that the mind must adapt to, and base its behaviour on factors outside itself. The action is influenced by something outside it that governs its conduct in a correct manner over an improper manner, or the other way around.
The laws of the – natural world – are in contradiction with Reason, but only by being inversions of each other. The contradiction bears their unity.
What is the resolution?
The human mind serves as the resolution. Our logical ability to understand the laws of nature is where exists the laws governing Reason. The only difference is that the laws of Reason in the world are unconscious, while the laws of Reason in the mind is consciouses; nevertheless, they both operate as the same laws. what is this question of consciousness ? This is the enduring notion.
Naturalism
A rational attempt to understand nature as disclosed by an observer is dismissed by scientific materialism because the observer is assumed to be impartial to the phenomenon, NOT just in the method of collection data, but as an ultimate principle. The observer is just what the name denotes, an observer, a passive agent reacting to an independent phenomena before him.
It is stated that it is, at least impossible that, every part of nature can be rationally explained. The closest contemporary term that captures this meaning is known as “naturalism“. The definition however is inconclusive with its most crucial component misapprehended.
Naturalism is defined from the inverse of its true meaning in five ways:
1. Naturalism: is an approach to philosophical problems that interprets them as tractable through the methods of the empirical sciences or at least, without a distinctively “a priori” project of theorizing.
2. This method taken on its own, views the ability to empirical science to NOT involve its own ability., i.e, it sees the Understanding independent from Reason, the latter being the ability of the former. Reason does NOT only predicate the Understanding, it is also the resolution to the understanding. Reason is the understanding in the consciouses form, the latter bearing its organic nature. The true task of empiricism is to conceive the understanding in its natural form, that is, as Reason.
3. Naturalism applies Reason while at the same time dismisses its existence. Rationality in nature is seen as NOT necessary for its existence because nature is a default state that any set of process in the universe reverts back to. The term “nature” is broad to include both organic nature, and inorganic nature, the distinction of which is blurred and unclear at the least. Without understanding the underpinnings to empiricism, the understanding on its own fails to see any rational order to the natural world. The human understanding in this stage fails to do what it ironically is made to do.
Darwin’s theory of evolution is an example of the understanding without the claim to Reason. Darwin makes the empirical claim to evolution without conceiving first what it is. The process of evolution is conceived as directed towards no end, towards no aim. Aim is dismissed as defining the process of evolution. The result is viewed as being independent from the process. This however dismisses, the process as being the process because it attributes the result as NOT being the essential property. Whether the result is the end-aim or the starting predisposition, the process is only true as meditating the beginning to the end. One of the earlier notions concerning the process, is derived from the idea that the process possess a set of infinite results. This originates in the pre-Socrates tradition, the Atomists. This notion is adopted today by scientific materialism in that, vulgar materialism exerts that the process is infinite in duration and also divisibility. Both the earlier atomist notions, and the materialists today, presupposes infinity as the result towards any rational process. however, they assume that this infinity is random, or irrational, when any finite explanation of the whole process exhibits rationality, meaning conceivable form to an observer.
4. The process of Evolution is seen as NOT being a process, but rather a set off results. This follows the same application derived from mathematical logic. Numbers are applied to each other with the resolution being the contradiction. The contradiction is taken in the literal sense, that is, the contradiction is itself the resolution. This logic achieves the infinite regress the materialist arrive at with the indivisibility of matter, the more you “split” matter, the more matter you find. In the mathematical sense, numbers beget more numbers. The concept of the infinite regress is only theoretically because when we observer any object in nature, we see a definite and finite entity. moreover the mind itself that makes this direct derivation of finite objects in nature, itself is oriented towards a finite and direct conception. Math fails to conceive of what Whitehead understands as “aim”. Aim in this sense is understood to involve a goal or result. This notion is strongly accepted as bearing concrete reality in quantum theory.
5. The resolution is taken to mean this telos, that is, every resolution by its logical necassasity involves development. Every resolution is progressively developmental as that is its logical necassasity. This notion must be adopted in order to perceive of evolution. Evolution is seen as being the opposite of what it is. Development is seen as being for survival, rather than the inverse, which is the true notion of evolution, that is, survival is seen for development. The scientific materialists understanding of evolution must be restated as its true understanding.
Savage
Savages are NOT rational in the sense of being individual(s) that think for themselves, but they are rational by nature because they are purely social, if we take the “social” in its most crude sense, this means that they exhibit rational relations. The relations between social animals are always done with a reason, purpose, and intent in mind, e.g,. sex is done for reproduction, eating for health, and more higher relations like learning is made for truth, art for beauty etc,. whether these aims are actualized or corrupted are part of the rational process. rationality between each other means— orderly and NOT chaotic or random. The relations between the species are themselves rational even if the animals themselves are not-rational. In this sense, there is an implicit rational force guiding the evolutionary direction of the species, which it is unconscious to the individual members parking in it.
The social always presupposes Ethics, which also supposes Reason. Ethics in its rational form is the right set of relations constituting Being. Social even in the crude sense involves a rational set of relations so as to be a Social. The social animal in our understanding of evolution indicates these rational set of relations. Not that the individual animal is rational only rational in and of himself, like man can think, but that his arrangements and his behaviours in his conditions, even though might be unconscious, are nevertheless rational. Meaning they are done for some aim, they have reason to them because they can be explained, and although they are unconscious in the sense the individual animal is only acting in accordance with his nature, his behaviour if it would be examined by a conscious mind would exhibit determinations as if it was conscious. Or rather made by someone conscious. The problem is that if the individual animal is unconscious, but behaving as if they are conscious, or as if there is consciousness, who, or what characteristic does this consciousness entail if it is NOT the mere particular organism acting on its operations?
Aristotle – Natural vs. unnatural motion
#53- (first articulated Nov.21.2015)
Internal & external relation –
Aristotle makes the distinction between the natural motion, which is motion derived from within; in contrast to things moved unnaturally, when something moves something else from. there outside, it is moved because of something else, moved by external source. Unnatural motion is the type of origination not from the source itself, but the source of the motion is derived from a factor other than itself.
Aristotle associates the natural motion to life, whereas unnatural motion to disorder (violence). Life asserts order because its movement is derived from itself and towards the subsistence (continued survival) of itself, whereas unnatural motion is disorder, chaos, or the uncertainty because it is caused by something external that it cannot control or predicate. An artificial object is brought into motion by something else other than its own self, and it cannot cause its own motion into being but depends on that other for its existence (birth) and continued existence (maintenance). Natural motion causes the movement of unnatural motion, and therefore Aristotle suggests that the order of the universe is derived naturally from a living source, be that organic nature, or ultimately God.
Matter is artificial & Mind is natural
The motion of matter is directed by life because its motion on its own, is NOT from itself, but is externally moved, e,g. Fire for example only moves up and not down, if it had its own motion from itself it would move both up and down. Matter without a form is unidentifiable, in a state of flux, and therefore is indiscernible and cannot exists. While mind always brings itself into being by conceiving itself, either by doubting its own existence, and therefore that is – itself the first form of existence (Desecrate principle). The mind identifies the matter in flux by limiting it to a finite, yet discernible conception of a definite object.
What possess its own motion moves the motion that does NOT possess its movement within itself; if life is the natural motion that possess its motion within itself and matter is the unnatural motion that does NOT have its motion within it, therefore life is the motion that directs the motion of matter. It would be wrong to suggest that only one kind of motion is posed by something that can move itself. Natural motion brings actuality to the activities potentially possessed (426 30). For example, what is actually hot brings motion to what is potentially hot, and also to what is potentially cold, e.g., hot water eventually cools down.
Because the term “potentiality” is applied in different ways, can be the same reason why it is hard to grasp, how motion from within itself is NOT just directed in just one way. A man who is gaining knowledge is potentially different than one who has knowledge, but is NOT using (applying) it. When something capable of acting, and something potentially capable of being acted on, become unified together, is when what is potential becomes actual. This distinction also applies to things that cause motion: in two ways; 1) it causes motion unnaturally and 2) naturally. In the case of unnatural motion the thing does NOT move itself, but it contains within itself the source of motion – being moved.
Definition of nature as “natural”
Modern definitions of the “natural” are somewhat shallow given their emphasis on specification. The term “natural” is usually applied to make the distinction between things existing or caused by “nature”, and NOT made or caused by mankind. The distinction between nature and man is a vague one because the distinction alone does NOT supplement the definition of the natural.
Nature is defined both as the collective force disclosing everything in the physical world and the innate and essential quality of something. In the Ancient Greek sense, nature and natural are unified to mean the essential characteristic constituting quality for the function proper in the activity. According to Aristotle natural means the capacity for proper work, anything that properly operates according to its function. Whether a knife is made by humans or NOT is still considered natural if it cuts well. In Middle English, nature denotes the physical power of a person, “natura” means quality. It is natural for knife to cut well and unnatural if it is dull.
It is in our recent contemporary times that “nature” is primary defined as a set of “Rudimentary” (means basic, or at a very early stage) components that exists on their own without human interference. Nature is a default template that is present prior to the discovery of it by an observer. However, at a basic quantum level, nature does not behave in this way. At the basic subatomic level, the act of observation influence a change in nature, and that it is found, whenever there is an observer, there is an act to change or influence nature. Therefore, nature always comes indivisible with an observer that acts as the source for its own self-origination and/or self-determination.
Artificial Motion
The biological definition of nature limits the natural to the collection of things considered organic life- organisms. This likewise excludes human creation on the grounds that artificial objects are a copy of something natural. Aristotle says having ‘no’ innate tendency for self-motion, but motion brought about by something external, means the generation of artificial things, is caused by something other than themselves.
So far as the nature of “inorganic” goes, the biological sciences define “motion” NOT as consisting of, or deriving from, living matter meaning that organic includes molecules with carbon and hydrogen basis, whereas inorganic molecules consists of other elements, which may be either hydrogen or carbon, but NOT both, otherwise they are organic.
The statues of inorganic matter as natural is left ambiguous by the specialized sciences. biological science pushes aside anything inorganic to the branch of physics but physics strips away the meaning of inorganic matter as having anything to do with life other than the fact that physical concepts apply to living things but as to the question of how physical laws are themselves living, is supposed to be dealt with by chemistry being the intermediary between physics and biology, but chemistry treats life as purely mechanical process.
In what sense can inorganic matter be considered “natural” such that to exhibit living principle is left ambiguous by lack of synthesis concerning this question among the specialized science. (Add to physics chemistry and biology relation of how environment is conception of the organism)
(Add this to problems with – whole and part)
Nature as abstraction
The word nature is misleading because it produces a static image of a scene happening on in its own accord that observation stumbles upon. And it is a set place within definite perimeters. for example we have the image of a forest with birds and animals as depicting nature because we simply stumbled upon this and we observe it happening independently of our interference with it. Or when we look into a microscope, we stumble upon a set of molecular activity. What ever we abstract as a static scene of nature is really an instant or a moment in the life of an activity that is operating on a different magnitude of time relative to the observer, but that does not mean that this general activity is independent from the obsever.
If time is fundamentally a motion, and motion is fundamentally the process of generation, and there is discrepancies between the rate of different things at which they generate, some things happen faster, and some slower, but they are all happening, the point at which one thing happens intersects with a point in the happening of a different phenomenon at a different point in it’s happening. Some process appear more static from the point of view of an other while, others appear appear instantaneous, but there is still the indispensable factor that they are happening in time . For example we see most trees and flowers attached to the ground and we conclude that trees must originate outwards from the soil, but the reality is that the chemical ingredients of a tree are derived mainly from air, and the heat and light from sun. Those are the ingredients that make up all organic aggregates in nature.
Life Process
The chemical composition of wood varies from species to species, but is approximately 50% carbon, 42% oxygen, 6% hydrogen, 1% nitrogen, and 1% other elements (mainly calcium, potassium, sodium, magnesium, iron, and manganese) by weight.
The yellow to orange coloured flower head of the dandelions only demonstrate an abstraction of the particular time period in the flowers lifetime when it is on the ground, but when it matures it turns into the spherical seed heads containing many single-seeded fruits ready for its other part in its life in the air-aided dispersal over long distances. Nature is the entirety of this life process and NOT the mere abstraction we find an object in a given moment. These snapshots in the life of a dandelion makes it a living being but the way it is living is not the same way as we know something living like an organism. An organism is a developed – kinda way of living – because the object developed free-agency, away from the time sequence constraining a set of unfolding events, and is now independent from a duration as only being these series of events, but is an object, which maintains the same identity throughout the movement of time as a set of events.
Stages
Life prior to the development of willing organisms is an instantaneity or an event taking on the form of an object,. In other words, the event does NOT happen to the object, but rather the event is the object. It is only with the development of an organism who maintains an identity throughout time that the conception of an event happening to the object arises as a valid concurrence.
For example, these stages of the dandelion makes it out to be completely different object but they all identify as the same because they are different events of the same duration. The life of a dandelion is identical with the events of its duration in time. Self-conscious beings like humans do not identify themselves with the changing events constituting their life duration, but rather take on a third-person point of view, an ego, which watches over the changing effect of time on the body. themselves as simply the same duration of a set of different events, because we maintain the same identity throughout. For example, it is very difficult to discern from the fact alone of looking at a baby and an elder that they are the same man, unless we are told that they are the same person.
We infer the situation where something of weight say a rock, falls towards something of greater mass, say the ground, into a natural state, but nature is NOT one thing or one place, but only insofar as a conception where a set of inverse logical relations can unfold in a rational order. This means that nature has no real fixed borderline disclosing a fixed state called nature, but is identical with the uncertainty of the fleeting conception from any one of its parts forms a point in a set of relations constituting a whole.
(Add sun is like spinning circle of fire)
But nature as a logical principle is always predicted by a subject, possess character in the form of determination, that nature is the subject to its predicate having a rational form of determining its object predicated by its subject. The object exhibits a set of relations not only in the possible agencies of action but also in the implicit structure that the object is disclosing as its form. There is a discrepancies between the structure of the object that enables it to act, and the actions of the object that constitutes its structures, both of which appears to be different process except they operate under the same rules. The object is determined by a fundamental logical and mathematical sequence of an activity, a sequence that both take the strict and ridged principles of empirical science that we denote as fixed by direct observation no matter how fundamental it is, but also the ontological conduct which posits a set of free assumptions, which are in the first place presuppositions for a thing to be considered as a fact at hand. In the former case we can always observe a fundamental form like an atom by altering space and time like magnifying the matter of an object.
Mind has the role in nature to determine a fundamental form that becomes its circumstances, but the way it does this, is really our enigma because the link between when mind conceives something and when it experiences it, is not finely defined since their relation is an instantaneity of a moment. The difficulty in answering this question is not only a direct result from the limitations of the sense organs, but also theoretical activity of the mind has to necessarily impose on the uncertain principle, what it is not conceiving, onto a knowable conception. For example, when you are directly perceiving something and therefore know it to be there, you are also invariably ignorant of all the other things not directly perceived, to directly perceive something and therefore know it is an imposition of what is unperceived as its basis.
How a “thing” conceives itself
A thing conceives itself by taking an internal aim, end, idea, inclination or whatever you call a representation of a will or thought that characterize the thing, and derive that through an external relation. In other words a fundamental abstract form is adopted and characterized by a physical manifestation. For example, one might say each skin cell has the internal aim or idea of making the organ we identity as skin, and they do this by binding externally with one an other forming the protein fibers that make up the skin. The claim that a thing conceives itself basically means when something enters into being, but moreover it also means the idea that a thing posits outwards about itself to other things. For example, how I conceive myself is how I portray my self. And so there is an invariable external relation attached with the conception of a thing. The internal aim is not anything concrete by our sense of the word meaning an object there and now, but it is moreover the motion of the object that is already presupposed as being the external relation of the internal aim that is the movement, having the external object making a move or an action.
The internal aim is therefore the organization and ordering of a set of already presupposed external relations, what is external does not come out of what is internal these cause and effect formulations are logically inaccurate, what is external is already presupposed as there, and the internal of that is the organization of the external relations into a form. We only witness a thing coming into being from a linear state of time where a thing develops and grows into its process, but this growth of a thing in time is actually the abstraction of its conception whose development has simultaneously already carried out all its necessarily variables of time at an instant moment. The process of development is the experience of the conception. The question becomes in what sense is the conception conceived into being?
Ultimate Nature
A conception comes into being naturally like it is natural for an apple to fall to the ground, it is natural for a thing to be conceived.
The problem of ultimate principle in the difference between nature and reality
The subject of acting or to determine into being, is placed more significant in the broader subject of reality, mainly in theology, which deals with ultimate cause. In more recent times, the specialized study of nature, like physics, does NOT accept sufficiently without demonstration any particular principle to be the ultimate one. This does NOT mean that there is no ultimate principle, but the nature of the ultimate like anything else in nature is dynamical. Therefore it is NOT true to say that because there is an ultimate nature any one principle involved in nature must be ultimate.
To have an ultimate nature as opposed to something specific in nature being ultimate is a difficult problem because all we know of nature are particular and specific things, yet what is unknown is a final end of these processes, which we take as something that no particular thing can be ultimate, but because all we know to exist are particular things in nature, nothing else can be ultimate but a particular approach to it. To have an ultimate nature and to have anything specific be ultimate are not necessarily mutually exclusive arguments and this is really characteristic of the bigger problem in ontology between nature and reality. Whitehead says;
“in these lectures we are keeping off the profound and vexed question as to what we mean by ‘reality’. I am maintaining the humbler thesis that nature is a system. But I suppose that in this case the less follows from the greater and that I may claim support of these philosophers [who maintain reality generally is a system]. The same doctrine is essentially interwoven in all modern physical speculation”
The difference between nature and reality is elucidated for technical reasons so that the writer does not need to go into details about principles that go beyond the specific subject matter under discussion. Whitehead does not stay true to his metaphysical inclinations and reverts back to the empiricist within him. Whitehead swiftly uses this to claim that both nature and reality are the same in being a system without needing to explain why reality, the more difficult of the two, is a system, at least in that section. The task of the ontological science is to go off topic to find general truths applicable to it. This goes hand in hand with what later whitehead says is “The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanations of complex facts. We are apt to fall into the error of thinking that the facts are simple because simplicity is the goal of our quest. The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be, Seek simplicity and distrust it.” (Objects 164)
Simple
By “simple” here NOT only means easy to communicate or understand but also most basic and primary facts. The most basic and primary facts about nature are the most abstract and difficult to communicate.
Meditation “watching” thought
In modern formulations Thought is disassociated from the natural unfolding of events as if thinking has nothing to do with the objects constituting the events of experience. The ultimate subject of metaphysics is encompassed by Aristotle’s notion of “thinking on thinking” which presents a logical confusions to the ordinary understanding because whenever two of the same words are used in conjunction to each other, each specific definition of one side of the word is confused with the other forming the double meaning.
Thinking on the one hand, is the process of loosing oneself in speculation, the process of thought as it naturally happens in the mind about possibilities; while on the other hand, it is the intention of awareness, and the meditation of the mind onto itself thinking, “watching” the natural flow of thought as it speculates on things. The natural thinking that the mind looses itself in is identical with the natural unfolding of the events that occur for the experience of the observer because thought is about what will happen in reality while what happens in reality is about what thought is, what happens and what thought is are the same thing, except there is a discrepancy in time between them.
Natural “flow” – generation
(Add Alan Watts, flower unfolds all together into a whole scene, but only when we break something a part into pieces and reconstruct it, we think that this is the way things naturally come together, generate into being. The generation of an event is natural when a phenomenon comes into-being from an unknown determination in time that is the self-determination of the thing. Instead of taking this fact about an activity as an enigma, in nature it is the first principle for a process to be distinguished as having a beginning is to be predicated by its arrival from an unknown blank state. A conception must come out of a void gab, being the unknown relation, to any other known events, otherwise the beginning of the event would be a part of somewhere in the middle of an event belonging to another object, and the distinction between a beginning and end would be lost.
The interesting part is when you allow something to act in its natural “flow” in time, there are no rigidity in its physical composition as it expresses an activity. Things are NOT externally put together as coming from outside each other, but the activity and the parts we take as distinct from the composition appear as harmonious flow of the same event,. The whole event is the simultaneous appearance of these distinct parts. It is only when the natural flow of an event is interfered with, the composition changes to be that of two objects outside each other that where once together, but when we take an already put together object and displace it into parts, we cannot put it together in the same way we dismantled it. We separate the object into different objects and that changes the natural composition of what was once the same activity in time.
For example if you do NOT let the flower naturally blossom but you take it out of its root and separate that from the stem, and now you have two completely different objects, that cannot be said to be the same flower, a stem is a stem and on its own it is not the daisy, which one can be used for medicine, the other part for materials. This simple interference with the natural composition of the flower changes it altogether into an entirely different set of events in time. We may take this as an obvious and straightforward situation that requires no explanation, that when we break something down spatially it turns into separate things, but in quantum mechanics how the natural operations of a phenomenon changes based on its interaction with an observer that can determine it in a way other than the destiny belonging to it, is a perplexing unexplained problem because the observer takes the role always opposite to the determination it set out.
Naturally
The Tao te Ching speaks of acting “naturally” which turns out to be an ‘easier said than done’ statement. What it means to be “natural” or what is the same thing “nature” is difficult concept to define because in our modern scientific context we take nature as an object, a landscape, environment, ecosystem which is distinct from its organism inhabitants. This presupposition alienates the active agency in nature from the inactive and we are left with two abstractions that seem full on their own but are only so because they depend on the presupposition of each other which is left unattended to as part of the equation.
Classically in the ancient Greek and the Buddhist traditions nature is NOT an object as a specific environment but rather is a way, process, or an activity, so that it is the “nature” of a rock to fall down to the ground, is the same to say that it is “natural” for something to happen that way. In other words, nature is the “way” of something happening. modern thought does not see the way a phenomenon happens as belonging to the phenomenon, but tries to abstract the way it happens as an objective fact applicable to many phenomenons.
Natural as what is already happening
To be “natural” is associated with acting in the way that is already happening, for example, “keep walking – just act natural”. This crude understanding does not point out what is required for something to actually happen. The mere happening of a thing is adopted as the reason why it happens. Modern interpretations of Buddhism assert that there is absolutely no reason why things happen, events just simply occur, and that is the satisfactory explanation. The taoist for example define nature as “of itself so”, nature is a spontaneity, something which is not forced into being but simply occurs into being (Allan watts 2:20:14). This however does not explain from where this way occurs, and it is the locating the source of the way is the scientific task. The materialist notion of “force” as the energy of compulsion for physical action, implies that activities are caused by external source that can be specifically discerned as arriving from a specific position. But this specific position is assumed to be the cause of a general scale, which the position only belongs as a specific location within. The question becomes in what way a specific point derives but this is only one of the way something generally happens. The “way” phenomena happens is that it is generally occurring, but in that there is a particular point which we can point to as being the definite way it is happening. For example, the light from the sun is equally covering all sides the south, east and west, but we can look up at noon and say this sunlight is coming directly from the north where the sun stands.
If we face away from the sun south of it, we see that the light covers the south and if we turn to the east or west we see the same generality of sunlight, but the way this is happening is derived from the particular of where the sun stand at the north. A force is a specific way a phenomenon generally happens.
Happening for no reason at all vs. happening for its own sake
Happening for no reason at all; and happening for its own sake
The latter claim however is usually asserted without the equivalent ancient claim made by the Greeks, things are done for their own sake. The Buddhist idea that there is no reason why things happen, only that they do is synonymous with the Ancient Greek notion that things happen for their own sake and that is the reason why they happen. Empirical science today is an interesting variation of these ancient rules to the question of “why” because empirical science explains that a satisfactory explanation does nothing but observer the already occurring operations of a phenomenon. An ontological problem arose from this simple belief adapted by modern science because the phenomenon is meant to be viewed unscathed by the observer, it is assumed that the scientist should not be concerned with why it is happening which is taken as a premise to claim the phenomenon actually has no reason why it happens, the reason is said to be random. The scientific method of falsifiability concludes that a piece of information is factual when the experiment is repeated multiple times showing the same result.
Modern times grew the temperament that assumes the fact things happen excludes the reason why they happen, as if “why” something happens and the fact that it does happen are two separate things. In ontology however, the need for an explanation requires more than confirming that the same fact repeated over and over again provides the same result, moreover the mere happening of a phenomenon is not a satisfactory explanation because the connection between the observers own reasoning must be taking into account in the reason discovered in the natural operations of the phenomenon.
Interpretations of Aristotles definition of nature are confused similarly like interpretations of the Buddhist notion. Aristotle definition of nature as “a source or cause of being moved and of being at rest in that to which it belongs primarily” requires special attention on what is meant by “belongs primarily” in this context because the capacity to cause or move is what we mean to ‘act from its own end’ uninfluenced by outside source which is what belongs primarily. In other words, the “end” comes at the moment of a thing acting independently of anything and is the first precondition of being able to act.
In the Buddhist traditions the self-determination attributed with nature did NOT yet bring with it a recognizable character of nature identified as having the intention to bring an activity into being. Mind was NOT recognized as a distinct character of nature only that what is nature and mind are the same phenomenon. But in the ancient Greek era, mind is specifically assigned the self-determining element of nature. In modern empirical views mind and nature are seen as separate objects externally related with each other, and so the capacity to cause or self-determine is seen to belong to one against the other. mind is said to derive its capacity from nature, but nature is the tendency of what is already occurring, changing or resting in a particular way unless stopped otherwise or acted on by an external source, and so it does not have capacity of self-determining. But nature has already suscitate the conditions necessary for self-determination to arise, and so it is in some sense determination of it.
The mind must have somehow lacked self-determination but have gained it from nature, but nature is assumed to lack self-determination, so where does the quality of self-determination appear in mind from nature? To act upon nature is NOT seen as a primary quality of nature because it is assumed to only come after an already established natural concourse. On some level this is the grounding presumption for the empirical method to preserve what is already happening as unscathed by intervention that would otherwise alter an accurate picture of the natural course of a phenomenon. But to say nature is processes without the force of some will is quite inaccurate if what is shared by man and nature is a quality of self determination, or that there is something occurring from its own end, and only when they are seen as external causes to each other; what is passively perceived is said to be natural and what is actively acted on is distinguished as loosely speaking artificial.
An artificial object has no innate tendency to change because it is only acted on by an external source, for example a thing degenerates because of time or a table comes into being because of a man, time and the man act on the object that otherwise cannot itself act. But change whether brought upon by time onto the object must exists in both. the empirical definition similarly states that nature is already in motion and it changes or stops when something external affects it otherwise, remains in a particular motion unless acted on. Something artificial is different in that it had no originative motion like nature but is the same in that it is acted on to change . In the artificial case the motion that acts on the object is always known, whether it be time that degenerates a styrofoam or a man making a table, the external cause outside the artificial object is always known and can be identified as the natural source. Yet when it comes to the side of nature, the motion that is already naturally happening unless acted on exhibits no external cause for its movement, unless when acted on by something, we say there is an interference. Nature exhibits no external cause for its activity and this is a scientific problem for causation as it provides no reason for explanation other than a descriptive account of which is always limited as it relays on whatever information is readily available.
Nature is active since it has a movement that is already preconceived to act in a specific way.
Nature is the activity of yielding to a logical result
Something be called natural is identical with what it is a logical necessity. In other words, something natural is a logical necessity because it must always be conceived in that way that it is conceived.
The term “nature” is an abstraction used to capture a scene of a scenario already occurring by its own accord uninfluenced by a conception external to it. Ordinary usage of the term “nature” provides a static image from the term “naturally” because that is the active side of nature which defines when an activity yields to a rational basis. In fact nature is just the abstraction of a rational process yielding to a logical result. The first criteria to determine having a rational basis is for an activity to be able to self-determined, because if an activity is not determined by itself it is not in the first place identifiable but belongs as part of an other identity, which has already presupposed itself in the first place self-determined as it produces generative motion independently of any other sources. For example, something heavy falls to the ground is natural because it is caused without any other factor than those already involved in the process.
In a natural process there is no need to look anywhere else but in the phenomenon itself to find all the reason for its occurrence. Also something natural is able to happen in that way every time and without the interference of any other factor, which is the same thing as being self-evident, it is always true. Nature is an organic basis for logic because all the axioms are self-contained and comprehensive in an element, all the possibilities pertaining to a phenomenon is already considered. If all the material necessary to understand a thing is already self-contained and given in the thing itself, the only task left is the labour of actually doing so, which becomes the task of science and is a process of experience.
Energy is first logical element of nature
The logical quality of nature is found in the first element in the universe; energy has already all the power necessary for work, and this is why there cannot be any energy added or destroyed but only altered, or in other words applied. This fact is sometimes misleading because to denote an element already having all power brings up the question of why it further exists as a duration of particular steps, or for what else does it have left to do? This question is synonymous with the question of why would there be a limited form of energy if there is an infinity of it, which is based on the logic that one concept can not be true if the other is true. at the same time the fact that energy is infinite is derived through the limited scope of a particular form of energy. To say that energy has all its power self-contained brings the concern as to how a particular use of it can be made sense of, for example, all the energy is already there so it is not created, but not all the energy is used, and so making use of energy is different than it being readily available. someone making use of energy is a particular creation of it. Energy is therefore only potentially all there.
the same critique against the omnipotency of god is that if god is all powerful and perfect why would he create an imperfect man whose a limit to the perfection? This is a critique from the negative that presupposes the result without the process, in logical terms the proposal of a negative is itself positive because it is a move placed forward, or is a proposition, but is negated by the result producing a negation against its own proposal. any particular thing on its own is a perfect or complete creation but in relation to a whole it is a limit, e.g., the creation of the eye as an organ of nature, no matter how ugly the face it is on, is a perfect production.
Jung- to say that the conscious state is the complete state is like saying there is nothing missed out by conscious awareness, which we know to be false because there is more information not picked out consciously than picked out.
Jung distinguishes the unconscious from the conscious on the basis that the latter involves partial and limited experience whereas the former constitutes the majority of experience, except one is made aware of while the other is unaware, and so we associate with the aware part of the mind the aspect of where reality mostly exists. The characterization of consciousness as the limited form of experience is a poor philosophical explanation but is a necessary psychological one because consciousness in the psychoanalytic tradition of fraud and Jung is defined from the subjective point of view, the experiences, feelings, dreams, thoughts so on and so forth of the individual. The unconscious on the other hand which is said to characterize most of experience is given a kind of “dead” or inactive meaning from the point of view of the subjective self because it constitutes the unknown. The conscious side wills and determines itself in a particular manner but from its view the unconscious contents appear already determined and it is not obvious the cause for their nature nor as to whether anything directly aware of is even known. Alan Watts points out that the term “unconscious” has the unfortunate connotation of meaning a dead and inactive nature, which because constitutes most experience, maintains almost all experience as not living. Now of course Jung maintains that the unconscious is far from dead or inactive but argues the opposite because the unconscious is active and finds itself determining conscious contents even if the individual is unaware of this influence.
The idea of consciousness finds more of an objective side in the modern German philosophical traditions of Kant and Hegel. Descartes who is known as the father of modern science simply introduced the natural intuition that there is an obvious sense the body is one form of substance that the individual is directly conscious of, while thought is an altogether different substance the individual is only partially conscious of, but the body exhibits a certain degree of deception for the consciousness, while thought exhibits an approximate certainty as they cannot be doubted. This dualism is contained in the consciousness of the individual denoting the so called two sides of his nature, his externals versus his internal experience. Kant universalizes what is taken to be the subjective thoughts of an individual and argues those to actually be part of general principles of reason which are indivisible from subjective side. Principles of nature like spade and time are the indivisible relation of the subjective side of the individual with the general whole of nature. Hegel finalizes the modern tradition concerning reason and its relation to consciousness. What Jung later calls the unconscious in psychoanalytic is called by Hegel consciousness in philosophy and what Jung calls conscious Hegel defines as more specially speaking self-consciousness.
(Find jung section- conscious unconscious and nature)
Consciousness is already generally in nature because a natural phenomenon is an exhibition of a rational principle.