Section 76 (last updated 05.20.2021)
Whitehead quotes
Lecture seven: Nature lifeless
Old cultures
We inherit the traditional doctrine: we can detect the oversights, the superstitions, the rash generalizations of the past ages. We know so well what we mean and yet were remain so curiously uncertain about the formulation of any detail of our knowledge. This word `detail’ lies at the heart of the whole difficulty. You cannot talk vaguely about Nature in general.
174 Every age manages to find modes of classification which seem to be fundamental starting points for the researches of the special sciences. Each succeeding age discovers that the primary classifications of its predecessors will not work. In this way a doubt is thrown upon all formulations of Laws of Nature which assume these classifications as firm starting points. A problem arises. Philosophy is the search for the solution.
Whitehead defines nature
“define the term `Nature’ as here used. `Nature’, in these chapters, means the world as interpreted by reliance on clear and distinct sensory experiences, visual, auditory, and tactile. Obviously, such an interpretation is of the highest importance for human understanding.”
“Bits” of matter
“we can conceive nature as composed of permanent things, namely bits of matter, moving about in space which otherwise is empty. This way of thinking about nature has an obvious consonance with common-sense observation. There are chairs, tables, bits of rock, oceans, animal bodies, vegetable bodies, planets, and suns.”
175
“A bit of matter is thus conceived as a passive fact, an individual reality which is the same at an instant, or throughout a second, an hour, or a year. Such a material, individual reality supports its various qualifications such as shape, locomotion, colour, or smell, etc. The occurrences of nature consist in the changes in these qualifications, and more particularly in the changes of motion. The connection between such bits of matter consists purely of spatial relations.”
Geometry
“Mankind then proceeds to discuss these spatial relations and discovers Geometry. The geometrical character of space is conceived as the one way in which Nature imposes determinate relations upon all bits of matter which are the sole occupants of space. In itself, Space is conceived as unchanging from Eternity to Eternity, and as homogeneous from infinity to infinity.”
Common sense notion of the universe
When we examine the procedures of the great men in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, we find them presupposing this general commonsense notion of the Universe, and endeavouring to answer all questions in the terms it supplies.I suggest that there can be no doubt, but that ( 177) this general notion expresses large, all-pervading truths about the world around us. The only question is as to how fundamental these truths may be.
“I will recur to the main principles of the old common-sense doctrine, which even today is the common doctrine of ordinary life because in some sense it is true. There are bits of matter, enduring self-identically in space which is otherwise empty. Each bit of matter occupies a definite limited region. Each such particle of matter has its own private qualifications, such as its shape, its motion, its mass, its colour, its scent. Some of these qualifications change, others are persistent. The essential relationship between bits of matter is purely spatial. Space itself is eternally unchanging, always including in itself this capacity for the relationship of bits of matter.
Geometry is the science which investigates this spatial capacity for imposing relationship upon matter. Locomotion of matter involves change in spatial relationship. It involves nothing more than that. Matter ( 180) involves nothing more than spatiality, and the passive support of qualifications. It can be qualified, and it must be qualified. But qualification is a bare fact, which is just itself. This is the grand doctrine of Nature as a self-sufficient, meaningless complex of facts. It is the doctrine of the autonomy of physical science. It is the doctrine which in these lectures I am denying
Specialized science
Every special science has to assume results from other sciences. For example, biology presupposes physics.
It will usually be the case that these loans from one ( 179) specialism to another really belong to the state of science thirty or forty years earlier. The presuppositions of the physics of my boyhood are today powerful influences in the mentality of physiologists. Indeed we do not need even to bring in the physiologists. The presuppositions of yesterday’s physics remain in the minds of physicists, although their explicit doctrines taken in detail deny them.
Denying the senses
“The first item to be abandoned was the set of qualifications which we distinguish in sense-perception, namely colour, sound, scent, and analogous qualifications…The conclusion that I draw is that sense-perception for all its practical importance is very superficial in its disclosure of the nature of things. This conclusion is supported by the character of delusiveness—that is, of illusion—which persistently clings to sense-perception. For example, our perception of stars which ( 182) years ago may have vanished, our perceptions of images in mirrors or by refraction, our double vision, our visions under the influence of drugs. My quarrel with modern Epistemology concerns its exclusive stress upon sense-perception for the provision of data respecting Nature. Sense-perception does not provide the data in terms of which we interpret it.
Nature and thought
4:00
The philosophy of science aims to unify all sciences, or at least show how this endeavour is possible.
Nature is that which we perceive through the senses. Perception in this sense makes us aware of something that is self-contained for thought. The latter means that nature is “thought about”.
We have to stop thinking that nature and thought are different as whitehead suggests, although here he is only outlining there distinctions for technical reasons.
10:40
An “entity” is Latin for thing.
13:00
A “demonstration” is a gesture towards conveying an entity.
25:33
A fact is the undifferentiated termini of sense awareness. Factors are termini of sense awareness differentiated as elements of fact. Entities are factors in their function as termini of thought.
26:00
“When we speak of nature as a complex of related entities, the “complex” is fact as an entity for thought to whose bare individuality is ascribed the property of embracing in its complexity the natural entities.
Interval of time is measured by particular activity. It is a practical function of mind so that when one thought is conceived, in its conception, the next set of ideas are already being determined. When mind makes a thought, that gives it time to pause and think about the nature of the next thought, should it be this way or another way. This allows reason to pace its thinking such that its self-relation is one of mutual and reciprocal recognition.
6:17- definition of reason, the art of living. The ethics of reason.
6:35-range of life
6:37- evolutionist fallacy
———
#42- Homoerectus
(Add this to all notes before “genealogy of human race)
The specimen of evolution- natural selection is not mechanical process, but only in that it is the process of design. Who is selecting?
(add Aristotle on the heavens “Generation” and “indestructible”)
(connect how man has rational principle in him exhibits the ultimate nature of generation) The idea of intelligent design is a very misinformed topic of science. Its only popular version comes from monotheistic religion. Yet the religious doctrine of intelligent design is an anthropomorphic representation that aims to explain the generation of asethical objects. The actual generation of objects in the world denote the element of design only insofar as they exhibit a rational principle. What this means is that, the operations of generation are not process arising from an already preexisting source because the principle of generation must also ask about the generation of the very source from which generation arises from. In other words, how is the cause of all things came to be the cause of all things?
The religious answer proposes the claim that god is the creator of all things, while at the same time god is uncreated, god is eternal. Yet this answer does not escape the question of generation if we ask what is the cause of eternity, or why is eternity that which is never caused? God is then self-generating if the principle of eternity is to be subscribed here. But something that is self-generating must be at the same time the cause as well as the effect, and if god is attributed with this duel nature, than he is a self limiting being because his effect and his cause are not equal in power for the one is the product of the other. The dilemma here is that in gods essential nature is a contradiction which does not accord with the religious view that god is a pure being in perfect harmony with the itself.
What this view fails to realize is that perfect harmony is only when two opposing principles are resolved, a capability that surly must belong to god, yet the problem that it aims to rectify must also be presupposed as divine. The scientific understanding of design, which is precisely what the definition of the word involves, is the producing order out of disorder, the existence of the system that surcumvents its problems into solutions. If anything is to be labeled divine, it is surly this capability.
Competition – extinction
The idea of competition is one of those nebulous notions that our understanding could not have avoided in attributing to evolution. The notion that evolution involves the survival of the fittest presuppose an element of competition between living species to maintain survival. This manifest in competition between particular life forms and a competitive element with the environment. It is almost entirely widespread that the source of food for most living species is other life forms- insects life alone constitute a majority of this.
In this sense we see an empirical evidence of competitive nature between animals all of each are thriving on each other. But survival or living is barely an element in evolution in comparison, to say- development. In evolution we see development more prevalent than survival, for more animals are ever dead then alive (whitehead, function of reason). Also the quality of development condemning the animal is not determined by their survival duration. Turtles live way more than humans but we say humans are more developed. lions, who are among the most brave and ethical animals, live shorter, and sleep more.
Competition in this sense seems to be a superfluous element that contributes more to the necessity of development than for survival. But even in this sense it is not appropriate to associate competition with development. We can say that if there is some goal or end purpose to development, then there is competition between life forms to attain that goal. But this abstracts that end goal away from actual life as if life is itself not an end goal, also as if life is working towards something it is not, which at this moment it is appropriate to ask; what is this goal that life is competing towards that is beyond it?
The answer is hard to find because there is no real one. This idea of competition between particular animals is one of those abstractions found in the relation between human beings that is implemented into an understanding of how nature works. It is the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy- whereas whatever occurs in the human being actually is how nature operates. This kind of inverted naturalistic fallacy we are unaware of making as much as we do with the ordinary one- where how nature is humans ought to be. In fact the latter fallacy seems to be less of one than the former precisely because development resulted nature in producing the human being. However the human being bears a different, not independent, operation relative to how nature operates.
Before diverging too far, let us say that competition is not what we think it is in evolution. If there is anything that can be identified as competitive in nature it is the inherent impulse to actualized itself and so if any competition is occurring it is the same principle with itself to become. Nature is challenging its own ability to manifest that ability in an object it can call a reflection of its essence. The competition between individual life forms is that but the activity for necessitating the grounds to which it can mould the idea into the perfect specimen of its objects- all of which are the many life forms. Life and death is this working dialectic where it is renewing and creating its object, and with each discarding it is ever more developing closer to the actualization of its idea into an object we call concrete. In this sense nature is ethical and does nothing in vein- the horrific acts done between animals is the challenge each object bestow against the other, each object consumes the other, so as to become the better of each.
In our teleological notion of evolution, the human being always exists as a potentiality that is waiting to be actualized. The human being exists as an idea of Reason and the process of evolution is the working out of that idea as a concrete reality. Nature is where the idea is molded into actuality and that very molding itself is an asethical process this is why we have such a diverse and unique set of natural order. The human being exists as a potentiality because it is that where reason actualizes the notion of self-consciousness of itself. The Darwinian idea that the human being randomly develops from the influx of different spawning of orangisms each developed by chance.
The idea that the human being is a product of chance does not hold up because it does not explain how the death of one species results in the development of the other. In what sense does the extinction of the homo-erectes lead to the development of the Neanderthal? In the Darwinian idea there is no connection between the two species both belonging to the homoinindae family. In the teleogical notion of evolution we see that the death of one species means that reason has achieved the development for the next of it. And so the connection between the homo erctus and the Neanderthal is a qualitative one, insofar as that both are the same working towards their specimen, that is, the homosapian.
We in fact see that the Neanderthal is more psychologically developed than the homo erectus and the homosapian than the Neanderthal. And so each species is the update of the other. Therefore extinction in the teleogical evolution is seen as the very indication of development, the animal sacrifice its previous self for a newer self, what is extinct is the previous version of the animal, not the animal; extinction is just the notice of change. The indication that the discarding of one species means that it achieved its goal of being the better of itself. The hominoid family is that but the process of trying to achieve the perfect speicemen for self-consciousness, or at least the speicemen where self-consciousness can resides for its next stage of development. With each homo species we even see an asethical development in the beauty of the mammalian, each is less rugged in physical attributes and more capable of connecting itself to its environment.
Human being centre of the universe
The Darwinian sees a set of external relations accidentally produce development. The teleogical understanding of evolution states that the process of development is based on some goal or telos. The former because saw no end goal began not wondering about the ultimate aim but began to conceive the variables and thus derived a set of facts that it claims bear no relation, facts that are empirical. The teleological notion did not concern itself with the variable facts and developed the inquiry of the invariable, they which is the underlining force in evolution. The difference between both understandings of evolution is one only methodology, their agreement begins in the application of what the other is missing. However because the teleological idea of evolution is metaphysical it develops a general understanding of development and as such is best suited in figuring out the missing pieces to its puzzle, that is, the empirical facts.
Whereas the Darwinian is a the pieces of puzzles scattered waiting to be matched together. Both ideas of evolution, one being the conceptual the other the pragmatic, answer precisely the question of being. That the process of evolution is the being that is becoming itself. In logic the proposition of becoming presupposes being and the proposition of being presupposes becoming, but what does this mean in our course of evolution? It means that the becoming of mind involves the being of itself insofar as to become it must make it self being. Being involved the process of becoming and so it is the working out of itself, by this it is meant that each kind of being is an idea of itself, and idea that is not merely given but composed. The frog, the bird, the dear, all with different sizes in head, feet, wings are all the working out of the form to which it will be ideal for being. All such different animals are being by becoming a kind of being.
The reason why Darwinian evolution does not conceive s link between such species is because it is looking for such a link by way of a linear equation, but the link is not as explicit as this, it is not even a tree graph of relations. The link is rather that each species is the idea of the same mind, their link is not found between each other, their link is something external from themselves, but they not external from it. The link at the basic level is time and space itself, merely being the field in which mind captures its own being. The human being is a specific kind of being that captures a kind of resolution, a result from all beings. The human being possess the right kind of proportion for Reason to actualize itself, by becoming conscious of itself. But wait, in order to produce such a being doesn’t it already must be self-conscious? No! Otherwise there would not no process of development in many beings or species. It struggles to make itself and you as a human being is result, you are composed, your nature is not merely given to you, you serve a specific kind of nature. The human being however is not the ultimate result it is a fundamental one.
It seems that it is biased to say that the human being is the result that all animals are working towards becoming. However we do not see the animals making this realization, and because we can, even if we are the centre of the universe because we are making that observation from our point of view, in other words, anything from its point of view is the centre, this still complies with the fact that we can make the self realizing claim and therefore because we can, we do.
Whitehead- the function of reason
Whitehead claims that the common expression generally applied as the principle of evolution, “the survival of the fittest”, is an evolutionist fallacy. This fallacy is not the assumption that in the process of existence the fittest survive to eliminate the less fit, empirical evidence tells us otherwise. It is a fallacy because it believes that the fitness for survival is identical with the general scope of life, or in other words, it reduces the scope of life to mere survival. (6:55). In fact Whitehead argues that life is deficient in survival value.
Persistence is explained mostly by being dead, or that being dead is the most persistent form. Empirical evidence portrays that the range of species of life forms is very large. The species who are living by the definition of the concept actualized survival. The Evolutionist fallacy reduces the general process of life by making it inept of development. For if survival is the ultimate aim, then there is now reason advanced forms of life should exists. Bacteria would be sufficient enough to satisfy mere survival, and human beings would have no place in a world of mere survival, because the process leading to the human being involves as much death as there is birth. If there are properties in the notion of survival, then they surely have to be distinguished. Mere survival for example is not the same as living well.
“At the lowest scale it is hazardes to draw any distinction between life and inorganic matter” (quote whitehead and quote the range of life stretching from vegetation to vertebrates to mammals to humans…)
There are two ways of understanding this range of species: one way considers that the variety of species illustrates various levels of life. The other way considers the genetic relations of species to one another. How do we understand the genetic relations between species? Understanding the genetic relations between particular individuals in the same species is empirically evident. Individuals share the same traits and are all shared by the same ancestor. The latter way deals with the extinction of species and of the “experatic” vanishing of its individuals, as being due to maladjustment to the environment. This explanation has some measure of truth, it is one of generally empirical fact. This fact on its own however does not explain the function of extinction in evolutionary processes. (10:00). If the mere fact of dieing out is sufficient enough proof for maladjustment to the environment, then the entire concept of extinction is reduced to a tautology (whitehead).
The evolutionary doctrine that there is a struggle for survival presupposes that living beings reproduce themselves in sufficient healthy numbers of offsprings, and that adaption to the environment is the decisive factor for living. “This double assumption of being prolific and healthy is not always true in particular instances” (10:40). This double assumption assumes that there is variety (prolific), and that there are levels of health in the process life. Both these facts however do not answer an empirically obvious factor of life, that is: why has the trend of evolution been upwards? The factor of development, advancement, defines principally the concept of evolution, yet it is not in the least accounted for by the doctrine of survival. The idea of adaption does not explain two empirically apparent facts of evolution. First, how is it that inorganic distributions of matter develop into the various degrees of organic species? Second, why do organic species over time evolved to higher levels types?
Not only adapt to environment but adapt environment to themselves (12:00). (Find where you talked about environment and life, how life is fundamental to environment not other way around. Not only is higher forms of life change the environment, but even basic life forms are at the foundation of environment. At the microscopic level, what appears to the senses as lifeless landscapes are manifested entirely by molecular life forms. The notion of life therefore should not be limited to advanced life forms.
For whitehead, the developmental process of life is an ethical endeavour. He calls development, the “art of life”. “One to live, second to live well (good), and third to live better” (13:18)
“Reason is the promotion of the art of life”
(The Greeks saw life generally. Find where you say that even the atom, is life (find the atomist associating life with atoms, they however did not make the connection and saw life as lifeless). Life is rational in the sense that it is dialectical. How reason is Novelty is explained by the concept of the dialectic. How creation works is in the form of a dialogue that operates on inverse conversation. One proposition is reflected as an inversion, which the inversion becomes a distinct presupposition, that challenges the original proposition, which at this point, the proposition receives the challenge as a response. This means that if I propose P then the very proposition inverted into something else, Q, that being the response to P. Try not to get into this here)
14:00 Reason is the factor in life that directs existence towards an end.
Life is constituted by two mechanics of reason. The first whitehead calls physiology, (anatomy) which is defined by Aristotle’s efficient causation. The second is final causation. (14:36)
Reason is understood in two ways: first it is among the operations involved in the existence of a living body.
Second, reason is the operation of theoretical realization. All objects in the universe are understood in their characteristic of exemplifying a theoretical system. The word theoretical has developed a meaning so detached from the so called concrete that, both definitions of the words confuse their relation. (Unno to add this)
There is a confusion between reason understood as a particular object in the world in contrast to reason understood as a universal principle of the world. These conceptions are not opposed but in fact compliment one another to form a complete concept. Hegel explains that the universal form of reason and its particular form unite together in a relation that constitute the totality of physical reality. To say that Reason exists in the operations of a particular object points precisely to its universal feature being the principle of diversity, or as whitehead says, of novelty. The particular nature of reason is not its limitation to one object and not others, but is indication that all particular things possess a unique rational system.
(The universal and the particular)
17:00 whitehead critiques how most sciences reject final causation in the physiology of living things.
19:12 priests and science are alike in the sense of
27:00 “Many scientist have patiently designed experiments for the purpose of sustaining the belief that animal operations are motivated by no purposes”
“Purpose…purposeless”
18:10 another reason why final causation is dismissed because it opens up a need to explain difficult and vast processes.
30:100 A sign that a methodology is warn out is when progress in it no longer deals with main issues. There is an endless rambling about minor questions.
Stability and progress-
31:30 “to live, to live well, and to live better”
Methodology is essentially a strategy for living. The familiar Methodology of the epistemologies is an advanced form of living, that is, epistemology is the method of reflective thinking- the understanding- analytical thinking. Methodology fundamentally concerns either the relapse to a state of mere living based on established old and previous habits; or the adventure towards the advanced, “better” states of living. The former involves the stability of living by way of repetition. The latter is the emphasis on novelty, which is the way of progress.
34:00 “The essence of reason…is its judgments upon flashes of novelty”.
(Put here where whitehead says there is no stability but progress, stability is itself an invention of novelty)
Before understanding what is meant by novelty, let us first examine the notion of stability.
In nature stability is secured in three ways: the way of blindness, way of rhythm, and the way of transience. These forms of stability work against each other to constitute a cycle of life. A cycle by its own nature presupposes the attainment of its end. A cycle is after all a connected process.
The way of rhythm is pervasive (general) throughout life. Way of blindness renders transience(lasting short time) unnecessary. The way of transience diminishes blindness.
Blindness (randomness chaos) and transience operate inversely to each other. Blindness is the relapse. Relapse eliminates the flashes of novelty that have constituted the means of assent to the existing stage of complex life.
Transience means the substitution of short lived individuals by way of protecting the species from the fatigue of the individual. “Transience is really a way of blindness for it procures blindly novel individuals to face the old rounds of experience. (Fix quote)
37:10 (this whole section is mostly quoted word for word) Rhythm (habit and cycle) pervades all of physical existence and life. This common principle of rhythm is the reason for believing that the root principles of life is in some form exemplified in all types of physical existence.
“In Rhythm, rounds of experiences forming a determined sequence of contrasts attainable within a definite method are codified so that the end of one such cycle is the proper antecedent stage for the beginning of another such cycle. The cycle is such that it’s own completion provides the condition for its own repetition.
It eliminates the fatigue attendant upon the repetition of one of its part, only some strength of physical memory can aggregate fatigue arising from the cycle of the whole.”
Given the fact that each cycle is self repairing, the fatigue from repetition requires a high level of coordination of interconnected past experiences. (Birth and heredity). For example, Individual human beings are born and die out yet the species remain.
The operations of fatigue constitutes the condition against the primal function of reason for the “upwards” (development) trends. Fatigue is the antithesis of reason because it is the operations without the impulse for novelty. Fatigue is a “relapse” in the sense that it is the remaining in the repetitive cycle of mere living abstracted from progress.
__
“A slow prolonged decay”
Matter is in a constant state of decay. This is not only obvious from immediate interactions with objects, but also from the logical necessity of becoming. According to Hegel, becoming is the state of being entering into nothing and nothing coming into being. This does not mean that something comes out of nothing, but that existing is this cycle of change. If we take for example the simple act of spraying perfume before going out. When we spray perfume on our selfs, that perfume perhaps last about 6 hours before it no longer can be smelled.
The human body is also in this constant state of expiry. The human body is constantly loosing particles in space and time. This is true from the basic laws of motion exhibited by physics. For example the earth is in constant orbit and something in a constant state of motion is in a constant state of alteration. Imagine a comet racing through space. What you see in this situation is a tail of flame following the clump of inorganic compounds. We are able to see the decay occur right before our eyes in this phenomenon because it is large enough and going fast enough for our perception to see its decay. Our body is decaying in space and time exactly in the same way as the comet, except it is happening in an infinitesimally slower level.
If we say that the default state of matter is to decay, what substance is the cause for bringing matter into existence for this purpose? The answer is the reason of mind. This claim is as evident as the claim that matter is decaying except it is not paid attention to in the same way. If we look at the psychological body of mammals, what we see is that their brain, specifically their penal gland (make sure what gland does this) is responsible for growth and repair. One task of the brain is to literally generate cells in the body. One critique is that how can you infer that just because living organism involve this process that nature generally also does this. The answer is that we can make an inference directly from the logical nature of the universe. That the universe has as part of its function the harvesting and production of life, no matter how scarce it may seem based on our observation.
42:20
The material universe contains some impulse for its energy to run upwards.
“There must have been some epoch in which the dominate trend was the formulation of proton, electrons, molecules, and the stars”. Today according to our observation, they are decaying. We know more about the animal body through the medium of our immediate experience. In the animal body, we can directly see the evidence for the upwards trend, with reason as the selective agency. In the general physical universe we are unable to derive any direct knowledge of the corresponding agency by which it obtained its available energy. How ever vast the scale of the physical universe appears to be, it is wasting at a finite rate. For how ever long the universe existed in time, there must have been a beginning to the decay and an end. “From nothing there can come Nothing”.
“The universe as construed solely in terms of the efficient causation of purely physical interconnections” involves the following problem: the orthodox materialists doctrine demands that the nature of living body must be explained solely by reference to physical reality. The scientific materialist doctrine relays on the external relations pervading rests its explanations solely on the physical body, which is always in the process of decay, requires a counter substance to explain the possibility of it existing as a wasting finite matter.
46:00 In the animal body, there is clear evidence of activities directed by purpose.
47:00 The doctrine of pragmatism must accept the presupposition that reason is essentially defined by purpose. Pragmatism is “nonsense a part from final causation because a doctrine can never be tested unless it is acted upon.”
Why did the evolutionary process arrive at human kind, a being who’s function is to reason, if the activities of reason remain without influence on bodily actions?
“Science has always suffered from the vice of overstatement. In this way conclusions true within strict limitations have been generalized dogmatically into a fallacious universally”. In contemporary physics for example the notion of matter is dogmatically assumed to be the principle for ultimate reality only because it is a principle belonging to all phenomena. The qualification that matter belongs to all things is not proof alone that it is the defining substance of the universe.
-Vision is the basic form of induction
Induction is the most crudely natural form of knowledge. Even the senses naturally operate inductively. Vision for example which always the perception of different objects with differing colours, by virtue of perceiving such objects, assumes to the consciousness that they are unified by a common substance. In it self, vision is the common element by which objects are commonly perceived. This indicates to the consciousness the need for a universal principle grouping particular objects together.
In fact for whitehead the only true stability is progress.
The natives of North America before their colonization demonstrated the principle that mere survival is not enough for stability without development. The natives were rather efficient people on surviving with very minimal developments in social and technological achievements. At one point the mayhem civilization was making considerable advancement yet their reliance on subjective superficial traditions like sacrifice, to alter natural phenomena let the culture to regress, economic development was scarce and so most were starving.
Explain how their tribe actually regressed, find what you said about the mayain religion) the natives aimed to survival without developing, and the result was their colonization. This event was so strong for the native people it became implemented in the genetics of certain people having natives ancestries. Some natives assimilated with whites and mixed, they became the South Americans like Argentina, Brazil etc. The ones who didn’t are today struggling with poverty and addiction in some parts of Canada and America. These we can say are coping mechanisms passed on genetically.
The idea that the only stability is progress can be reiterated by describing the concept of neutrality. It can be argued that neutrality is the form of stability pertaining to the individual. That if the individual adopts neutrality as a survival mechanism they have a greater chance of surviving because they come into less contact with predators and harmful events. This is one fundamental principle to the modern science of risk management.
Risk management today is famously associated with the business aim to forecast financial risk, but the concept is really the aim to predicate risk generally. The concept has found its home in the financial realm because the science of predicating risk nowadays conflates quantitive measures with qualitative. The survival doctrine initially adapts the idea of living only as a quantitive process- that is, longevity. Longevity however not only Involves measure that avoid death but rather must fundamentally include measures integral for flourishing. A thing that is not living well is most unlikely able to avoid death because it becomes an easy target for most predators and dangerous scenarios.
The concept of longevity must first adopt principles necessary for healthy living before it adopts those dealing with the avoidance of danger. But the survival doctrine reverses this process an argues that avoiding danger is the necessary precondition for healthy living. Yet when the question is proposed concerning the means a life form must adopt to avoid dangers, the survival doctrine of longevity looks to no other activities than those indicative of healthy living. Risk management as a science entirely misses the foundational step to avoid danger, that is ethical conduct, or acting appropriately for the for given occasion.
There is no given ethical procedure for determining what actions ought and ought not to be acted on, but only the measure to avoid risk only after engaging in risky conduct. Ironically the science entirely dealing to avoid risk presupposes as a foundational axiom risky conduct.
To say that something is neutral presupposes that it is indifferent. Indifference is one of those notion that are logically self-contradictory. The claim that something is indifferent means that it is different from a relation involving two similar parties, what makes them similar is their tendency to be different from one another. How can something be indifferent when it is different from two parties sharing a relation based only on the fact that they are different? The so called indifferent element would invariably share a relation with parties that are different solely based on the difference it brings to the group that it is indifference. The notion of difference therefore automatically brings with it the presupposition of difference.
A thing called indifferent is therefore only different to one thing while same to another. It cannot be wholly indifferent to two different elements for the fact that it is different to both makes it bear a similar relation. For example, if we take the moral principles of good and bad (whatever they may be) as logical principles, we have that good and bad form a relation on the fact that they are different principles form one another. Their relation is simply the potentiality where something can become either bad or good. The relation they share is the ability for one to become the other, and this takes on a form, an activity that possess both principles as capabilities.
Indifference to goodness or badness is simply the relative position against one over the other. In other words, it is the movement, the transition from one to the other. When the potential state takes on the actual capability of badness, it becomes indifferent to goodness. But it cannot be the case that the relation between the two itself becomes indifferent to the components constituting the relation. The potentiality cannot itself be indifferent to both goodness and badness for then it would be itself a state different than both, such a difference makes it in an invariable relation.
Rhythm explains genetics. Genetics is cosmic memory.
law of fatigue
In the course of evolution the tedious resistance of life is explained by what whitehead calls the “law of fatigue”. Fatigue is explained in reference to reason. Fatigue is the antithesis of reason, in that it is the comfort of remaining persistent.
Think of fatigue as the stability of progress. For example, imagine working on a school project to only realize it is time for sleep, which makes you leave the project in its present condition, enter the differing cycle of sleep, then return back to your project and pick off from where you started. The state of the project while you are asleep is fatigue. Fatigue does not stop the progress of the project in the sense of restarting it from scratch, but requires the project to remain in a particular stage of its development for a time being.
For example, imagine building a house, and you are half way done. The complete half possess fatigue in the sense that due to its completion it is already decaying, the material of the house are already decomposing due to the environmental factors like rain, humidity, micro bacteria, some rodents. Over time the material of the house will coered away. Anything with form, in the process of developing, is at the same time decaying. This explains why there is ageing.
(Find where you talked about brith and hereditary and connect it to the three ways of stability. Birth is explained by the inverse relation of blindness and transience and heredity by rhythm)
Plato originally proposes reason is universal in the sense that it aims to understand everything. Hegel made that claim literal in that reason is fundamentally everything.
Reason involves the following meanings: first, reason is purpose which serves as the function of novelty or creativity. Purpose is creativity because… reason is also system or structure. Purpose is only sustained as structure, in fact, the word structure in the generic sense means to support something. (Find a reason, Hegel critique of Kant)
This understanding of reason not only describe human knowledge but the reason in nature. Nature is creative, it is diverse in complexity. Nature is systematic or structured. Every natural thing also involves purpose. Everything in nature plays a specific role.
-Virus as germ of life
So far we have explained that the evolutionary development of life involves a transitioning of species through the mechanism of heredity and birth. We yet to answer how the transition of life happens between particular life forms. When an individual organism dies, is its death unrelated to another individual being born? What is the relationship between one organism dieing out and another being born? The survival doctrine and Darwinian evolution do not answer this enquiry and many contemporary evolutionist provide the obvious answer that the only relation between a dead organism and a living one involves the predatory nature where one consumes the other.
This only tells us that externally certain animals effect others, but taken alone, what is there for a basis for life to continue if all animals do is wipe each other out? What is the common ground that keep life generally persisting? The environment likewise only tells us that, once living, life forms have a common grounds, but what is it about life that keep going. There are less obvious relations between life forms of varying degrees and their effect on one another. In the microscopic level for example, there are primal forms of life, such as bacteria and viruses, that have adverse effects on much developed life forms. Mammals for instance are very prone to “deadly” bacteria and viruses. How can such primitive life forms, bacteria, virus etc. constitute such a vital effect towards much more complex and developed organism like mammals?
To answer this question let us first define a “virus”. Define virus… it Multiplies, nucali coated by protein. There is a great debate about whether a viruses constitutes a living form or not. It is therefore stated that it is a midway between something alive and something dead, it is a mean between life and death. But what does this exactly mean? On the one hand a virus exhibits life because it replicates, is made up of protein nuclei etc. On the other hand it is only able to operate in another living thing acting as a host.
Life exhibits itself as a cycle. Not only in the sense that particular life forms undergo habitual activities. But that life generally is a cycle, a “circular” in the sense of a connection between the most primal form of living and its highest. This spectrum of life is the cycle of consciousness generally. At the most molecular form of life, and even beyond to the quantum, life is conscious in the most primal form, meaning that consciousness has not yet developed capabilities such as sensation, and reflective thinking. Yet this means nothing else than the fact that consciousness is operative at a more fundamental level.
Virus for example latch on to their environment by ways of nodules, these nodules exhibit a structure that is consistent with an object from an environment exhibiting the same kind of structure. This physical connection is the most primal form d knowledge, it is logical nodes interconnecting with one another to form, communication, which develops a particular relation between life as a form with its environment as another form, hey challenge one another by taking in the structure other, and manipulating it to be another form of their own. In this dialectic they reach a synthesis by being in each other, a nuclei expurgates outwards from the relations a new form challenging its predecessor forms.
Each synthesis becomes on its own a thesis, and an antithesis towards its previous relation. This replicating process is qualitative in the sense that with each new development a new form of computation is physically acquired. In time, the past characterizes the most primal form of life, the future the most advanced, the present is the cycle where each is potentially the other. Evolution is therefore a cycle because in the development of the most advanced form of life, implicitly exits the most primal. Advance only means ethically superior due to greater sophistication, but the greater the good beings equally with it a greater bad. The primal which is also the microscopic, is not excluded from development. In fact it is the influence of the microscopic onto the advanced form, that produces development. When an advanced organism dies, its consciousness (which has acquired all the developed faculties of mind) retrieve back to the most primal form of conscious knowing. It must now regain back its advanced state, and so primal life begins to migrate through all its stages that led to the most advanced stage. The virus kills off the bacteria (Bacteriophages are the viruses that infect and replicate in bacteria.) the bacteria kills off the Eukaryotes
The eukaryotes include animals (humans), plants and fungi and a rich variety of micro-organisms also known as protists. The protists include parasites which can be biologically speaking very successful and they can compromise the environment of entire countries. The Eukaryotes are identified and distinguished from other forms of life by the presence of nuclei and the presence of a cytoskeleton.
As you see each virology is a development process, where when life advances, that advancement replaces back to the most primitive stage. This now again primitive stage goes through the process again refreshing knowledge of its past and this time developing new knowledge of its pass. This is why viruses mutate and develop alongside the advancement of higher life forms. Every time the viruses bypasses one form of life it moves on to kill the next, its killing of the higher form is simply its adopting that form with new knowledge. This internal process is intercepted by the external process of evolution we are so famailer with, the one of physical bodily development (see if you can find a better term). Every time you get sick, this means that a primal form of life has entered your system to initiate its place of consciousness within yours. But your bodies immunity is regularly healthy during the majority of its given time span. The immune system is in a constant battle with Micro life aiming to take your place on the cycle of life, most of those are disposed off by your immune system until it reaches exhaustion near the end of its life time.
The fatigue of one immune system is then undertaken by a primal life form, which has bypassed all previous forms of life, this specific microlife that will now become a new born baby, has been through all stages of animal life, has killed off reptiles, mammals etc. It is the most resilient form of life, which eventually lands once again on the top of the evolutionary spectrum, lives its life, acquires new experiences and transforms those into knowledge to be passed on to the offspring, then dies, and is replaced by a preceding micro viruses, next on the series of the cycle of development. This complex process of life is a circular form that is developing new forms each round of its cycle. And its stability is no other than progress, the only trajectory keeping the movement persistent. In fact this process of development is physically a geometric trajectory. (Define what is “trajectory” in geometry) and explain how this is a cycle.
This however only provides a quantitative illustration of the physical path of evolution. In this physical process, life is also asethically developed.
Phenomenologically a virus is alive and derives experience of its environment, just like a bird does or any other life form, but in the most primal form of knowing. A virus still in a most basic level feels its environment by roaming around in it. It replaces itself when finds a feasible host.
The human being at this stage of evolution is the most advanced stage. Yet the human being is still limited in the ability to derive the totality of possible knowledge. Belonging to a particular bodily form, is itself a limitation of knowledge only immediately related to that body, once the body is sustained it can derive knowledge further. Yet each body possess a limit to its knowledge, and the limit of human knowledge lies in the inability to perceive the totality of all possible knowledge simonatiously occurring in the evolution process, and respectively to each stage.
A virus is the next potential for life preexisting in the actual living organism. There is already determined a life span for an organism, how well it lives within that life span determines how long it will live. The life of an organism is a test. The organism is constantly being tested by its environment. In all living organism is a degree of virus. How well the organism partakes in the art of life determines when the virus takes over the organism. While the organism is developing in relation to its environment, the virus is also advancing. While the organism is partaking in the art of life, the virus is developing its skill. The virus is waiting for the organism to act u ethically so it can replace it as a new living organism.
Each individual in a species constitutes a genetic potential, which is determined by how well that individual ethically related to their environment. This is why in the same species there are hierarchies, alpha etc. Natural selection is a system refining the individuals of species by predicting which individual of the same genetic is most ethical.
Atomism via Organicism
The idea that life is a principle fundamental in the origination of the universe constitutes the ontology of science known as “organicism” which views the universe as an organic whole- a living organism. It is usually stated that atomism is the opposing ontology in contrast to organicism. Yet this classification of the relation between the two ontologies is placed on the arguable assumption that atomism is a complete ontology. From the point of view of atomism, organicism seems to exhibit contrasting claims that are inconsistent with atomism.
Yet from the point of view of organicism, atomism is simply a sub branch of the science with certain ontological problems. Atomism is incomplete because it does not state anything about the ultimate nature of the world aside from the claim that it is constituted by distinct separable and independent elementary components. That an essential component exists alone without its relation (look up teds def of atomism). But this tells us nothing more about what the nature of a distinct component is, or why it is able to stand alone a part from other components in a relation.
Organicism does not reject atomism but only states that it is incomplete because organicism sees the atom in a way that atomism fails to pick up on, that is, the atom is essentially a component of life, or rather, a living component. The atom is alive because it possess internal relation that are rational. What we normally call life, the cell, is in fact a very advanced and integrated system of life. But the cell is only identified as the most basic unit of life because it is able to be perceived by sensation, at least with microscopic aid to perception.
Atomism rejects purpose which like the evolutionary theory is unable to explain development, which presupposes purpose.
How the inorganic universe relates to organic life? This is a clearly question that needs to be answered by atomism given the fact that organic life and the inorganic universe are connected by the same material bond- that is, atoms.
Logic and math
There is the dogmatic opinion that logic and mathematics bear no relation. This point of view is promoted for the sake of distinguishing both sciences into distinct modes of thought. It however does not follow that the distinguishing between two things is the same as claiming that they bear no essential relation. To the contrary the distinction between things primarily involves the distinction itself as the relation, but also the relation that distinguishes them. And how in the same relation there are unique parts. But even more primarily, the ability to distinguish must in the first place belong to the same relation it derives differences from.
Logic is the preliminary science to mathematics in the sense that it provides the essential relations that necessitate numbers as the quantitive measures that they are meant to represent quality, irrespective of needing to indicate what that quality is. It is certainly true that some good with math are not so good with logic and vice versa but there is no such situation where someone possess entirely no logic that is good in math and vice versa. It must however be granted that those good in math have never heard of logic or did any formal training in it. But whether such individuals possess a natural ability for logic or not can only be answered by the more fundamental question, which is; how is logic the natural necessity for mathematics.
Consciousness indirectly knows its object
Spinoza god and its attributes
(I’m saying here that in consciousness there is no distinction between the parts and the relation, they only differentiated from each other by the relation. ) Consciousness as a natural element operates differently than the self-consciousness of the human being. The former involves a relation constituting inverse parts. Each part in the relation does not directly perceive the other part. Each part perceives the other (or squires knowledge of the other part) directly by perceiving the relation. For example, a cat only recognizes a bird by virtue of the birds environment and how it operates in that environment, and what the relation of the bird bears to the cat.
The cat has no direct knowledge of the individuality of the bird but only that it is an element in the environment that is potentially a source of food and possess certain behaviours, from those activities alone it can pick it out as something particular. It is only self- consciousness that recognizes the bird as bearing a separable individuality from its environment and it only does this because it is able to recognize the essence of the bird and the essence of the environment being different.
Consciousness as an element indirectly interacts with its creation on the surface. Internally consciousness possess an intuition or knowledge about what the implications of its external relations mean. The lion does not think of hunting a dear but does it on instinct, yet there is an internal relation in that interaction which notes the capabilities of both animals. This internal knowledge is not a thing in the sense of an object but is rather the totality of the relation itself, it is the ideal or absolute features, that is, the form of things, the thinking about its thought.
Natural selection consciousness
Natural selection in the human involves the demonstration of breeds fit for daily life and entertainment. Natural selection in nature is similar but indirect, series of breeds.
Thought as a conscious element in nature is always in flux between being and non-being. This flux is the most elementary activity- motion. This bare activity is itself the basic certainty that constitutes consciousness. On the on hand, the only certainty of consciousness is this uncertainty because the nature of the activity is inherently in flux – it is both being and non being. On the other hand, because uncertainty is the inherent certainty, consciousness is driven to maintain its uncertainty as certainty otherwise, the former without the latter would dissipate the certainty of being and consciousness would loose that focus. The activity of consciousness is to maintain certainty of itself and that certainty is the focus into the nature of itself. The object is therefore the efficiency whereby the focus of consciousness maintains certainty of itself.
In the quantum concept of entanglement, we have that two inverse corresponding atoms are internally related irregardless of their locality, I.e. Of non locality. A few questions arise: first, how are two atoms with inverse atoms are held in relation? Second, What substance maintains these atoms as related inversions? Atoms are the most basic unit of matter pertaining to a certain quality. When atoms involve inverse properties, that is also indicative that they belong to different qualities. The atoms of water for example involves a differing configuration to the atoms of fire. The fact that atoms are different must mean that they are held in relation by the same substance.
Explain Spinoza how all qualities are gods expression of himself. And how matter is attribute of God infinite and is able to be divided. This explains entanglement because of the infinite nature of matter or extended substance- inverse atoms share the same extended substance, but what makes them different is that they are different ideas, different qualities. Reason is infinite matter. (In the start of whatever section this goes to add hegels three properties of reason in the history, infinite quantity…)
The only real gradual development in evolution is that of spratic changes. Development occurs in spratic change. Atoms do this, only gradual change is of this spratic changes extending from each other. Even if you look at your own process of ageing. Whereas there is a clear progressive change as you age, such a change when seen in dramatic effects, takes hold in stages. From childhood to adolescence is a spratic change. Even with adulthood into elderly.
Entanglement needs something holding the unity
To reiterate Hegel’s claim: the rational is the actual and the actual is the rational. We can reiterate this claim the mental is the physical and the physical is the mental. That is to say all martial operations correspond to a physical nature and that all physical things are inherently mental. Even the most abstract faculty of thought, the understanding, situates a material place in the brain. This claim at the onset will be deemed a vulgar materialist, yet any true reader of the whole of this Inquiry knows that this science takes the fundamental principle as reason, but reason as not detached from what we conceive as material reality, but that material reality itself is reason. It is the latter thesis that this inquiry seeks to prove.
What seems like chaos is just a shift in consciousness, and because the change of consciousness is infinite, it seems to our consciousness that there is no pattern nor order. Yet the truth is that no matter how complex any process of change empirically seems, there is always a pattern. Like weather patterns for examples, although there are seasons the seasons themselves involve regularity in the severity of weather.
The appearance of chaos is really the present state of self-consciousness between being and on-being. Once reason actualized its infinite potential as the world, everything, its next level of development takes the form of self-consciousness; the state of Reason whereby consciousness acts as an observer to, and derives knowledge from, its own thinking attributed with the power of free will. Self-consciousness in turn
Add this to intuition section
The intuition is not a nebulous aspect of the mind that many scientist hastily make it out to be without giving it careful consideration. The functions of the intuition are very prominent aspects of the mind we are generally not even conscious of, and take for granted. For example, foresight is a very evident activity of the intuition that is constantly operating as an elementary part of the brain. Foresight as the practical function of recognizing information in an activity that requires caution. When the nature of an activity is grasped by the intuition as relations, foresight recognizes a potential threat that is involved in the relations and bring it to the attention of the thought. For example, if you are thinking of hunting a herd of mammals, foresight brings the image of possibly getting mauled or injured, into the mind it derives from the possible relations in the activity of herd hunting.
The mind therefore develops caution of this possibility while hunting and develops an instinct of not coming to close to the horns or legs of the herd but rather approach the animals from the side where it is more vulnerable. This basic foresight is evolutionary advantageous in that it utilizes the imagination to bring forth a warning of a possible event that is inherent in the perceived relations of the activity. Foresight happens automatically as part of the intuition and mammals who had this were were favourable in the process of natural selection.
Foresight is favourable for predators but also for monkeys. Predators have a very basic form of foresight necessary for their ability to hunt. But we see the most utilized form of foresight in mammals such as primates where they made such use of it that they produced a part of their nature the ability to claim trees cancelling out the potential threat of ground predators.
Coexistence is defined by alteration. The meaning of the term Alternative is generally said to mean an exclusive relation, that the alternative of A is B such that the latter is proposed in the expense of the former. Yet the other meaning of the word alternative and the one not usually recognized is the fact that an alternative is another possibility belonging to the same thing, that the alternative just states that there is a mediation between distinct characteristic traits of the same substance.
Add this to The concept of dialectic
The concept of the dialectic is perhaps the most important scientific notion, yet it is possibly the most underrated.
Dialectic is the activity and essence of thought, the substance and the means whereby matter develops. It is self -dialogue an infinite debate.
Say how final causation is element of of dialectic in that it produces the conception of what is itself potentially and works towards the actualization of that. As Aristotle coins Efficient causation.
Thesis antithesis synthesis
Evolution within evolution
The idea that evolution is an upwards process means that organism advance into more sophisticated forms and this trend is continues in life. This however is not a static and ridged vertical process that is only going “upwards”. Evolution involves much more complexity because there not only seems to be development at the universal level but also there is particular development, that is, there is development within development. If as we stated earlier extinction marks off when the advancement occurs in species to take on a more sophisticated form, we still did not answer why there still remains strict groups of species that do not die off nor advance? Why have the trend of chimpanzees and other species remained unaltered for hundred of thousands of years? Moreover, if it is true that the trend of evolution is an upward trend of advancement, and extinction portrays that transition, why are there many species and not only one living being shifting and forming into advanced forms? This question is based on the assumption that the different species shown by empirical analysis bear no relation so as to form one living being. What the nature of this abstraction fails to show is that the entirety of species constituting life do in fact form one organism and the multiplicity and diversity of species are parts of an intricate system constituting one living being. This fact is more empirically evident than we think we just have to take a closer look at the nature of the earth as not only a planet of elements, weather patterns, and landscapes, but also as a system of life, and all its features are just tailored to the principle of being. If we adopt the latter view, then it is not too hard to grasp that earth is in fact the same living organism constituting the diversity of species, and all life forms are parts of an externalized neurological system.
Species form categories and these categories constitute the building blocks of developmental stages constituting the degrees of evolution. The groups of species are landmarks of development. The proof that these categories form the same being lies in a less recognized and known fact about evolution. Development not only involves the generation of more advanced species, but each individual member in a species advances into other genera’s of life. The advancement of reptiles into the mammal state not only took place at one time in history but it is always occurring. Individual reptiles are constantly moving into advanced hierarchies within their same genus and even more up into higher Animalias. Within the life of an individual animal there is the potential to progress into a higher hierarchies or regress into a lower ones. The idea of reincarnation attempts to understand this phenomena but was only able to provide the claim without the facts. (Critique reincarnation) also You have to prove how individual animals advance between hierarchies of life)
Religion saw death as a transition (Carl Jung) to the next life. Most religions however claim that the so called “next life” is a dimension detached from the state of the world as conceived by the current living organism. Although the latter never really brought with it a clear conception, religion at least got correct the essence of death, that it is a transition to another state, what that other state is, religion never gave convincing conceptions. Reincarnation, which in some cases belongs to some religions, although can be made into an idea independent from all religions, answers precisely to the nature of what it means for death to be a transition. According to the general sense of reincarnation, the passing of an organism is really the entering into another. Like the general scope of religion, reincarnation also fails to provide a satisfactory explanation to how this process occurs, and so this doctrine came up with unexplained claims like in the case of any soul entering any body, treating the nature of the soul as the same substance as the body failing to differentiated between their natures.
If we flush these ideas of their incoherences, we are left with a rather general foundation of truth. The idea that death is a transition is complemented by the further claim that this transition occurs between the different variations of life forms and not of a particular life form entering some nebulas dimension. The earlier idea that extinction constitutes the development transition of one species into another speaks to the general notion of the nature of non-being in evolution. The idea of death speaks to the nature of development occurring at the particular level. The life of a particular form is in one sense a “test” to its nature against the nature of the whole. The relation between the individual and universal is constituted by a challenge. How will the individual relate to the universal. In Islam for example, the life the individual finds himself in is a test, or as in Christianity, a testimony to his nature. How he treats the world determines his salvation. Unfortunately present Islam today fail by their own accord. Yet the idea essentially is also found in Christianity and Judaism. Death is the passing of an individual life form into the entering of higher species.
In Islam, they take the notion of an afterlife quite too literally. Islam goes so far as to claim that the present life individuals find themselves in is in fact useless in comparison to the afterlife. But what they forget is that the so called “afterlife” is not in some independent dimension. The afterlife builds on the achievements of the past, and it is for this reason that progression of the Islamic culture, which at one point was promising, regressed to the grim reality they find themselves in, and it will need some work to get out of, which is what the Shia sine conflicts captures. Half of Islam wants to remain, the other wants to progress. But progressing in this case would change Islam as it is, and therefore the conservative Islamist will not allow that.
——————-
Bitcoin
In the word “bitcoin”, the term “bit” has a quantum meaning because the term bit in quantum mechanics describes the term “quanta” which is a unit of energy. Energy is defined by activity which is defined by determinations which is defined by relation. Butcoin conceives the essence of the natural principle of space, and space is the external determination where a relation has the potential to occur. This is what bitcoin does, it is a unit of internet space with quantity megabytes, that allows for an exchange value, the value itself being the ability to allow for any exchange value.
Butcoin however is more then this because the word “coin” is a means of measurement of a value, not the value itself, but that its very value is the measurement of value. In the feudal time for example, exchange value was determined by essential metals and each metal possessed a certain measurement. In Britain for example, gold coins are stated as pound, the pound being the quantitive measurement of the quality gold. What is the quality of gold, why is gold valuable? Gold is valuable because it is a pure metal. And one can go even further and say that god is the organic form of light because light, although is necessary for organic life, it is inorganic in that it is abundant in the universe at large. So gold in one sense characterizes the organic essence of light, in the sense that light in the universe plays role as the limit of matter and the fundamental unity of matter, pure matter per say.
Bitcoin is equivalent to space, etherum is equal to time, and lightcoin is equal to light. Bitcoin is therefore the quantum measurement of the value of space in the technological dimension of reason. Etherum is the measurement of time because built in to it is the technology, bot, that acts as the mediator for the transition to be completed in the exchange. Lightcoin is the quantum measurement of light because it has the advancement of a scale, a standard that determines the value of all other forms of relations, or exchange transactions, it is like light in the sense that it is the pure form of matter, pure determination, the fundamental principle which acts as the limit of all forms of other developments of material forms.
What we see int the development of economy , if the economy is the process whereby the most essential resources are produced and exchanged, then the advancement of the economy involves the harnessing of the most essential principles of nature, it works backwards to derive them. Economy has already done this with certain valuable natural objects such as essential metals like gold and silver. Now in the technological dimension it is able to extract the essence of the fundamental natural principles, and allow their essence to be applied as determinations of exchanges. Or rather applied as activities for relations. What the value of these natural principles sublated technologically can bring to reason is precisely the conscious capability for reason to actualize its abstract ideas into concrete objects. These are mediums whereby the mind may become conscious of its self-consciousness. That its self-consciousness is portrayed behold in front of itself as objects of value.
There is a critique poised towards the practical value of blockchain technology. The fact that bitcoin currency is not tangible to the direct senses for example makes people critique its actual value. With metals for example, we can make objects from them. But with bitcoins what is there physical existence? On the one hand this question obviously misses the definition of any currency generally, that is, the medium form of exchange that measures the value representing the object of the exchange. The value of the dollar for example is based on trust because it represents the value of the United States as a superpower in the world enforcing a fair system of exchange, where the government is a third party between any two parties making an exchange, it can remedy one if the other cheats, it can hold the funds, until one completes the transaction at which at that point the funds can be released, money represents the proper functioning of all these necessary preconditions for a smooth exchange . If for example there would be civil war the dollar would crash given that the trust in the value of the country itself is shaken. Cryptocurrency therefore retains the same idea “designed to work as a medium of exchange using cryptography to secure the transactions and to control the creation of additional units of the currency”. The difference of this currency and its major advancement is that its value lies in it being the potentiality for anything to be ascribed a value and the value exchanged.
Now when we ask; what gives something its value in an economic system? The value of something is its essence, or its use for production and consumption, we have to ask then to what end does this tailer to? The answer is the aim of economy is to sustain the well being of the human being whom all the objects valued the most, bring about the best well being because of their inherent value. This means that the most valuable thing in the economy is the human being, but more specifically, the intellect or the reason of the human. With blockchain technology, and the future of this currency allows the ability for the economy to place value on the intellect of individuals, and because the cyprocurrncy allows the exchange between anything by anyone, people will be placing values on the thoughts or ideas of individuals. This is the greatest value that this technology can bring, and this is why it will be so valuable.
The market is essentially concerned with what is valuable, what ever that may be, and what is valuable is determined by the consciousness needing to make that judgment, for example wood is valuable for building shelter, the demand for wood makes it valuable in the market as something that can be used. However in order for consciousness to find value in things, thing must in and of themselves exhibit value, but not independently from consciousness but only in relation to it. And why consciousness finds objects to be valuable is for it to continue living, but that is only a value for the value of living well, which is what the essence of consciousness is, that is, contemplation, the highest value. Truth is the most value in the market.
Mining is a record-keeping service.[note 5] Miners keep the blockchain consistent, complete, and unalterable by repeatedly verifying and collecting newly broadcast transactions into a new group of transactions called a block.[28] Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block,[28] using the SHA-256 hashing algorithm,[8]:ch. 7 which links it to the previous block,[28] thus giving the blockchain its name.
Miners look for a relation, transaction that belongs to a block, which is a set of recorded transactions, and this block belongs to a precious block. When miners find this these transactions are assigned a series of numbers. This series of numbers records the transaction as a specific kind of relation. Any other series of number is therefore potentially a future transaction.
The practical value of bitcoin is that bitcoin is the essence of space abstracted as a function. Space is the self externality, and as the externality that being its quantity, it is the “nothing” in relation to something, which is itself a thing, space is the Nothing that being the thing. The function of bitcoin is therefore the void space whereby a activity, a relation can take place. This space is valuable because it has magnitude, the greater the space the greater the relation. This is proven from the very nature of infinite series, that 1 bitcoin can be infinitely subdivided into the infinite series 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 etc… each of which denote a percentage of the value of 1 bitcoin. This means that bitcoin, like any number, has magnitude. Now the magnitude of space is the inversion of the magnitude of something, so that the magnitude of space is proportional to the magnitude of what is contained in space, the relation. Bitcoin is mined by a self generating system of random variables, within this infinite set of randomly relations, there existed the essential relation of all relations, the relation between being and non being, which accounts for something as measuring the magnitude of nothing. So that when that relation is generated by blockchain technology, what is being generated is a sequence of actual being (letters) measured, or rather is contained as a series, by potential Nothing (numbers). For example, 1MGmkLksgsViEoy6nCwPQsaA8RKBo29ut8
This random series may perhaps be in itself a random combination of of letters and numbers, yet its inverse, is simply the external magnitude of the series, this code can be encrypted, or converted into a magnitude proportional to its harmony, the quaston is why is not every random code a measure of bitcoin?
Definition blockchain:
originally block chain[4][5] – is a distributed databasethat maintains a continuously growing list of records, called blocks, secured from tampering and revision. Each block contains a timestamp and a link to a previous block.[6] By design, blockchains are inherently resistant to modification of the data — once recorded, the data in a block cannot be altered retroactively. Through the use of a peer-to-peer network and a distributed timestamping server, a blockchain database is managed autonomously. Blockchains are “an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way. The ledger itself can also be programmed to trigger transactions automatically.”[7]
The term “economy” in the most general sense is defined by three words: resource, production and consumption. Economy is derived from Ecosystem, “nomy” means laws governing certain field of knowledge.
In the market, there is a relation between two unequal values, where one is less and the other is greater in value. Their medium is the state where one is less and the other is greater, that is, the middle point is the state of constant fluctuation within a certain margin. The currency exchange market for example involves a 1% fluctuation for the highest value, it is constantly going down and up roughly 1%. Its state of flux is a result from the sum of all relations in relation to its particular relation to the sum of all relations. How you make surplus value involves a conscious effort of selection. In the medium between the less and the greater value, the lower value itself becomes greater in its respect while the greatest value becomes less in its respect at one point in time. For every 1 us dollar is equivalent to .73 Canadian, in their inverse relation, when the 1 dollar decreases in value, the Canadian increases, the conscious will in this relation would therefore buy the us dollar with the Canadian deriving a surplus value of… if the Canadian decreases and the American increases, assuming you bought the latter with the former, you sell the American making a profit..
In the market of nature the relations are much more complicated. Unlike other he monetary market, the value of a natural thing is not its quantitive value but rather is its qualitative, the qualitative is defined by its ethical value. The ethical value something is related to the intellectual ability of the life form; and such an intellectual ability manifest as an ethical characteristic trait. How the ethical value is determined if he life form is dependent on how it relates with its environment. Life fundamentally is consciousness, whereas the environment is the object. The way life relates with its environment determines the way consciousness derives knowledge of its object. The entirety of all life forms, individually each constitute a unique angle of consciousness deriving knowledge of its object.
Give example of the certain bug type that go through cycle of being alive and when dieing providing a huge supply of food to other living organism (plant earth episode). This is example of resource production and consumption.
The survival of the fittest doctrine fails because it is not the physical strength of the organism that allows it to develop and survive but rather its ethical, which is at the same time its rational ability, its strategy for living, that allows it to develop. Explain how the bonobo exerts hierarchy when it is its time to eat, the bonobo is not rash because it does not hoard the food but wait its turn, yet when it’s turn comes it exerts its demand for respect to eat by exerting its dominance. That’s is an example of an ethical relation with its environment. It is a mean not too impotent or too rash, which allowed it to be one of the dominate living forces in its environment.
(Find where you explain how each animal is an ethical character and how human is species being all those characters. Lion is courage, but lacks witty…)
The individuals of a species are expressions of that species. They are being selected in genetic potential. Like the market, goes up and down 1% but is advancing by making numbers out of that fluctuation.