VIRTUE AND SELF – PART III – SELFLESSNESS (continued)

AGAPE

The second part of selflessness is externally directed – the impartial love of others classically called agape in ancient Christianity (as opposed to eros or carnal love and philia or friendship). Here we need only think of Christ’s categorical imperative: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”4  Love of others entails three dimensions: empathy, charity, and forgiveness.

Empathy, it turns out, is an intrinsic human trait. Just as human self-consciousness evolved to allow one to put oneself in another’s shoes in order to thrive in complex groups, so are we capable of and compelled to feel the hurt of others. Empathy is the foundation for compassion and caring of others and thus for virtuous behavior towards them.

Caritas or charity transforms our fruitless self-love and unconcern for others into the virtue of beneficence. We have seen that self-denial is a tool to control our wants in the section on self-discipline. But self-denial has dual value; it also allows us to forsake goods for the benefit of others. These interlocking benefits reinforce this component of self-mastery. Reinhold Niebuhr explains it thusly; excessive concern for the self or self-love inevitably leads to a narrower self while the highest level of self-realization, that is, the true self, is the fruit of love of others.5

Mahayana Buddhism, the start of which interestingly coincides with the beginning of the Christian era, similarly emphasizes loving kindness and compassion. The self-sacrificing zeal of the saintly Bodhisattvas extends to the suffering not only of other humans, but of all living things. Such sacrifice makes one worthy of the ‘perfection of wisdom.’ Compassion is defined as the selfless desire to make others happy based on a pure heart, meaning one’s final motive is to do good, not to relieve one guilt. This extension of caring to nonhuman creatures also appears in Jainism and is echoed by Albert Schweitzer in his book, Reverence for Life.6

Forgiveness is the third facet of agape. Our lives are full of hurts, real and imagined, which are initiated by others. Inner calm requires the letting go of anger and resentment, two emotions that inevitably conflict with virtue. The ability to forgive others is the practice needed for another ultimate goal, self-forgiveness. As imperfect beings, each of us has been the source of hurts to others and even ourselves. Paul Tillich believes self-forgiveness is key to overcoming the crushing burden of guilt when he says, “One could say that the courage to be is the courage to accept oneself as accepted in spite of being unacceptable.” 7 But Jesus warns us of a mystical truth in the Lord’s prayer, “…forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us…”  We can only expect forgiveness to the extent we learn to forgive others.

DEFERENCE TO THE ULTIMATE

For the religious person, perhaps the most important step towards self-mastery is to abandon the centrality of the ego in favor of the centrality of the divine. Humility is achieved in part by crediting one’s well-being and abilities as gifts of deity or nature. A wise individual accepts that one’s existence and purpose is subordinate to a greater entity meaning God, nature, or the universe. This involves understanding ourselves as finite and recognizing something greater, within which we are an infinitesimal part.

——————————————————-

1Talmud; ‘Sayings of the Fathers’.

2The Nun’s Story (chapter 8).

3Tao Te Ching, XXVIII.

4Matthew 22:39

5Niebuhr, Reinhold, Faith and History. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1949. Pages 171-179.

6Zaehner, R.C., Encyclopedia of the World’s Religions. Barnes &Noble Books, New York, 1997. ISBN0-76070-712-X,  pages 293-317.

7Tillich, Paul, The Courage to Be. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1957, page 164.

 

VIRTUE AND SELF – PART III – SELFLESSNESS

“Unless the mind be trained to selflessness and infinite compassion, one is apt to fall into the error of seeking liberation for self alone.” – Gampopa

 

 

After self-discipline, the next component of self-mastery is selflessness (or unselfishness) meaning the unconcern for or de-emphasis of the needs, wealth, or fame for oneself. Of course its opposite is selfishness, seemingly derived from the instinctual drive of life to comply with the first command of evolution – survival of the individual.  Self-preservation in nonhuman animals is mitigated by natural checks that kick in once needs for survival are satisfied. Obviously human history and our own personal experience reveal that such limits are not innate to our species. We alone engage in gluttony to the point of obesity or kill for reasons other than survival. However, ironically, we alone of species have sufficient intelligence to transcend mere instincts when they conflict with reason.

Like self-discipline, selflessness is recognized as essential to self-mastery by most ancient thinkers, although it appears most fully developed in Christianity and Mahayana Buddhism. There are three basic parts: (1) humility, (2) caritas or love and caring for others, and (3) deference to deity or the ultimate. We will investigate these individually and reference some articulate proponents.

HUMILITY

Humility is the internally directed portion of selflessness wherein one overcomes the illusion of one’s own greatness and importance by embracing one’s finitude and limited significance. Humility offers four powerful values for a meaningful life. First it creates an openness to the knowledge and wisdom of others. Consider Charles Caleb Colton’s view: “The greatest friend of truth is Time, her greatest enemy is Prejudice, and her constant companion is Humility.” Hebrew scholars are even more direct: “Who is wise? He who learns from all men.”1 Learning and intellectual growth it seems are dependent on a rational humility with regard to one’s own limited knowledge.

Three other values of humility derive from is its role in removing oneself psychologically from the center or existence. It allows us to participate in something greater than ourselves as Kathryn Hulme observes when she writes: “You must never lose the awareness that in yourself you are nothing, you are only an instrument. An instrument is nothing until it is lifted.”2 This non-centrality of ego is also fundamental to virtue as pointed out by the Cure D’Arts: “Take away humility, and all the virtues disappear.” Last  suppression of the ego turns out being necessary for spirituality especially as a counterbalance to the sin of pride.

These four values of humility – openness, uncentering, virtue, and spirituality are formulated with particular beauty in the East in the words of Lao Tze:

        “He who knows honor and yet keeps to humility

         Will become a valley that receives all the world into it.”3

Humility then is a strength worthy of our ceaseless cultivation.

(continued next post)

VIRTUE AND SELF – PART II – SELF-DISCIPLINE (continued)

CONTROL OF THINKING

My last post on November 13, 2020 began our discussion on the three parts of self-discipline by examining the conquest of instincts, emotions, and desire. The second part is the need to control one’s thought.

The oversized human brain is an entity of ceaseless thinking, especially repetitive, rambling, and often negative thoughts. In addition humans alone of animals can translate these thoughts into speech. The ancients perceived that thoughts and speech required control, again an incredible psychological insight in a prescientific age.

Perhaps of all the ancient sages, Buddha most emphasizes the importance of mastering one’s thoughts and speech, even integrating these into his eight-fold path. While Buddha left no written record, his disciples retained his teachings through an oral tradition, although with some discrepancies. The orthodox from of Buddhism known as Theravada seems to provide the best presentation of Buddha’s eight-fold path. Right thinking and speech are in fact further expanded to right views, right speech, right endeavors, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

Briefly right views are knowledge of dharma or Buddha’s four noble truths and other teachings.2 Right speech means abstaining from lying, slanderous or harsh speech, or frivolous chatter. Right endeavor includes (1) preventing unskilled mental states from arising and eliminating those that happen to arise, and (2) causing skilled mental states to arise and maintaining and increasing them after they arise. Right mindfulness means abiding with contemplation of the body as body, feelings as feelings, mind as mind, and mental states as mental states. Right concentration involves the four jhana or meditations.3 Obviously further study and practice will be needed for readers interested in adopting the Buddhist program.

Thus control of thought and speech are the key second item integral to self-discipline, a fact recognized not only by Buddha who developed it explicitly, but by most ancient sages. For example, the Stoic Emperor Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations (Book 4:33) writes, “So where should a man direct his endeavor? Here only – a right mind, action for the common good, speech incapable of lies…”

 

 

EQUANIMITY

As instincts, emotions, desires, and negative thoughts are brought under control the self acquires increasing equanimity, and poise. Unconcern for bodily whims, fleeting passions, and trivial social turbulence combined with the control of thought and the development of concentration in purpose leads to mindful calm -‘a luminous mind’ – the great secret of the Eastern philosophers. The last factor in equanimity is the elimination of fear and anxiety, which results from a correct understanding of reality, exemplified by Epicurus who teaches us not to fear the gods or death. In this way the wise person comes to a state called ataraxia or serenity of the soul. The luminous mind and ataraxia represents the highest accomplishment in self-discipline which overflow into another component of the meaningful life, contentment.

———————————————————————–

1See posts on this website category Suffering on asceticism dated 4/1/20 – 4/6/20 and 4/ 27/20 – 5/6/20.

2Note the use of the word dharma is different in Buddhism than in Hinduism where it refers to the traditional life of the Hindu.

3Zaehner, R.C., Encyclopedia of the World’s Religions. Barnes &Noble Books, New York, 1997. ISBN0-76070-712-X,  pages 284-288.

Guest Blog: ORGANISM, A MATRIX FOR REALITY – by Barry Zern*

“The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine”1

 

 

 Alfred North Whitehead developed his philosophy of organism in “Process and Reality” published in 1929.  In researching his work on organism, including works by Plato, Spinoza, and Kant, questions arose which led me to this exploration of organism from a different perspective.

Before beginning my metaphysical exploration of organism I feel compelled to ask a brief, but more basic question.  Is it possible to develop a meaningful theory of reality that can rise above the oft spoken criticism of philosophy by others that such theories can never be proven one way or the other?  In other words can contemporary metaphysics meet the challenge of rising above being more than just adding more conjectural schemas to an already long list?

Could such theories have enough reasonable cause to present such a case?  I think the answer is yes, but it is not necessary that it be “yes”.  It just may happen to be the case by examining available empirical evidence and a priori analyses that certain ontological positions are either significantly supported or questioned.  The ones I mention here in no way exclude other evidence or analyses that may be supported from contributing to the discussion.

A one builds a case it is implied that a case with more support especially diverse support is necessarily a better case than one with less.  This support may come from outside the realm of philosophical theorizing or it may come from the complexity of the internal consistency of the statements made in the overall theory it fits into.  In some ways this is little different than what physical scientists do in looking for theories that satisfy as much of the known data as possible that may relate to the area of interest they are investigating.

It is possible to build a strong case but not one that can ever be proven.  Such a case can never be built to the stated standards of the physical sciences, but that is not necessary.  Theirs are necessarily limited to the narrow confines of their data and theirs can never be proven either, but in general with their narrower goals they have a higher degree of probability.  In philosophy we have no such limitations on what problems we can tackle.  We can attempt to answer a lot more questions but usually with a less clear degree of certainty.

Reality is organismic.  The universe is the visible part of the organismic reality.  It is infinite with no beginning and no end.  It is an organism unified by an electromagnetic field.  The universal organism mediates its activity through its electromagnetic field. It also interacts electromagnetically with the small scale organisms with which we are familiar.  These organisms, in our scale, mediate their activity electrochemically, and also electromagnetically.

All organisms are finite other than the universal organism.  Unlike the universal  organism they reproduce and directly evolve.  That these organisms are  found so infrequently among the mass and space of the universe is a unique paradox of reality.

An organism is the unification of will and matter.  Consciousness originates out of this unification.  The will is the endowment from the cosmic organism.  It enables the mortal organism to utilize the data it receives from outside itself to act in its own interest.   Organisms fulfill their purpose as individuals and in societies of  individuals.  The will expresses the purpose of all organisms, which is to survive.

The will directs an organism’s physical being  including its acquisition of the  matter it needs to grow and sustain itself.  An organism’s will, its matter, and consciousness is a unified being which is always unified during its lifetime.  Its will originated through its parent organism through the electromagnetic field of the  universal organism.  While matter can exist independent of organism, the will can only exist unified with matter.

An organism has freedom to pursue its purpose.  That freedom is limited by the particular nature with which it was endowed.  It’s parent organism is the same as it in its functional capability.  There are typically incremental genetic differences from generation to generation.  Over many generations  these genetic differences can become large enough to change its functional capability.

Organisms can only be created by similar organismic parents.  They cannot be created directly out of non-organismic matter.  They are of the basic fabric of reality.  AN Whitehead deals similarly with this issue by making all matter organism.  But in the absence of such theoretical attribute there is nothing in matter to endow it with the aim to become a unified being with will consciousness or thought.

How an organism’s will activates the physical matter of its body is of great ontological interest.  If one starts with an organism as being the nexus of will, matter, and consciousness, how ideas control physical matter becomes important.

The processes that result from an organism’s nexus of these are all electromagnetic or electrochemical.   The data of thought typically originates electromagnetically from outside the organism.  It is processed electromagnetically by the organism.  The process of internalizing data from that which is external to the organism, through the senses, and then registered  in the organism is the process of consciousness.

Organisms direct their physical being by converting their impulses and thoughts into messages which control their physical activity.  The entire process from prehensions to the actions of the organism is electromagnetic and electrochemical.  An explanation of how  thought can direct matter is necessary to define organism and to include or exclude theories of reality in any ontological inquiry.

All thought, memories and impulses are either electrochemical or electromagnetic.    Everything an organism does and how it does it is physical.  There are no independent thoughts or impulses that originate or proceed without being physical.  All thoughts have physical, that is, electromagnetic analogues.

Of particular interest is the organism’s origination of ideas, how the brain of higher organisms creates generalized and analogized ideas from its memories gathered from its external environment.  It is at this point in the process that subjectivity is introduced.  Despite subjectivity the ideas developed are remarkably similar in individuals of the human species, and likely so in other species of higher organisms.  Once there is a sufficient breadth of these ideations the brain can then create thoughts to accomplish its goal of survival.  ln so doing it also creates a basic language.

Answering the most basic questions about organisms is suggestive of different metaphysical positions.  How long it would take to produce the most basic organism by random process is one question whose answer is suggestive of including or excluding different philosophical positions.  The ability to describe how thought can direct matter or matter can create thought is another.  Both a priori and empirical methods must be considered.

All known organisms have certain characteristics in common.  They are all carbon based and have a DNA code.  Whether prokaryote or eukaryote they have certain cellular characteristics in common.  They have at least some similar organelles regardless of whether they are animal, plant, fungus, bacteria or algae.  Though, their internal functioning when broken down to its most basic parts always obeys the laws of physics and chemistry, the ways in which they act as complete organisms go beyond those laws in novelty as organisms pursue their own ends.  This novelty has a distinctive kind of disorder in relation to unorganized matter, yet a cohesion and unity that we recognize in all organisms

Organisms appropriate and direct the matter they need to sustain themselves.  They live in sustaining environments on earth.  The entire surface of the earth could be considered one such environment.  They range in size from the microscopic  to the largest mammals.  Their will and consciousness  enables their mobility, providing them with options to appropriate new sources of energy to sustain themselves and to grow.  However this mobility is limited and acquiring new sources of energy to sustain their metabolic needs and growth are limited by their current capabilities.  Will and consciousness are inherently limited in each organism’s lifetime and in the becoming of future generations of these organisms.

We know with certainty organisms exist.  It is this certain knowledge that makes organism an excellent beginning for an inquiry into the nature of reality.  There is already a body of empirical knowledge that explains their functioning and it is quite probable that further empirical evidence will continue to emerge, providing more insights into biology and life itself.  On the other hand it cannot be said with certainty that God or a similar force integral to a particular view of reality exists.  The existence of God or this force can only be inferred, regardless of what probability we place on that existence.  For this reason a derivation of the existence of God or such force should rely on both a-priori and empirical knowledge of organism.

The universe is seen by physical scientists and others as an aimless agglomeration of moving particles organized through the force, charge, and spin of subatomic particles into what we observe as physical matter.  Some believe that physical matter can organize itself into life without the need of any further agency, resolving the difficult task of explaining consciousness and will by just assuming their automatic evolution from physical matter.  Arguing for such a position without establishing any evidence that it can occur is no lesser burden than arguing for the existence of God by starting with that as the premise.    Both materialism and theism have the same burden, they cannot lead to a fundamental explanation of reality by using themselves as a starting point from which to build.  Organisms exist with certainty, unifying will consciousness and physical matter and thus should be a focus in metaphysics.

The idea of the universe being organismic, that is being an organism first entered mainstream philosophy with Plato.  In the Timaeus2 he stated, “The visible universe is a living creature”, …  In the Timaeus the idea of the universe being a macro organism is explored.   Over 2000 years later in the Gifford lectures 1927-28, AN Whitehead refers to the Timaeus, suggesting Plato’s philosophy is similar to his own philosophy of organism.

What would such an organismic universe look like?  It could be several organisms, n>1, with non-organismic other, and that these organisms would live in an eco system similar to how we live in one.  The universe as we know it would be part of either one of these meta-organisms or the non-organismic other they would coexist with.  These meta-organisms would be finite.

Alternatively the organismic universe could be a single organism, n=1, unified with mortal organisms of the micro level.  In this case our universe would be coextensive with this single organism, in time and space.  There would be no non-organismic other for the meta-organism and it would exist eternally with the universe.  All the non-organismic other that exist at the microcosmic  level for mortal organisms are part of the universal organism.  This organism manages its physical being and consciousness in a way similar to mortal organisms, that is through an electromagnetic field.

Just as with mortal organisms, the will is limited in its ability to provide the  universal organism with complete freedom from its physical nature and environment.  Even with this limitation the universal organism is able to evolve.  It evolves as a consequence of its being unified with everything in the universe.  On this cosmic scale the will and consciousness are what I call the cosmic force, akin to a more traditional view of God, the one important difference being that it can never exist independent of its unification with matter.

Plato rejects multiple meta-organisms in favor of one universal organism.    His  reasoning is compelling.  I see the meta-organism as the center and source of all ontological significance though Plato does not.    This meta-organism is teleological by its nature. It is consistent for it to be the coherent embodiment of what some could call God.  It certainly is well situated to have all the attributes we could think of as God.

Spinoza’s3  thought also embodies principles that amount to seeing nature as an organism.  Kant also saw organisms as being special in this regard, defining an organism as “cause and effect of itself.”4   These references point out the persistence of organism in mainstream western philosophy over an extended period of time, whether the idea is fully developed or not.

An organismic universe, in a similar way as mortal organisms on a microcosmic scale, represents the true nature of reality.  Just as with mortal organisms, the will is limited in its ability to provide the organism complete freedom from its physical nature and environment.  With these limitations it is however still quite powerful and evolves as mortal organisms evolve.

Traditional western religion and thought has seen God as all powerful and often transcendent to the world.  When looking at the universe as an organism, there is certainly no reason why the attributes of God would not be consistent with God being an organism.  The concept of God when seen as an organism’s will and consciousness, even on a cosmic scale is more clearly seen as limited in its considerable power.

The cosmic force  is not omniscient.  From its perspective the future holds potentialities  and therefore probabilities for future events.  This is in concordance with quantum theory.  The cosmic force evolves with the world.  It is the recipient of these probabilities rather than their initiator.  The cosmic force is never fully realized.  That would be a lesser state of being for it than with a future of options.  In the present the cosmic consciousness encompasses everything past and present.

There is a relationship between the cosmic unity and mortal organisms, a nexus between the two.  There is reason to believe that the nature of the universal organism, or cosmic unity, is consistent with and similar to mortal micro-organisms.  From this perspective we can examine certain aspects of the cosmic force, and how it relates to mortal organisms.

Existence is the primary statement of what an infinite reality implies, and survival follows from existence as the purpose of life.   In fact existence is the only thing that can follow from an infinite reality and therefore survival must become the driver of life, ultimately determining what is internalized as good.

All organisms have the ability to survive to varying degrees based on their development.  Their survival is based on the nature of the threats they face.  Their survival as individual organisms becomes a part of the enduring nature of the cosmic unity.

 

Survival is the guiding principle for activity of all organisms.  More highly developed organisms will adopt better behaviors  to promote survival.  These behaviors become codified and, internalized.  Organisms increase their survival  by developing more and better ways to respond to different situations.  This increased complexity is a byproduct of the organism’s increased ability to survive because it can respond  to a greater variety of situations.  We refer to the process of increasing complexity as evolution.

What promotes survival is moral or good, survival of the individual, survival of the group as a whole, and survival of that which is external to the group, its environment, on which it depends for its survival.  Self-survival is the most immediate with group survival longer term and sustainable environmental survival the most long term.  There is a natural harmony between pursuing survival of the self, survival of the group and survival of the external that the group depends on.  Though there is not always clarity on each individual option, over time the group will tend to apportion choices among the three alternatives most advantageously.

An overexpression of self-survival becomes bad behavior.  What is best is an equilibrium of self, group and environmental survival.  Placing too much emphasis on either group and/or environmental survival can lead to more occasional  mismatches of threat and response.   This is ultimately not good for self-survival.  Balancing the three is part of the art of being a higher organism.

Though we have opened this exploration with our conclusion that organism leads to an infinite universe and and a cosmic unity of will, matter and consciousness, there may be other ontological positions that are consistent with a philosophy based on empirical analysis of organism.  These ontologies may be associated with different empirical understandings derived from either biology or physics.

In some cases our empirical understanding points to different possible ages for the universe.  The level of probability for organisms to form from random process is inversely related to the time available for them to accomplish that goal, that is the minimum age for the universe that is required.   The longer the odds against life forming from random process, the older the age of the universe must be.

Physics has determined the currently accepted age of the universe.  Ontologies suggested by physics may not be consistent with ontologies suggested by biology or vice versa.  This disagreement though difficult to resolve, reduces  the possible ontological explanations for reality, which are explored here.

In the last half of the 20th century the double helix model of the DNA molecule was discovered.   If it were to be postulated that organisms could be created from simple matter, probabilities could then be calculated based on a pre organismic environment of what the chances were for creating the minimum DNA strand capable of supporting minimal life.  The probability of just producing a single strand of DNA by random process capable of sustaining life is so infinitesimally low that the universe would have to be orders of magnitude older than 14 billion years, the age currently calculated.   The very low probability of producing the other necessary precursors of life further lessen this probability.  This leaves us in the position of  looking for an explanation of organism that does not rest on the assumption that they can be created by random process of physical matter.

With respect to the divergence on the age of the universe between the methodology  of physics and the analysis  from biology, it is appropriate to suggest possible reasons in the currently accepted methodology of physics that could cause it to underestimate that age.

We know from physics the standard model does not account for all important interactions and incorporate the full theory of general relativity and gravitation or contain a dark matter particle  consistent with cosmological observations.  This is not a criticism of the model, just stating the obvious that physics is not settled science and that the ultimately determined age of the universe could be substantially different than the currently accepted 14 billion year age.  Though it can be said that the 14 billion year age of the universe is supported by science, the terribly long odds for the origin of life arguing against this age is also supported by science.

Further, unification of all four fundamental forces has not been accomplished for almost a century now.  None of this means they are in error, just that science operates within a process of self imposed continuous review and possible adjustment over time based on new data and methods from all reliable sources within physics, but not just within physics.

If we assume a different view of the universe for the moment other than a materialist one, an organismic cosmology may either be a better foundation for a unified theory of the four basic forces or offer an explanation for why unification has been so difficult.  It may be that all past present and future motions in an organismic universe may not be devoid of organismic novelty as amply displayed by organisms here on earth and that in an organismic universe on a cosmic scale, equations that rely on relationships holding across all variables at all values may be difficult to discern.

The argument for the very low probability of producing DNA by random process as a precursor of life is essentially quite simple.  There is a  very large number of possible arrangements of a single strand of DNA that can be produced by random process and a very small number of possible strands that would be capable of sustaining life.  Because the probability is so low it points to the need for a dramatically older universe, possibly trillions of years older or infinite.  If it can be shown that origin of life cannot follow from random process, then materialism would not be viable and some other ontology must better explain reality.  The odds are so long against materialism being possible they are essentially zero.  Such an old universe required to rule out materialism essentially leaves only those requiring a cosmic force, that is theist, deist, pantheistic or other similar ontologies.

It is not just the long odds against producing a viable DNA strand, but there are similar long odds for producing all the organelles necessary for life.  The ribosome organelle in particular presents perhaps the most difficult challenge.  How would random process even begin to produce a translation machine that transforms the nucleotide monomer arrangement into instructions to produce the appropriately necessary but completely unrelated proteins?  It would seem the odds of producing a ribosome would be of a similar order as the odds of producing a Boltzman Brain.  All the very low probabilities for each of the precursors would need to be multiplied together to calculate the odds against producing life.

Additionally, all this would have to take place in a primordial pool over such a long period of time that the time necessary for the completion of the precursors would far exceed the limits of how long the pools themselves could survive intact, based on chemical degradation of the pools, geological forces containing the pools and planetary forces that would compromise and destroy the pools on a regular basis.  Indeed the time period for random process is so long it would far exceed the lifespan of planets and their solar systems to exist for one such pool or a succession of them to be successful.

For life to be produced from random matter it would also have to be demonstrated in theory at least how thought could be accomplished.  What would the ontology and cosmology look like?  A specific analysis would have to be presented that shows how matter can create thought.  This has never been successfully accomplished.   It does not appear that accounting for life in this manner will work.

Demonstrating that one of a total of two possible alternatives is wrong is not as convincing a way to demonstrate the other is correct as demonstrating the viability of the other on its own.  It therefore must also be shown that the thought of an organism can physically direct the matter that is integrally part of that organism.  Thus it is necessary to show that organisms can function by explaining how thought can direct matter.  This was outlined earlier during the discussion of the electromagnetic prehension of data from outside the organism and how it is internalized.  The generalized and analogized ideas are then used to create electrochemical impulses to the matter of the organism to effect movement.

Some have suggested a more incremental approach to produce life from non-life random process, based on intermediate stages or partial life.  With this approach it makes perfect sense to look at either the first step away from random process towards life or the most immediate step to life.

Producing self-replicating organic chemicals has been a subject of this approach.  Producing them  is no different than producing anything else that is mechanistic. The problem of going to life from a non life mechanism still remains.  Proponents of this methodology rely on the plausibility of laboratory chemical reactions to make their case for random process as a causative agent of life.  This is not a difficult standard to reach and ultimately does not decide anything.  Plausibility is not a level of scientific certainty.  It can only be a suggestion for further experimentation at best.

It also would make sense to explore the last step or something close to it before our current DNA world.  Some consider an RNA world an important part of this approach.   Though simpler than DNA, RNA world offers nothing more than the very low probability of DNA.  Other problems presented by ribosomes and the synchronized origin of life are still there.  RNA is less stable per number of pairs than DNA and a much smaller strand would introduce new problems of post life sustainability.  RNA world is of course speculative where DNA world is real.   If RNA world existed and were alive the problem of getting to RNA world not be any easier than getting to DNA world from pre-life random process.

A 14 billion year old universe coupled with an extremely low probability of producing life from physical matter in that time frame implies a cosmic force is needed to account for life.  An intervening theistic God must be central to the ontology associated with this situation.  The cosmic force would be required to make up for the insufficient amount of time 14 billion years allows for producing life from inert matter with this set of conditions.  While an intervening God may have more than one option to reach that goal, a simple way it could produce life in such an attenuated time period, would be to suspend normal probability and just select the needed outcomes.

A finite but very old universe that is old enough to be functionally infinite, it could be argued, would not require altering the probabilities for random process to produce the required DNA strands.  Such an old universe relies on the proposition that  an infinite amount of time available for a finite process to reach completion can solve any problems.  But because of the serial destruction of the primordial pools before each one of the necessary intermediate steps can be completed within the time available, this cannot happen.

Materialism thus fails to provide a plausible explanation for how life arises from pre-life conditions, that is solely from the physical motion and properties of particles; and other difficulties including the eventual simultaneity needed for the start of life.

The other alternative is that the universe has always existed and always will exist as a unification of will, matter and consciousness.   In an infinitely old universe the cosmic force has existed with the physical universe as the universal organism coextensive with the universe.

In the early 1980’s Fred Hoyle expressed his views of how low the probabilities were of life arising  from random process of matter.  Research in biology since  has done little to change those odds.  Though Hoyle zeroed in on the probabilities of producing proteins from amino acids, as it turned out, one of the less effective ways of making his case, the odds of producing DNA with sequences capable of sustaining life would have been far more effective.  The simplest life forms require a DNA strand of about 160,000 -200,000 pairs.  Each pair has one of 4 possibilities, denoted by nucleotides A, C, G and T. Each specific pair has a probability of a particular monomer occurring of one in four.    So by random process (before the origin of life) the probability of producing the same DNA strand as one needed by a most basic life form with 160,000 DNA pairs would be 4^160,000, or  ~ 10^96,000.

Many DNA strands are much longer going into the millions, with higher organisms such as human beings in the billions.  Even allowing for the fact there may be many different sequences of DNA, capable of sustaining initial life, subtracting for these and for the so called “junk DNA” leaves a very low probability, one in 4^100,000 to produce a viable DNA strand, or one in ~10^60,000.  Even if a billion sustainable life forms could be formed by such a random process that would reduce the odds from one in 10^60,000 only slightly to one in 10^59,991.  To put 10^60,000 in perspective it is equivalent to the number 1 followed by 30 pages of zeros.  Extremely long odds to even comprehend.

Those odds grow still longer given the  average life of DNA before its chemical bonds begin to break down in a non-life environment.  This  degradation along with the continual degradation of the primordial pools containing the nucleotide monomers make already long odds impossible to overcome.  The other precursors, proteins, organelles, etc., are all subject to the degradation of their chemical bonds as well in the prelife environment    The odds become overwhelming in comparison to the 10^80 atoms believed to exist in the universe.  When we take into account life can only exist at or near the surface of select planets this number drops  below 10^70 vs a probability of 1 in 10^60,000 just for the DNA.  This forms the basis of argument that the universe must be orders of magnitudes older than physics calculates.

With the very old universe having been eliminated as the materialist alternative, we are left to choose between the 14 billion year universe coupled with the intervention of a theistic cosmic force  or an infinite cosmic unity, a universe that has always existed, as an organismic unity.  How do we compare these two remaining possibilities?

The infinite cosmic unity existed without mortal microcosmic organisms initially.  Its material composition was non-organismic matter.  At some point in its infinite life microcosmic organisms were introduced by the macrocosmic organism.  This is what we observe today in our universe, mortal microcosmic organisms along with non-organismic matter.    On a cosmic scale everything has always been one organismic reality.

One ontological question is if this is more or less plausible than introducing physical matter at the beginning of a finite reality and assuming a cosmic force, that is God as in theism, must have been there already in what would otherwise have been nothingness, that is without matter.

The issue arises about the nature of God in the prephysical reality of physical nothingness?  God as the creator of the universe in this pre physical world would not be coexisting with the four fundamental forces of the universe.  God could only be all thought.  However thought by itself does not meet a basic test  because thought by itself cannot direct or interact with matter or create matter, just as it can’t in higher mortal organisms.   If one could postulate that a thought from God could do that, then you could postulate anything about thought or God in this context.  Why wouldn’t it be just one of many possible conjectures? My conclusion is that anything that can be said to have unlimited attributes has little or no value as a construct.

If God cannot exist in a prephysical reality then there cannot be a prephysical reality.  We have already ruled out materialism/physicalism.   Without a cosmic force in a prephysical reality or materialism what could create the universe?  Organisms require a cosmic force and a cosmic force must be eternal, that is without a finite starting point.  This casts serious doubt on creation ex nihilo. A temporally infinite universe is the only alternative.

In the present an eternal organismic universe is known with the greatest amount of certainty.   By this I mean life, that is organism, is known in great detail, as the present is our best laboratory to explore reality.   No one can doubt, the existence of organism in the present.

 

The past can also be known with greater certainty than with any other theory of reality, because reality evolves and therefore it is always very similar to its recent past, but with less complexity.  No other theory of reality starts with as little speculation.   Not theism which starts with an essentially unknowable conception of God;  nor materialism which requires an as yet undemonstrated transformation from pure physical matter to one in which consciousness, will and thought are unified with physical matter.  Materialism provides no basis for how that happens.  In an eternal reality this unity exists infinitely back in time as the necessary nature of reality as well as infinitely forward in time.

____________________________________

*Author Bio: Barry’s background includes studying philosophy at the University of Maine.  Metaphysics has been his avocation his entire life, especially the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. He tells us he has spent most of his life trying to make sense of this reality we find ourselves in.  Professionally he was a financial analyst and economist as well as a business executive, and is currently retired.  He is married and has two children.

1 attributed to JBS Haldane

2 Timaeus pp38-44, Cornford

3 “Spinoza and the Theory of Organism,” Hans Jonas, for a full explication of Spinoza on organism

4 Kant, §§64–65 of the Analytic of Teleological Judgment

Guest Blog: ORGANISM, A MATRIX FOR REALITY – PART III – by Barry Zern

(continued from 11/18/20)

With the very old universe having been eliminated as the materialist alternative, we are left to choose between the 14 billion year universe coupled with the intervention of a theistic cosmic force  or an infinite cosmic unity, a universe that has always existed, as an organismic unity.  How do we compare these two remaining possibilities?

The infinite cosmic unity existed without mortal microcosmic organisms initially.  Its material composition was non-organismic matter.  At some point in its infinite life microcosmic organisms were introduced by the macrocosmic organism.  This is what we observe today in our universe, mortal microcosmic organisms along with non-organismic matter.    On a cosmic scale everything has always been one organismic reality.

One ontological question is if this is more or less plausible than introducing physical matter at the beginning of a finite reality and assuming a cosmic force, that is God as in theism, must have been there already in what would otherwise have been nothingness, that is without matter.

The issue arises about the nature of God in the prephysical reality of physical nothingness?  God as the creator of the universe in this pre physical world would not be coexisting with the four fundamental forces of the universe.  God could only be all thought.  However thought by itself does not meet a basic test  because thought by itself cannot direct or interact with matter or create matter, just as it can’t in higher mortal organisms.   If one could postulate that a thought from God could do that, then you could postulate anything about thought or God in this context.  Why wouldn’t it be just one of many possible conjectures? My conclusion is that anything that can be said to have unlimited attributes has little or no value as a construct.

If God cannot exist in a prephysical reality then there cannot be a prephysical reality.  We have already ruled out materialism/physicalism.   Without a cosmic force in a prephysical reality or materialism what could create the universe?  Organisms require a cosmic force and a cosmic force must be eternal, that is without a finite starting point.  This casts serious doubt on creation ex nihilo. A temporally infinite universe is the only alternative.

In the present an eternal organismic universe is known with the greatest amount of certainty.   By this I mean life, that is organism, is known in great detail, as the present is our best laboratory to explore reality.   No one can doubt, the existence of organism in the present.

 

The past can also be known with greater certainty than with any other theory of reality, because reality evolves and therefore it is always very similar to its recent past, but with less complexity.  No other theory of reality starts with as little speculation.   Not theism which starts with an essentially unknowable conception of God;  nor materialism which requires an as yet undemonstrated transformation from pure physical matter to one in which consciousness, will and thought are unified with physical matter.  Materialism provides no basis for how that happens.  In an eternal reality this unity exists infinitely back in time as the necessary nature of reality as well as infinitely forward in time.

————————————

1 attributed to JBS Haldane

2 Timaeus pp38-44, Cornford

3 “Spinoza and the Theory of Organism,” Hans Jonas, for a full explication of Spinoza on organism

4 Kant, §§64–65 of the Analytic of Teleological Judgment

Guest Blog: ORGANISM, A MATRIX FOR REALITY – PART II – by Barry Zern

(continued from 11/16/20)

There is a relationship between the cosmic unity and mortal organisms, a nexus between the two.  There is reason to believe that the nature of the universal organism, or cosmic unity, is consistent with and similar to mortal micro-organisms.  From this perspective we can examine certain aspects of the cosmic force, and how it relates to mortal organisms.

Existence is the primary statement of what an infinite reality implies, and survival follows from existence as the purpose of life.   In fact existence is the only thing that can follow from an infinite reality and therefore survival must become the driver of life, ultimately determining what is internalized as good.

All organisms have the ability to survive to varying degrees based on their development.  Their survival is based on the nature of the threats they face.  Their survival as individual organisms becomes a part of the enduring nature of the cosmic unity.

 

Survival is the guiding principle for activity of all organisms.  More highly developed organisms will adopt better behaviors  to promote survival.  These behaviors become codified and, internalized.  Organisms increase their survival  by developing more and better ways to respond to different situations.  This increased complexity is a byproduct of the organism’s increased ability to survive because it can respond  to a greater variety of situations.  We refer to the process of increasing complexity as evolution.

What promotes survival is moral or good, survival of the individual, survival of the group as a whole, and survival of that which is external to the group, its environment, on which it depends for its survival.  Self-survival is the most immediate with group survival longer term and sustainable environmental survival the most long term.  There is a natural harmony between pursuing survival of the self, survival of the group and survival of the external that the group depends on.  Though there is not always clarity on each individual option, over time the group will tend to apportion choices among the three alternatives most advantageously.

An overexpression of self-survival becomes bad behavior.  What is best is an equilibrium of self, group and environmental survival.  Placing too much emphasis on either group and/or environmental survival can lead to more occasional  mismatches of threat and response.   This is ultimately not good for self-survival.  Balancing the three is part of the art of being a higher organism.

Though we have opened this exploration with our conclusion that organism leads to an infinite universe and and a cosmic unity of will, matter and consciousness, there may be other ontological positions that are consistent with a philosophy based on empirical analysis of organism.  These ontologies may be associated with different empirical understandings derived from either biology or physics.

In some cases our empirical understanding points to different possible ages for the universe.  The level of probability for organisms to form from random process is inversely related to the time available for them to accomplish that goal, that is the minimum age for the universe that is required.   The longer the odds against life forming from random process, the older the age of the universe must be.

Physics has determined the currently accepted age of the universe.  Ontologies suggested by physics may not be consistent with ontologies suggested by biology or vice versa.  This disagreement though difficult to resolve, reduces  the possible ontological explanations for reality, which are explored here.

In the last half of the 20th century the double helix model of the DNA molecule was discovered.   If it were to be postulated that organisms could be created from simple matter, probabilities could then be calculated based on a pre organismic environment of what the chances were for creating the minimum DNA strand capable of supporting minimal life.  The probability of just producing a single strand of DNA by random process capable of sustaining life is so infinitesimally low that the universe would have to be orders of magnitude older than 14 billion years, the age currently calculated.   The very low probability of producing the other necessary precursors of life further lessen this probability.  This leaves us in the position of  looking for an explanation of organism that does not rest on the assumption that they can be created by random process of physical matter.

With respect to the divergence on the age of the universe between the methodology  of physics and the analysis  from biology, it is appropriate to suggest possible reasons in the currently accepted methodology of physics that could cause it to underestimate that age.

We know from physics the standard model does not account for all important interactions and incorporate the full theory of general relativity and gravitation or contain a dark matter particle  consistent with cosmological observations.  This is not a criticism of the model, just stating the obvious that physics is not settled science and that the ultimately determined age of the universe could be substantially different than the currently accepted 14 billion year age.  Though it can be said that the 14 billion year age of the universe is supported by science, the terribly long odds for the origin of life arguing against this age is also supported by science.

Further, unification of all four fundamental forces has not been accomplished for almost a century now.  None of this means they are in error, just that science operates within a process of self imposed continuous review and possible adjustment over time based on new data and methods from all reliable sources within physics, but not just within physics.

If we assume a different view of the universe for the moment other than a materialist one, an organismic cosmology may either be a better foundation for a unified theory of the four basic forces or offer an explanation for why unification has been so difficult.  It may be that all past present and future motions in an organismic universe may not be devoid of organismic novelty as amply displayed by organisms here on earth and that in an organismic universe on a cosmic scale, equations that rely on relationships holding across all variables at all values may be difficult to discern.

The argument for the very low probability of producing DNA by random process as a precursor of life is essentially quite simple.  There is a  very large number of possible arrangements of a single strand of DNA that can be produced by random process and a very small number of possible strands that would be capable of sustaining life.  Because the probability is so low it points to the need for a dramatically older universe, possibly trillions of years older or infinite.  If it can be shown that origin of life cannot follow from random process, then materialism would not be viable and some other ontology must better explain reality.  The odds are so long against materialism being possible they are essentially zero.  Such an old universe required to rule out materialism essentially leaves only those requiring a cosmic force, that is theist, deist, pantheistic or other similar ontologies.

It is not just the long odds against producing a viable DNA strand, but there are similar long odds for producing all the organelles necessary for life.  The ribosome organelle in particular presents perhaps the most difficult challenge.  How would random process even begin to produce a translation machine that transforms the nucleotide monomer arrangement into instructions to produce the appropriately necessary but completely unrelated proteins?  It would seem the odds of producing a ribosome would be of a similar order as the odds of producing a Boltzman Brain.  All the very low probabilities for each of the precursors would need to be multiplied together to calculate the odds against producing life.

Additionally, all this would have to take place in a primordial pool over such a long period of time that the time necessary for the completion of the precursors would far exceed the limits of how long the pools themselves could survive intact, based on chemical degradation of the pools, geological forces containing the pools and planetary forces that would compromise and destroy the pools on a regular basis.  Indeed the time period for random process is so long it would far exceed the lifespan of planets and their solar systems to exist for one such pool or a succession of them to be successful.

For life to be produced from random matter it would also have to be demonstrated in theory at least how thought could be accomplished.  What would the ontology and cosmology look like?  A specific analysis would have to be presented that shows how matter can create thought.  This has never been successfully accomplished.   It does not appear that accounting for life in this manner will work.

Demonstrating that one of a total of two possible alternatives is wrong is not as convincing a way to demonstrate the other is correct as demonstrating the viability of the other on its own.  It therefore must also be shown that the thought of an organism can physically direct the matter that is integrally part of that organism.  Thus it is necessary to show that organisms can function by explaining how thought can direct matter.  This was outlined earlier during the discussion of the electromagnetic prehension of data from outside the organism and how it is internalized.  The generalized and analogized ideas are then used to create electrochemical impulses to the matter of the organism to effect movement.

Some have suggested a more incremental approach to produce life from non-life random process, based on intermediate stages or partial life.  With this approach it makes perfect sense to look at either the first step away from random process towards life or the most immediate step to life.

Producing self-replicating organic chemicals has been a subject of this approach.  Producing them  is no different than producing anything else that is mechanistic. The problem of going to life from a non life mechanism still remains.  Proponents of this methodology rely on the plausibility of laboratory chemical reactions to make their case for random process as a causative agent of life.  This is not a difficult standard to reach and ultimately does not decide anything.  Plausibility is not a level of scientific certainty.  It can only be a suggestion for further experimentation at best.

It also would make sense to explore the last step or something close to it before our current DNA world.  Some consider an RNA world an important part of this approach.   Though simpler than DNA, RNA world offers nothing more than the very low probability of DNA.  Other problems presented by ribosomes and the synchronized origin of life are still there.  RNA is less stable per number of pairs than DNA and a much smaller strand would introduce new problems of post life sustainability.  RNA world is of course speculative where DNA world is real.   If RNA world existed and were alive the problem of getting to RNA world not be any easier than getting to DNA world from pre-life random process.

A 14 billion year old universe coupled with an extremely low probability of producing life from physical matter in that time frame implies a cosmic force is needed to account for life.  An intervening theistic God must be central to the ontology associated with this situation.  The cosmic force would be required to make up for the insufficient amount of time 14 billion years allows for producing life from inert matter with this set of conditions.  While an intervening God may have more than one option to reach that goal, a simple way it could produce life in such an attenuated time period, would be to suspend normal probability and just select the needed outcomes.

A finite but very old universe that is old enough to be functionally infinite, it could be argued, would not require altering the probabilities for random process to produce the required DNA strands.  Such an old universe relies on the proposition that  an infinite amount of time available for a finite process to reach completion can solve any problems.  But because of the serial destruction of the primordial pools before each one of the necessary intermediate steps can be completed within the time available, this cannot happen.

Materialism thus fails to provide a plausible explanation for how life arises from pre-life conditions, that is solely from the physical motion and properties of particles; and other difficulties including the eventual simultaneity needed for the start of life.

The other alternative is that the universe has always existed and always will exist as a unification of will, matter and consciousness.   In an infinitely old universe the cosmic force has existed with the physical universe as the universal organism coextensive with the universe.

In the early 1980’s Fred Hoyle expressed his views of how low the probabilities were of life arising  from random process of matter.  Research in biology since  has done little to change those odds.  Though Hoyle zeroed in on the probabilities of producing proteins from amino acids, as it turned out, one of the less effective ways of making his case, the odds of producing DNA with sequences capable of sustaining life would have been far more effective.  The simplest life forms require a DNA strand of about 160,000 -200,000 pairs.  Each pair has one of 4 possibilities, denoted by nucleotides A, C, G and T. Each specific pair has a probability of a particular monomer occurring of one in four.    So by random process (before the origin of life) the probability of producing the same DNA strand as one needed by a most basic life form with 160,000 DNA pairs would be 4^160,000, or  ~ 10^96,000.

Many DNA strands are much longer going into the millions, with higher organisms such as human beings in the billions.  Even allowing for the fact there may be many different sequences of DNA, capable of sustaining initial life, subtracting for these and for the so called “junk DNA” leaves a very low probability, one in 4^100,000 to produce a viable DNA strand, or one in ~10^60,000.  Even if a billion sustainable life forms could be formed by such a random process that would reduce the odds from one in 10^60,000 only slightly to one in 10^59,991.  To put 10^60,000 in perspective it is equivalent to the number 1 followed by 30 pages of zeros.  Extremely long odds to even comprehend.

Those odds grow still longer given the  average life of DNA before its chemical bonds begin to break down in a non-life environment.  This  degradation along with the continual degradation of the primordial pools containing the nucleotide monomers make already long odds impossible to overcome.  The other precursors, proteins, organelles, etc., are all subject to the degradation of their chemical bonds as well in the prelife environment    The odds become overwhelming in comparison to the 10^80 atoms believed to exist in the universe.  When we take into account life can only exist at or near the surface of select planets this number drops  below 10^70 vs a probability of 1 in 10^60,000 just for the DNA.  This forms the basis of argument that the universe must be orders of magnitudes older than physics calculates.

(to be concluded 11/20/20

Guest Blog: ORGANISM, A MATRIX FOR REALITY PART I- by Barry Zern

“The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine”1  –  J.B.S. Haldane (attributed)

 

 

Alfred North Whitehead developed his philosophy of organism in “Process and Reality” published in 1929.  In researching his work on organism, including works by Plato, Spinoza, and Kant, questions arose which led me to this exploration of organism from a different perspective.

Before beginning my metaphysical exploration of organism I feel compelled to ask a brief, but more basic question.  Is it possible to develop a meaningful theory of reality that can rise above the oft spoken criticism of philosophy by others that such theories can never be proven one way or the other?  In other words can contemporary metaphysics meet the challenge of rising above being more than just adding more conjectural schemas to an already long list?

Could such theories have enough reasonable cause to present such a case?  I think the answer is yes, but it is not necessary that it be “yes”.  It just may happen to be the case by examining available empirical evidence and a priori analyses that certain ontological positions are either significantly supported or questioned.  The ones I mention here in no way exclude other evidence or analyses that may be supported from contributing to the discussion.

As one builds a case it is implied that a case with more support especially diverse support is necessarily a better case than one with less.  This support may come from outside the realm of philosophical theorizing or it may come from the complexity of the internal consistency of the statements made in the overall theory it fits into.  In some ways this is little different than what physical scientists do in looking for theories that satisfy as much of the known data as possible that may relate to the area of interest they are investigating.

It is possible to build a strong case but not one that can ever be proven.  Such a case can never be built to the stated standards of the physical sciences, but that is not necessary.  Theirs are necessarily limited to the narrow confines of their data and theirs can never be proven either, but in general with their narrower goals they have a higher degree of probability.  In philosophy we have no such limitations on what problems we can tackle.  We can attempt to answer a lot more questions but usually with a less clear degree of certainty.

Reality is organismic.  The universe is the visible part of the organismic reality.  It is infinite with no beginning and no end.  It is an organism unified by an electromagnetic field.  The universal organism mediates its activity through its electromagnetic field. It also interacts electromagnetically with the small scale organisms with which we are familiar.  These organisms, in our scale, mediate their activity electrochemically, and also electromagnetically.

All organisms are finite other than the universal organism.  Unlike the universal  organism they reproduce and directly evolve.  That these organisms are  found so infrequently among the mass and space of the universe is a unique paradox of reality.

An organism is the unification of will and matter.  Consciousness originates out of this unification.  The will is the endowment from the cosmic organism.  It enables the mortal organism to utilize the data it receives from outside itself to act in its own interest.   Organisms fulfill their purpose as individuals and in societies of  individuals.  The will expresses the purpose of all organisms, which is to survive.

The will directs an organism’s physical being  including its acquisition of the  matter it needs to grow and sustain itself.  An organism’s will, its matter, and consciousness is a unified being which is always unified during its lifetime.  Its will originated through its parent organism through the electromagnetic field of the  universal organism.  While matter can exist independent of organism, the will can only exist unified with matter.

An organism has freedom to pursue its purpose.  That freedom is limited by the particular nature with which it was endowed.  It’s parent organism is the same as it in its functional capability.  There are typically incremental genetic differences from generation to generation.  Over many generations  these genetic differences can become large enough to change its functional capability.

Organisms can only be created by similar organismic parents.  They cannot be created directly out of non-organismic matter.  They are of the basic fabric of reality.  AN Whitehead deals similarly with this issue by making all matter organism.  But in the absence of such theoretical attribute there is nothing in matter to endow it with the aim to become a unified being with will consciousness or thought.

How an organism’s will activates the physical matter of its body is of great ontological interest.  If one starts with an organism as being the nexus of will, matter, and consciousness, how ideas control physical matter becomes important.

The processes that result from an organism’s nexus of these are all electromagnetic or electrochemical.   The data of thought typically originates electromagnetically from outside the organism.  It is processed electromagnetically by the organism.  The process of internalizing data from that which is external to the organism, through the senses, and then registered  in the organism is the process of consciousness.

Organisms direct their physical being by converting their impulses and thoughts into messages which control their physical activity.  The entire process from prehensions to the actions of the organism is electromagnetic and electrochemical.  An explanation of how  thought can direct matter is necessary to define organism and to include or exclude theories of reality in any ontological inquiry.

All thought, memories and impulses are either electrochemical or electromagnetic.    Everything an organism does and how it does it is physical.  There are no independent thoughts or impulses that originate or proceed without being physical.  All thoughts have physical, that is, electromagnetic analogues.

Of particular interest is the organism’s origination of ideas, how the brain of higher organisms creates generalized and analogized ideas from its memories gathered from its external environment.  It is at this point in the process that subjectivity is introduced.  Despite subjectivity the ideas developed are remarkably similar in individuals of the human species, and likely so in other species of higher organisms.  Once there is a sufficient breadth of these ideations the brain can then create thoughts to accomplish its goal of survival.  ln so doing it also creates a basic language.

Answering the most basic questions about organisms is suggestive of different metaphysical positions.  How long it would take to produce the most basic organism by random process is one question whose answer is suggestive of including or excluding different philosophical positions.  The ability to describe how thought can direct matter or matter can create thought is another.  Both a priori and empirical methods must be considered.

All known organisms have certain characteristics in common.  They are all carbon based and have a DNA code.  Whether prokaryote or eukaryote they have certain cellular characteristics in common.  They have at least some similar organelles regardless of whether they are animal, plant, fungus, bacteria or algae.  Though, their internal functioning when broken down to its most basic parts always obeys the laws of physics and chemistry, the ways in which they act as complete organisms go beyond those laws in novelty as organisms pursue their own ends.  This novelty has a distinctive kind of disorder in relation to unorganized matter, yet a cohesion and unity that we recognize in all organisms

Organisms appropriate and direct the matter they need to sustain themselves.  They live in sustaining environments on earth.  The entire surface of the earth could be considered one such environment.  They range in size from the microscopic  to the largest mammals.  Their will and consciousness  enables their mobility, providing them with options to appropriate new sources of energy to sustain themselves and to grow.  However this mobility is limited and acquiring new sources of energy to sustain their metabolic needs and growth are limited by their current capabilities.  Will and consciousness are inherently limited in each organism’s lifetime and in the becoming of future generations of these organisms.

We know with certainty organisms exist.  It is this certain knowledge that makes organism an excellent beginning for an inquiry into the nature of reality.  There is already a body of empirical knowledge that explains their functioning and it is quite probable that further empirical evidence will continue to emerge, providing more insights into biology and life itself.  On the other hand it cannot be said with certainty that God or a similar force integral to a particular view of reality exists.  The existence of God or this force can only be inferred, regardless of what probability we place on that existence.  For this reason a derivation of the existence of God or such force should rely on both a-priori and empirical knowledge of organism.

The universe is seen by physical scientists and others as an aimless agglomeration of moving particles organized through the force, charge, and spin of subatomic particles into what we observe as physical matter.  Some believe that physical matter can organize itself into life without the need of any further agency, resolving the difficult task of explaining consciousness and will by just assuming their automatic evolution from physical matter.  Arguing for such a position without establishing any evidence that it can occur is no lesser burden than arguing for the existence of God by starting with that as the premise.    Both materialism and theism have the same burden, they cannot lead to a fundamental explanation of reality by using themselves as a starting point from which to build.  Organisms exist with certainty, unifying will consciousness and physical matter and thus should be a focus in metaphysics.

The idea of the universe being organismic, that is being an organism first entered mainstream philosophy with Plato.  In the Timaeus2 he stated, “The visible universe is a living creature”, …  In the Timaeus the idea of the universe being a macro organism is explored.   Over 2000 years later in the Gifford lectures 1927-28, AN Whitehead refers to the Timaeus, suggesting Plato’s philosophy is similar to his own philosophy of organism.

What would such an organismic universe look like?  It could be several organisms, n>1, with non-organismic other, and that these organisms would live in an eco system similar to how we live in one.  The universe as we know it would be part of either one of these meta-organisms or the non-organismic other they would coexist with.  These meta-organisms would be finite.

Alternatively the organismic universe could be a single organism, n=1, unified with mortal organisms of the micro level.  In this case our universe would be coextensive with this single organism, in time and space.  There would be no non-organismic other for the meta-organism and it would exist eternally with the universe.  All the non-organismic other that exist at the microcosmic  level for mortal organisms are part of the universal organism.  This organism manages its physical being and consciousness in a way similar to mortal organisms, that is through an electromagnetic field.

Just as with mortal organisms, the will is limited in its ability to provide the  universal organism with complete freedom from its physical nature and environment.  Even with this limitation the universal organism is able to evolve.  It evolves as a consequence of its being unified with everything in the universe.  On this cosmic scale the will and consciousness are what I call the cosmic force, akin to a more traditional view of God, the one important difference being that it can never exist independent of its unification with matter.

Plato rejects multiple meta-organisms in favor of one universal organism.    His  reasoning is compelling.  I see the meta-organism as the center and source of all ontological significance though Plato does not.    This meta-organism is teleological by its nature. It is consistent for it to be the coherent embodiment of what some could call God.  It certainly is well situated to have all the attributes we could think of as God.

Spinoza’s3  thought also embodies principles that amount to seeing nature as an organism.  Kant also saw organisms as being special in this regard, defining an organism as “cause and effect of itself.”4   These references point out the persistence of organism in mainstream western philosophy over an extended period of time, whether the idea is fully developed or not.

An organismic universe, in a similar way as mortal organisms on a microcosmic scale, represents the true nature of reality.  Just as with mortal organisms, the will is limited in its ability to provide the organism complete freedom from its physical nature and environment.  With these limitations it is however still quite powerful and evolves as mortal organisms evolve.

Traditional western religion and thought has seen God as all powerful and often transcendent to the world.  When looking at the universe as an organism, there is certainly no reason why the attributes of God would not be consistent with God being an organism.  The concept of God when seen as an organism’s will and consciousness, even on a cosmic scale is more clearly seen as limited in its considerable power.

The cosmic force  is not omniscient.  From its perspective the future holds potentialities  and therefore probabilities for future events.  This is in concordance with quantum theory.  The cosmic force evolves with the world.  It is the recipient of these probabilities rather than their initiator.  The cosmic force is never fully realized.  That would be a lesser state of being for it than with a future of options.  In the present the cosmic consciousness encompasses everything past and present.

 

(Part II will be posted on 11/18/20 and Part III on 11/20/20)

VIRTUE AND SELF – PART II – SELF-DISCIPLINE

 “The mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty.” – Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

 

 

The first of the five components of self-mastery is self-discipline, arguably the most basic element in the mastery of the self. It is logically first as one must have sufficient discipline to undertake the other elements of the virtuous self while also confronting the turbulent changes of daily living. The subparts of self-discipline include: (1) control of instincts, emotions, and desires, (2) right speech and thoughts, and (3) development of equanimity, poise, and mindfulness.

CONTROL OF INSTINCT AND PASSIONS

Most philosophical and religious traditions recognize that humans intrinsically have instincts, desires, and emotions that arise unconsciously or subconsciously and need restraining. Of these three, instincts seem the most natural, serving to preserve the self in order to propagate the species. For other animals then instinct serves and assures their main function. However homo sapiens can transcend this limited formula of function = survival for reproduction – although paradoxically only by suppressing, at least in part, the very instincts that permit nature’s implicit goal for living things. Non-instinctual desires and emotions are more subtle, perhaps affecting other species, but heightened in humans. This likely is the result of the biology of a more complex brain and from the multifaceted relationships arising from our prolonged dependence in childhood and continuing interdependence in adulthood essential for group survival.

This seems obvious now, but take a step back and consider the spiritual depth required to see behind the veil of human nature in a prescientific world. Ancient sages grasped directly the destabilizing effect of uncontrolled drives and passion, and the importance of conquering these as a prelude to a fully meaningful existence. Many great thinkers come to the same remedy; control of instincts and desires requires withdrawal and self-denial, usually in the form of a conscious ascetic practice.1 Epictetus offers a Stoic example when he says “Fast, drink water only, abstain altogether from desire, that thou mayest hereafter conform thy desire to reason.”

(to be continued November 23)

VIRTUE AND SELF – PART I – INTRODUCTION

“Self-reverence, self-knowledge, self-control,

These three alone lead life to sovereign power.”

– Alfred Lord Tennyson, Oenone.

 

After distinguishing virtue from similar terms and analyzing its categories, we return to the five levels of ethics discussed early in this site’s history.1 The first of these is the level of the self which I discussed in detail in that section.2 Virtue at the level of the self is often called self-mastery and I concluded that its comprehensive form includes five surprisingly elusive components:

1.    Self-discipline – mastery of instincts, desires, and emotions and the development of equanimity and poise,

2.   Selflessness- the commitment to right action with others, society, and nature based on humility and fortitude,

3.   Self-knowledge – psychological and ontological understanding of the self,

4.   Self-improvement – lifelong dedication to acquiring new skills and increasing knowledge,

5.   Self-actualization –determining and aiming for one’s unique purpose or authenticity.

These five components prepare us for a virtuous and meaningful life that benefits not only ourselves, but our fellow men and nature. They are the means to transcend the merely physical creature we are in the vast universe. Self-mastery it turns out is the foundation of all virtuous living as it affects all of our actions.

We can draw on many traditions for guidance on self-mastery – at a minimum: Taoism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Classical Greek philosophy, Stoicism, Christianity, Existentialism, science (psychology), and common sense philosophy. It is impossible to undertake a complete analysis of these systems with respect to the five components listed above in the span of the book unfolding on this site. Therefore I will attempt to extract potent elements of some of them as samples of the rich literature covering guidance on internal excellence available to the reader. But at the end of the day, it is up to the reader to consult these texts for more detailed direction.

——————————————–

1See posts on this website category Ethics dated 12/5/18 – 12/12/18 and 12/17/18 – 1/4/19.

2See posts on this website  Self-Mastery Parts I-111 dated 12/7/18, 12/10/18 and 12/12/18.

THE MEANING OF LIFE – CATEGORIES OF VIRTUE

“The superior man thinks of virtue; the small man thinks of comfort.” – Confucius

 

 

Having distinguished ethics, virtue, and morality last time, today we address the categories of virtue. Of course there are many traditions of ethics each with its own categories of virtue, but I will address the four most influential systems: Confucian, Buddhist, Classical (Greco-Roman), and Christian.

Confucius identifies three critical virtues that identify the superior man: Jen, benevolence to other men, Li, rules of propriety and socially acceptable behavior (including etiquette), and Hsiao, filial piety which includes not only respect for one’s parents and teachers, but also the law and order of society. He also teaches that the superior man places virtue above venal self-interest.

Buddha’s eightfold path encompasses his categories of virtue: Right Views (Buddha’s teachings), Right Thoughts (aspiration to purity and charity), Right Speech, Right Conduct, Right Livelihood, Right Effort (avoid lapses and frailty), Right Mindfulness (awareness of the truth of the doctrine), and Right Concentration (spiritual exercises leading to awakening).

More familiar to Western readers are the Classical moral virtues – courage, justice, temperance, and prudence.* Socrates sees these as distilling down to knowledge or wisdom. Aristotle sees the first three as the mean between two vices (for example courage is the middle course between recklessness and cowardice). Throughout this tradition courage is at times reworked as fortitude, and by the Romans even more bluntly as strength. Prudence is likewise often renamed practical wisdom.

The three famous Christian virtues as stated by St. Paul are faith, hope, and charity (love of others). Aquinas merges these with the four classical virtues into the seven cardinal virtues. An eighth Christian virtue worth mentioning, because of its critical importance, is humility. Christianity is more exacting than other traditions in asserting seven vices: envy, gluttony, greed (avarice), lust, pride, sloth, and wrath.

A virtuous life seems unlikely unless one adopts at least one of these traditional approaches or follows the tenets of another established tradition. However it seems to me that combining these four assures one the greatest likelihood of a level of virtue compatible with a meaningful life and eventual happiness even if that sets the bar quite high. In that case, comprehensive (secular) virtue includes: (1) benevolence to others or charity, (2) propriety and etiquette, (3) respect of others and social institutions, (4) aspirations to purity, (5) disciplined speech, (6) ethical livelihood, (7) mindfulness, (8) courage or fortitude, (9) justice, (10) temperance, (11) prudence or practical wisdom, and (12) humility. I intend to apply these twelve categories in delineating a virtuous life as we evaluate the multiple levels of ethics.

———————————————–

* Aristotle distinguishes these from the intellectual virtues: scientific knowledge (episteme), artistic or technical knowledge (techne), intuitive reason (nous), and philosophical wisdom (sophia).