Heidegger

Caveat. In keeping with the sentiments expressed in the opening section: ‘Problems of Communication’ (Part 1. page 3) it is time to remind the reader that much of what follows might be mistaken for the personification of insentient objects, or even worse, the attribution of human-like qualities to inanimate entities. This is not the case, for as was explained at the outset, we have not yet evolved a non anthropocentric language appropriate to describe the states and existential modalities of insensate objects. PART SIX - THE DETERMINISTIC EVOLUTION OF INSENTIENT OBJECTS. Baron Holbach (1770) takes nature to consist in matter and motion and nothing else: ‘The universe, that vast assemblage of every thing that exists, presents only matter and motion: the whole offers to our contemplation, nothing but an immense, an uninterrupted succession of causes and effects.’ So spoke the great philosopher Baron d’Holbach. The following is an attempt to understand and describe the evolutionary processes of molecular, material, biologic, gaseous and energetic insentient objects and the function of spatial impingement and insentient niche-seeking as a feature of the preservative processes and ascendency procedures in the struggle for material persistence. Though the deterministic tempo of the evolutionary time-scales of entiatic matter throughout the holarchy are staggeringly slow relative to human measurements of material change, the differentiae in the nature of the processes are merely those of quantity and duration rather than character. Concerning the vast diversity of elements, metals, minerals, chemicals and gasses, it will come as no surprise that such inanimate objects are also environmentally adaptive in a similar way that biological species have proved to be here on earth. When crude ‘prototype elements’ produce or enter a new environment with many unoccupied niches, the compendium of material species expands (radiates) and evolves suitable adaptations better fitted to fill these available niches in much the same way that animal or vegetable taxonomic categories multiply to fill available niches here on earth. By way of example. The process of becoming adapted to these different niches may lead to elemental extenuation or competition. Corrosive chemicals in conflict with corrodible metallic substances may lead to either or both the development of variant metals more resistant to corrosive attack, or the development of more corrosive chemicals, etc. In many cases these inter-materialistic conflicts have led to the formation of new elements or the modification of existing substances. Time sequences apart, I perceive there to be little difference between the irrational motivation of the biological gene as a survival stratagem, and the incessant deterministic unconscious interaction and ’savage’ competition for substantial-security by material variants sharing the same mereological coincident boundaries. ‘All the basic elements given in the periodic table evolve from the nucleons making up hydrogen. The nucleons themselves either: (1) are being continuously created as a function of time, space, and matter (steady state model), (2) were created at a single point in time and space (the Big Bang), or (3) always existed and always will exist in either an infinite or a finite universe (e. g., Hannes Alfven’s steady state model (Garcia 1983) As I see it, the metanarrative of the cosmos describes a hierarchy of holarchic nested sub-systems in continuous savage competition for the best niche for prolongation. The ruthless exploitation of the Darwinian model of ‘the survival of the fittest’ here on Earth is performed in the far reaches of the galaxies with a similar ruthlessness by the star-material from which we are constructed. The emergence of life-forms such as ours and those of others with which we share this planet is a part of the unceasing competition for the existential niches that best offer durability and continuance. The unceasing, titanic struggle for entiatic dominance of which we are a part and a product is alive and well and at work throughout the immense assemblage of everything that exists within the meta-systemic complexity which is the cosmos. (Garcia 1983) writes: ‘Cosmic evolution involves elementary particles becoming organized into atoms and eventually into galaxies, stars, and planets. This process seems predictable and seems determined by the existence of energy and current natural laws. Chemical evolution involves atoms becoming organized into molecules.’ For something to be described as being predictable is to describe something as being determined of course. From the so-called sub-atomic to the super-galactic, the competition amongst quantum entities and metallic and chemical compounds is similar in nature to the competition for deterministic niche-construction and retention in animals and plants as described by Darwin. I believe the motivational mechanism of universal change as being that of competitive persistence and the drive for continuity and increasing complexity. But is there still a ‘why’ question to be answered? ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ Is the hoary old anthropocentric question of religion and metaphysics still valid and meaningful? Does the attribution of ‘purpose,’ based upon a model of human intentionality and volition to a cold, uncaring cosmos make sense? I think not. As Paul Edwards put it put it in his paper: “Why?,” in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy: quoted by Flood (2007) comments: “. . . the word ‘why’ loses its meaning when it becomes logically impossible to go beyond what one is trying to explain. This is a matter on which there need not be any disagreement between atheists and theists or between rationalists and empiricists.” Set against the particular meronymic relation to the relevant sub-systemic and super-systemic holons in question, and depending upon whether their relationship is transitive or stable and the degree of integrality with the host or hosted sub-systems. The meta-systemic integrum or ‘cosmos’ provides a battleground upon which all the objects vie for continuity-niches in pursuance of perdurance. The prospect of ‘lastingness’ provides the enginery of change for the war-games of niche-invasion and protection. This constant existential conflict between the constituted authority of the material macrocosm and the rebel constituents of holonic change and conservation struggling for survival is reflected throughout the whole of nature – and insentient objects are no exception to the rule of the material imperium. The premises upon which the forgoing is based are the following: (1) Only energetic material objects, and energised matter in the form of waves exist. Energy, force, causal agency, power per se does not exist.
(2) All abstract quasi entities, including useful fictions like. ‘movement, collision, change, speed, time, number, size, colour, length, breadth, temperature, distance, age, beauty, consciousness and mind’ cannot be found in the cosmos – they do not exist. Only the objects to which humans attribute these ‘ properties’ exist.
(3) What CAN be found in the cosmos are objects, which for humans are variously and subjectively perceived as:
Moving, colliding, changing, speeding, timed, numbered, long or short, broad or narrow, hot or cold, near or far, old or young, beautiful or ugly, efficient or non-efficient, concatenational or disengaged, and conscious or unconscious. It is my belief that deterministically changing entities change intrinsically, and have no specific endogenous cause, but react autogenously to the changes within the general meta-systemic environment of which they are a part. Therefore logically, their change is self initiated and is experienced by the whole cosmos and not just by the part that undergoes change. The abstraction ’cause’ does not exist. Energetic objects which are impinged-upon by the environment, change or re-arrange their existential modalities in the most conservational way possible. If a car’s carburettor is replaced or modified the whole super-holonistic vehicle has undergone modification – not just the sub-holon which mixes air with petrol vapour prior to explosion. Described via the inadequacies of human language, there exists a reciprocal resistance, or constitutional polarity in every holon – both a self-assertive oppositional propensity and a yielding, integrative tendency, which is a universal characteristic of all hierarchic order. When challenged by the super-systemic environment, holons react in accordance with the physical rules of the material imperative, and in the case of organic entities with the concomitant physiological dictates of the particular persistence-niche in which they inhere, in order to ensure the least functional and morphological damage. Defend or submit? [cf. ‘fight or flight.’) Every holon has the two-fold disposition to persist and affirm its identity as a quasi-autonomous singleton; and at the same time to operate as an incorporated part of a greater unity. The damaged car wing crumples in such a way that the minimum amount of integrality is sacrificed as a result of the impact, and the least possible re-arrangement of its bodily form is manifested in keeping with the characteristics of its original structure. In anthropocentric (human language terms) there is a natural balance arrived at between the limits of damage limitation in relation to total destruction. The impinged upon stationary billiard ball does not ‘absorb the energy’ of the ball that hits it. No ‘exchange of energy’ takes place between the two balls - because ‘energy’ per se does not exist to be transferred or conserved. That which we call energy comprises of energised objects [electrons] arranged in wave-forms – they do not migrate from one billiard ball to another and bang-up against it and make it move. The stationary ball employs its own intrinsically energised matter to abandon the spatial location it occupies at the instant of impact in order to avoid exploding in a shower of fragmentation which would expend all of its energy as a composite causal object. The oncoming ball enacts the same evasive action and expends its own energy in coming to an abrupt halt or changing direction. That is the reason that physicists claim there is a detectable energetic equivalence between the two persistent objects. Persistent objects are subject to constant and never-ending internal change. This is not because of the particular impingement of other objects, but because they exist as the recipient vectoral objects of inevitable concatenational influences from the micro-causal objects of which they are physically constituted. All objects change - because they are the objects they are. All objects change because they exist in the way that they exist at the time that they are ‘caught up’ or become subjected to the ‘linkage mechanism’ of the concatenational imperative of the way the cosmos exists - which is the only way it can possibly exist - otherwise it wouldn’t exist. The overall, macro-picture of deterministic concatenational auto-change [which is actually what ‘causation is] is difficult for humans to detect, because we are so obsessed with the identification of the relatively small number of concatenational changes we observe or experience and see as significant, compared with the uncountable trillion upon trillion of entiatic changes that are going on inside us and all around us. We tend [for purposes of survival I suppose] to single out only those changes which we consider meaningful or important to us in our daily lives. The incident or event of the two billiard balls on the table before us therefore assumes an ontological significance far beyond their real cosmic importance which restricts us from seeing the deterministic wood for the ontical trees. Much as I applaud the genius of Hume in spotting the repetitive impingement (‘The Regularity Theory’ in causation,) I claim that it ‘the abstraction ‘causation’ ‘does NOT exist. ‘Cause’ or ‘change’ IN ITSELF does not exist. We could say that ’cause’ and ‘object’ are ‘consubstantial.’ I use this fiction only as an ideational rundle which can be stepped upon and then kicked away once an understanding of the concept is realised, for I do not wish it to be thought that ’cause’ or ‘change’ REALLY exist - even consubstantially. Hume (1748) gave this definition of ’cause’ as follows: ‘we may define a cause to be an object followed by another, and where all objects similar to the first are followed by objects similar to the second.’ We may call analyses of causation that follow this general strategy ‘’regularity analyses.’ (Hume I noticed it first when I used to take my kids to nursery and watch them as they added to their a posteriori knowledge of causal objects by manipulating coadundate, interlocking, coloured building blocks. If they persevered pushing two together they clicked and ’caused’ the ensuant bi-partite object to ‘become’ (say) the arch over a doorway in a toy house etc. Learning to predict the causal-effectional outcomes of ergodic - or stochastic random impingements, (I call it:‘identifying catenulate accountability’) where no previous, impingemental or antecedal interactive model has been formerly experienced to predict values, is a part of the way we develop as humans - from the time that we are born. Thus, incrementally we become acquainted with Hume’s: ‘Regularity Theory of causation,’ which for the eliminativist has become the ‘regularity theory of persistent objects.’ Change/cause is somatogenetic and sui generistic - being the only example of its kind applicable to ALL OBJECTS constituting an ontological class of its own; unique to ALL - not to certain members of the entiatic cosmic community. In other words if we say that ‘all objects are causal’ we must consider the term syncategorematical, in that it imports the nature of the predicate to the subject and excludes every other ’suppositum’ from the predicate. ‘Cause’ is synonymous with ‘change,’ which is the only way that any object can exist. ‘Cause’ (or ‘change’ to name it correctly) is not predictable of the object - as it IS the object - the way that it exists. The idea that some people have most difficulty in grasping is… It is not: ‘the way that an object exists’ that exists it is the object that exists which exists. Baron d’Holbach (Paul Henri Thiry.) ‘System of Nature, (Systeme de la Nature) trans. E. F. Bennett. Project Gutenberg. Flood. Anthony. Quoting Paul Edwards in his essay: ‘Why?’ in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.2006. _http://www.anthonyflood.com/whysomething.htm_  http://www.anthonyflood.com/whysomething…) Garcia. John, David. ‘Creative Transformation’ 1983. e-book accessed 28.03.2007. _http://www.see.org/e-ct-dex.htm_  http://www.see.org/e-ct-dex.htm) Hume. David. ‘Enquiry concerning Human Understanding.’ Selby-Bigge Edition. Oxford University Press.

Posted on Saturday, March 31st, 2007 at 5:15 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback