Primal, Animal and Human Being:

Knowledge, Choice and Action

ANIL MITRA PHD, COPYRIGHT 1988, REFORMATTED MAY 2003

HOME | CONTACT


Document status: May 29, 2003

Maintained out of interest

No further needed for Journey in Being

This document is raw; not edited


CONTENTS

1        A call to adventure

2        Process; its realization: animal world

3        Freedom and action, choice, knowledge... Basic human issues

4        Levels of choice: tradition, problems, possibility

5        Human modes of knowledge

6        Perspectives on the growth and acquisition of knowledge

7        Completeness in knowledge and action


1           A call to adventure

This is a call to adventure

A call to hearts and minds... To humanity to live and be at our highest; to understand, sustain and resolve our problems; to know, to realize and to live our opportunity, our highest possibility... This is a call to heroism in imagination and awareness, logic and reason and criticism, in feeling and in action: in being and becoming, in knowing and discovering … in realization

Realization is in evolution and is understood through elements which include evolution:

Originally, out of pure potential, preceded by no-thing - from primal

Origins not described as matter or a spirit - arose in succession, in

Story fashion, first as a creature stirring after its depth of sleep, as a

Dim glow at the end of arctic night … and then in strength … arose:

First: forms of matter, then of life, then of consciousness …

Phases of concretization of primal potential - all, together, and each, individually, incomplete

And so, purpose must be participation in evolution: it is a reflexive and self-reflexive process of the conscious mind in which understanding in balance with wonder [and placed in process] is in survival and in knowing and enhancing, universalizing the qualitative conditions of existence - of the given

2           Process; its realization: animal world

The early coding of physicochemical transition and developments of structure into autocatalytic reaction, or self-replicating molecules, is a process of internalization: the process and structure and the variation [and, therefore, cumulative variation] are internalized. So begins biochemical evolution [and the pre-eukaryotic]

Early development of the animal and plant worlds comes with various modes of complexity and their codification: internalization and realization

The transition to the next stage - the recognizably mental - begins in the animal world and not after it. This stage represents the realization and internalization in the organism of the adaptive and selective process. The organism itself learns: tries, fails, remembers, tries, succeeds. Necessarily, part of this process is mental. Evolution within this phase involves enhanced realization and mentalization. But mentalization is never complete [at least as known concretely]; although, however, there are spheres of complete mentalization, such as logic, rational process over a limited range of linguistic possibility. In actuality mental process supplements, and is supplemented by the hierarchy of developments [perhaps modified and simplified] prior to it [and within it]

Early mental process may be:

Memory [m] -> action [a] -> learning [l] ->

[Learning = modification/increment to memory]

Various enhanced phases of mental process occur by internalization, simulation, combination and development

Thinking [image-simulation] incorporates action and learning

The cultural phase of knowledge by accumulation:

Knowledge [k] -> a-> l

Symbols: by free play [exploration] of imagery

Rationality: by internalizing learning [through symbols: thus nationality, reason is thinking about thought selectively or exploratively in imagination]

Science: by simulating action and process and combining rationality and, in certain of its modern [1650 to present] phases, by emphasizing, exploration in process but not in rationality and imagination

One key point here is that evolution is [can be described, in some aspects, as] a coding, or internalization and realization [and development] of processes [and primitive structures] of the universe [world] into stable, self-regulating and maintaining, [partially] perpetuating entities [structures, processes] this implies that there will be a conservation of certain essential features of universal and evolutionary nature in various stages. Particularly, if universal processes are determinate, it will require an invocation of emergence to explain choice as a real phenomenon. On the other hand, if the fundamental processes are indeterminate, no true [absolute] emergence is required to explain choice as real

3           Freedom and action, choice, knowledge... Basic human issues

Pleasure, pain [which a human being has in common with higher animal life, and which make sense only if the organism has a “true” memory; I.e., an ontogenetic one, one that is modified in the organism … not instinctual - otherwise mere reactivity would be sufficient; memory of painful situations makes pain adaptive over mere stimulus-response], joy, suffering, passion, depression … are necessary human issues

But there is a basic sense in which these are not fundamental problems - in fact, not problems at all: for if humanity could not do anything about these emotions, they would be mere experiences: not problematic. They are problematic because humans can do something about pain, suffering … and about enhancing pleasure and joy … humans can act or try to act. The fundamental problems are connected with what we can do … with what is adequate action … and why we do not always act when we can and when we do act - why the action often seems inadequate. The fundamental problem is that a human being has choice … and the essential condition of choice is knowledge: knowledge of value, of our ability to make choices, of the world and universe in which we act, of our self: the actor, and of knowledge

The issues can be formalized in terms of some concepts:

• Freedom: human actions are not uniquely determined by a situation; nor are outcomes - the future [I am not a determinist]

• Knowledge: humans have knowledge of a range of possible actions and of connections between actions and outcomes … thus one can influence and select the future. However, knowledge is incomplete and human actions are not the only influences on outcomes. Thus human influence on and knowledge of the future is only partial

• choice: humans can choose their actions [partially] and, by implication, they can also choose outcomes [also partially] … of course no outcome is final [although some, such as death, are for quite good, practical, person -al reasons regarded as such] and actions and outcomes are not perfectly distinct. In choosing actions and, or outcomes, humans have recourse to [1] common ethics and value, [2] personal ethics and value, [3] understanding of evolution, [4] novel choice - which is certainly justified when action is necessary and when value and knowledge fail … [items 1, 2, and 3 are outgrowths from novel choice.]

• world: freedom, choice, knowledge are parts of the world, universe: in addition to matter, organisms, terrain and space; and, therefore, the world is not merely a world of problems and of pleasure and pain, but is also a world of joy, suffering, passion, depression … and it is above all a world in which growth of joy, knowledge, freedom, choice … of being in all its dimensions are real … it is a world, a universe of possibility in which humankind is capable of empowerment

The central problem of humanity, then, is choice: its possibility: freedom, the instruments of choice: knowledge, value, and free action [experiment]; and the outcome of choice: quality of life, empowerment and possibility

Before treating levels of choice and modes of knowledge in further detail and according to a system, next some semi-formal considerations on choice

4           Levels of choice: tradition, problems, possibility

• the first level [type] of choice is to maintain continuity … to continue on as “we are”: culture, tradition and static knowledge … the idea of static must be expanded to include anything preformulated, prespecified: in this sense, any given trend [planned progress, institutionalized development: culture - science, art …; education] is static … this level includes elements of the next two [including empowerment] as institutionalized, and therefore must be regarded as static … this does not mean not valuable: there are phases of history when individual action validly remains within institutional bounds [at least in some areas]. However, every definition, institution taken out of process [even if elements of pre-understood process are incorporated], is incomplete as soon as it is expressed … this level remains incomplete [I] to individuals who wish intrinsically to push beyond the stage s of growth; I.e., the individual who wishes to use their true freedom in transcending the bounds of a given society and in “leading” the society into realization and possibility - and empowerment [a true definition of freedom]; and [ii] from the aspect of society, regarding problem and possibility [this indicates the meshing of individual freedom and social need]

• The second level [type] of choice occurs in response to a need: a problem. A change is needed and choices must be made [based in knowledge, value, experiment, evolution …] regarding ends and instruments of change

Knowledge

Value

Experiment

Evolution

The second level of choice includes the first

Problem responses and instruments of response may be institutionalized, and suggest institutional entrepreneurship. The level is made whole [in itself] by [problem] agenda building

It is made whole in its external relations by being open to wonder, possibility: the third level of choice

• The third level of choice is exploration of possibility; and includes response to opportunity, niche investigation

Its instruments include:

Elements of previous levels

Wonder, vision, openness, imagination

Empowerment

It includes institutional entrepreneurship, but is not completely institutionalized. It requires true freedom

It includes the previous levels

It is not limited by institutions or persons

It speaks to all modes of knowledge: human, animal and primal - and consequently to all modes of being. It includes nonmaterial and non-mechanistic [that is, non-static] modes

It becomes whole: by all the above; by agenda building - as possibility; and through elements of integration: [space/relation: holism; time: evolution; intuition: unity: space-time; concept: unity and openness of knowledge]

5           Human modes of knowledge

It is not my purpose to deny animal and other primal modes of knowledge. It is these from which human knowledge grew and it is these which provide the ground for the human modes. Animal and other primal modes are human modes. The primal modes [including the animal] include the physical and physicochemical, biochemical, stimulus-response, perceptual, emotive, cognitive-presymbolic …

However, I have written on these modes … our understanding of these modes is probably better than of the human modes. My purpose here is to consider the purely human modes. The reason for this is important: these become important as humanity contemplates and prepares to act for its future: in the call to adventure, in understanding its own nature and its entry into its place in evolution: in the sweep of being. It is through these modes, considered first in themselves and then in relation to their ground, that we learn something about true destiny; and about true possibility

The point of view taken here is anthropic [we have no choice], but not merely anthropic. [1] humanity is undoubtedly [at least probably] not the only advanced form of life in the sweep of existence [in the universes of universes and eternities of eternities] but it is one advanced form on earth, [2] by accepting our incompleteness we recognize also our incomplete understanding of universal potential; even if humanity is “doomed” [as is each individual human or animal], by recognizing the element of mind [which modern materialism suppresses but cannot explain and which we know by the most direct experience available] and by incorporating evolutionary and mental explanation, we see that there are unities and connections which imply: individual death and species death is not a complete explanation of experience: the ultimate in explanation [in the growth of mind] is [must be] in a unity of mind across the elementary forms of intuition and explanation - being; and [3] we may thus take the anthropic view, provided seen in a non-static, evolutionary context as symbolic for a system of movement incompletely understood

Finally, in regard to the purpose of this section, I note that a full consideration of human knowledge can not ignore the other modes. [1] these other modes, as stated above, form the ground for human knowledge; [2] the human modes are in communication [and this communication includes pre- and semi-conscious elements] with the primal [including animal] modes, and [3] there are human ways [through the human modes] of expressing the animal modes; and [4] the modes are not isolated in faculties; e.g., what we call emotion is probably an interaction of human thought and feeling

Knowledge and choice

I have suggested the primary nature of choice in human affairs, the relation of knowledge and choice, and the suggestion that these elements can provide a complete framework for human affairs and knowledge

The relation of the primal modes of knowledge and choice is in evolution. Given the universe and its elements, or given life at a given stage of existence, there are transitions from this state. These transitions are random in that [from the framework of mechanism] they show no preference for adaptation [stability]; however, only the adapted [stable] variations [transitions] persist. And, even in primality, the relations which define persistence [stability, adaptation] may be called knowledge … in higher forms of life the processes of the whole process become progressively coded, or realized and internalized into organism: [heritable] variation and persistence [reproduction] at the biochemical phase, complexity and specialization with multiplicity of function at the phase of higher organisms at the […] eukaryotic, protozoic and metazoic stages, awareness of the environment at the higher animal phases [learning] and finally [regarding our present stage] encoding of autonomy [imagination, speculation, hypothesization] and selectivity [rationality, critical philosophy and religion, science] into the learning centers … and the co-development of the cultural modes

Interpretation of the applied modes of human knowledge in this framework [choice] is simple and direct. The pure modes [searching in the worlds of mind and externality for the sole sake of pure interest - or the coding of curiosity] also have interpretation in this framework. The future is unknown [or partially known]. Development of disinterested knowledge [variation; knowledge pool … note in one sense it is variation…

For example, we do not know that modern science will be ultimately “useful” or not useful, despite its historical utilities or disutilities; in another more detailed sense, the development of disinterested knowledge includes selection [e.g., the selection within science]: the process of internalization …] is useful and adaptive against the background of this unknown future, against a background of exploration of potential adaptation … some reflections on the trial nature of development of science as an institution: while we may have expectations of it based on our reading of recent history, the development of science [and, similarly, other institutions of culture] is, frankly, an experiment [variation] [and involves risk] … … and selection will occur in the future

Our insight into this selective process is only partial [otherwise there would be no debate about such issues] and one line of evolutionary development may be the psycho-cultural acquisition of such insight … we note that the coding of the very processes of evolution into psycho-cultural learning represents a process of evolutionary universalization: [while this coding is not perfect, yet] it represents a mode of coding, of evolution, not merely of some specific adaptation but of adaptability [which began early in the history of humans and is encoded not only into psycho-culture but also into morphology and function] …

There is a temptation and a tendency to extrapolate this process of evolutionary universalization and globalization [as in the work of Teilhard de Chardin who constructs the bio-[life] and noö-[knowledge] spheres and extrapolates those to the omega point: a point of absolute realization] in its application to humanity. While such an extrapolation may occur, and while it may be a desirable ideal, it is not a “material” necessity. We note that most species [historically] have become extinct. And although I see in humanity a marvelous potential [culturally and evolutionarily], I see nothing in our present condition that guarantees the realization of this potential [nor would I restrict such potential to human beings] … in fact I see nothing but stasis and death in such a guarantee … I believe that the highest currently accessible realization for humans is to motivate this potential in adventure and heroism despite the lack of guarantees and the odds …

There may come a time for humanity to realize absolutes and yet there may be a time when it will be appropriate for humans to step aside … the only possible way for guarantee of any type is through the realm of the spirit: the realm in which humans [and other beings] perceive a unity with all beings on earth, with all being across the universes of universes and the eternities of eternities, through the recurrence and growth and unification of human spirit among spirits and [perhaps] into spirit across these realms of realms. One objective in future work is investigation [through analysis, organismic, experimental-action modes] of the substantiality of these considerations

The present objective, partially indicated above, is to show how the human modes of knowledge [and being and its future development] can be interpreted within a framework of choice

Knowledge, choice, empowerment

My first observation is that empowerment: the ability to make choices, “right” choices: is an element of knowledge. [1] as the existentialists say, the ultimate in humanness is the making of personal choices, [2] in the modes of institutionalization of empowerment: in the concept of the person, of social groups and structures, in educational institution, in moral, political and economic institutions, in cultural institutions for the production and sustenance of knowledge: the science and humanistic disciplines, art, religion …

My second observation is that empowerment comes from true knowledge. For example, from one’s own ability and its enhancement [a] by continuation over time and with learning, [b] by combination with group action, [c] by proper assessment of ability... It could be argued that true knowledge of ability could be depressing. I answer that [a] such knowledge is necessarily incomplete, [b] by sustenance in the spirit of universal possibility [whether explicit or by its radiance in the feeling-organismic modes] it leads to that hope which is enhanced in its search for realization and which remains alive even in material failure

Some of the elements of empowerment, then, include knowledge [whether symbolic or organismic]:

• Knowledge of and balance among the modes of being [and knowing]:

Nature-> society-> psyche: inner: individual-> universal. [This includes the balances: one-many, psyche-body, spirit-material, actual-possible-potential, social-environmental, person-community, radiation: center-periphery] [primal-organismic-feeling-cognitive]

• Knowledge of and balance among the modes of action and process:

Determined: fate; indeterminate: choice [and its relations to the modes of being] [dynamics; progression; history; evolution] [action over time] [individual-group action]; with a special emphasis on the elements which lift the actor from determinism into choice: and empowerment:

Sense of history

Action over time [in here: a strength of nonviolence]

Levels of universal identification: individual-> group

Material-> trans-material: spirit

Ignorance-> knowledge

Realism-> idealism: in which idealism is interpreted, not as the antithesis of the real, but the real process of the real

Note that individual-> group above includes political action and knowledge of and balance among the modes of being, and process includes those knowledge-value-ideologies [without emphasis on the dogmatic and ideologue aspects of ideology] which enhance individual and mass action

Knowledge of the world [map, resources] which enhances capability [but in balance with other elements, for pure dependence is debilitating]

Knowledge of body-mind-resilience through elemental and experimental action: non-dependence on system-knowledge [again, and for the same reason, in balance]

Note: it is the balance [through continued choice] that provides the empowerment

Review

Some of the items below are new:

• in considering the human modes I have been more concerned with their internal significance and role in evolution than with their specific form as “faculties” [which should be studied independently of and together with the present focus]

• We can identify becoming and knowing [knowing: getting to know]. Primitively, we think of becoming as the primal process and of knowing as the advanced exploration of what has become; but the separation is anthropic … even biocentric … we make this identification by considering a trend in evolution: coding, or realization and internalization …

First, a comment on orthogenesis: [1] it is a form of uniformitarianism,

[2] In its more subtle form uniformitarianism says: the laws governing everyday occurrences [physicochemical laws, for example] are the ones governing evolutionary process [bio-evolution and the reverse, etc.] …

Or … biological explanation <=> physicochemical … this is certainly an advance over primitive orthogenesis and uniformitarianism, [3] but not demonstrably true … as I have written elsewhere: this mode of uniformitarianism is more an ideal: the convergence [possible] of physical-biological-mental [spiritual] explanation - except when we accept that the laws of “everyday” are incomplete and they, with the Universal, are mutually informing. Therefore, [4] the trend that I see is: coding, or realization and internalization

Primal potential: primal transition: coded through prematerial mechanics into material forms:

Primal potential: ~~~~code~~~~> material form [autocatalytic?]

~~~~code~~~~> levels of structure

~~~~code~~~~> levels of organization

And now: self-coding~~~~> “permanence”~~~~> autocatalytic chemistry: self-replicants

[including coding of variation]

Complexity~~~~code~~~~> organism

Evolution~~~~code~~~~> mind

Therefore: becoming == knowing

Note: each stage of becoming can be and is followed by universalization

• Process of becoming and knowing

Mechanism: all truly new becoming and knowing is by blind variation and selection [schemes of thought, reflection, analysis seem reflective: these are teleonomized schemes … further we can learn the nature of evolution and reflect upon the “need” for pure action [occasional] … but there may be a level and a time when pure action is fortuitous] [except that blindness and vision interact: experiment]

We have seen that evolution includes coding [and universalization]

Being = information ⁄ function [I ⁄ f]

Becoming = I-> f-> I’-> f’-> I”-> f” or I-> f-> experiment->

And this is the foundation of human knowledge:

Knowledge-> action-> learning-> [k-> a-> l]

[or k-> c-> a-> l [c = choice]]

That is, becoming ~~~~> k-> a-> l

: in teleonomized areas or phases of the universe

: complete: k-> a-> k-> a

: partial: k-> c-> a-> l-> k’ …

: in nonteleonomized areas [new]

[c]-> a-> l-> k … or

A-> l-> k …

Spirit, perhaps

Realm of mind: direct experience

Not non-material: encoding

Matter: spirit: knowledge - incomplete

Further evolution

“allowing” the mind to be an active seeker

Searching evolutionary trends

Universalization

Pure knowledge [contra: applied knowledge …

Every development of science contributes

To its definition] [art …]

Pure action

Science of spirit [concerning pure knowledge]

Human knowledge

• Processes:

A-> l-> k pure “action”

[c]-> a-> l-> k action

K-> c-> a-> l-> k’ … learning

K-> a-> k-> routine action, “problem solving”

[In extreme cases, a caricature of human action]

Pure knowledge: is not a form of knowledge distinct from applied knowledge, and is not nonapplied knowledge. Nor is pure in contrast to impure … it is “knowledge for its own sake” but this is a poor description … pure knowledge is directed by an interest [of the being] in the world [the universe], not directed to any specific being/ end but part of the process of universalization, motivated by the growth of spirit, the growth of humankind [symbolic sense] … requires the element of pure action

• The elements: according to the levels of choice:

Continuation: culture, tradition

Problem solving: institutions of society: material level

The person; the group structure; education; political-economic; the cultural institutions [process of science, art, religion, humanities …]

Note the inclusion of the person as an institution

Openness, opportunity, possibility

Pure knowledge and pure action

Pure knowledge: here some elements:

Nature of knowledge, being, evolution

World

Human nature; possibility

Adaptability, adventure, heroism

Empowerment and choice

Knowledge and choice, revisited

I have claimed that all knowledge results from choice [and copying, but this is not origination]. This certainly refers to human knowledge. It is true for all knowledge [in mechanism], if choice is intended to primal action. Further considerations:

Fact vs. Pattern

Set in a metaphysics: choice, action; mechanism, teleology, teleonomic

Related to other definitions [included, justified true belief and its anthropic relatives]: adaptive, systemic, representative, pragmatic …

Consider all elements of knowledge from all approaches

6           Perspectives on the growth and acquisition of knowledge

We have shown [considered] the continuity - the identity - of becoming and knowing: the idea that there is no existence without elemental knowledge. This is not a mere extrapolation backwards, by a postulate of symmetry or continuity, from the present back to primality. It follows from a nonanthropic, systemic-relational view of knowledge: for humans knowledge is the mediating relation between themselves and the world [and not merely its subjective affect]. In all of “existence,” from primality, there is being in relation. Being is existence and relation [relative] to knowledge. But the relation, or relative is also part of being [fields] and the being is a [particulate, perhaps] manifestation of field [relation]. The distinction breaks down

There are conditions of relation which permit primal potential to become manifest. We do not know these conditions … but the homogeneity of these conditions in the primal potential state of the universe may have been the precondition for the great repetition of elementary particles [identity of charge and mass …]: an example of this type of consideration: prior to universalizing time [actual-hypothetical and conceptual] is [special relativity] synchronization in a frame; prior to synchronization is the time of each individual entity. [True, there are no ultimate entities. Answer: [a] the synchronization of time within a thing is a higher degree than among things, and permits treatment of the thing as a time-entity for [some] purposes of interaction, [b] field.] But how [why] is there synchronization of time among entities [clocks] within a frame? [True, we can set them simultaneously to zero, but why do they continue at the same rate? This question reduces to: why do electrons [etc.] In the same “frame” process at the same rate? This is an interesting question to ask, along with the universality of the electron charge value, before the question of frame-comparison [special relativity] or the effects of gravitation [etc.] On rates [general relativity, etc.]. Answers [tentative]: [a] field and communication, [b] mind, [c] primal potential…and unitary original … and their interactions and evolution.]

The objective here is to consider some perspectives on: the growth of individual knowledge and its contact with the becoming of evolution. The social sphere is not emphasized and, for here, is subsumed in the individual. Completeness is not aimed at; the exact sequences are not aimed at [as in Piaget, Darwin]. We are concerned with all dimensions of being, and description; the necessary incompleteness [actual - by experience and possibly potential - popper: open universe; James, Geed] of the modes; the mode of mind - its nature and necessities [and not merely the behavioral, instrumental viewpoints]. We are concerned [1] with the build-up of being from primality in evolution [whose incompleteness is the incompleteness of every actual adaptation] [including intelligence? As given? Potential?] And of human knowing [the real: conceptual] from the elements of the given [perceptual] and [2] with the points of contact between being and human knowing in the evolutionary progression and process

I note the elements of this build-up:

“Derivation” of the elements of existence from evolution;

Contact with human knowing;

Evolution [within mechanism] as trial-error-”correction”/”solution,”

As suggestive of trial and error in knowledge [hypothesis and deduction]

And as foundational of this process [in addition to its foundation

In experience];

And the existence of teleonomy, stability, in evolution as foundational

Of purpose, security in knowledge - in balance with skepticism

Discovery: individual, historical, evolutionary. Integration

Discovery-> [learning]: individual

Social elements of discovery: historical, civilization

Becoming-> evolutionary

The discussion and integration are begun above, in the introduction … and are continued below, in the section “dialectic…”

Dialectic, evolution, time

Elements of dialectic: difference, process, mind, world, given-> real and foundation. Time

As stated above, it is not the objective here to give a complete account of the evolutionary and individual processes and stages of development [as in Darwin and Piaget] … but, rather, a [possible, abstract, semi-] logical account [of some elements of the development] emphasizing concepts and, therefore, the individual, and also showing some points of contact [including the supreme area of contact in the “present” as the given] between the evolutionary and the individual phases

I now begin this [qualified] logical account: the sequential [spiral] dialectic

The sequential dialectic, evolution, time

…in the sequence [spiral] of growth [completion]: [evolution is implied even though it is not assumed]. The sequence of growth involves sequential contact with the elements of the given, which include the elements of growth which are all in evolution. As a specific example: epistemology grows through continued contact between general principles and special disciplines which meet in the processes of experience held in the mind - all of which elements are in evolution. In distinction from [the usual caricature of] Hegel who sees growth as linear [or a result of the tension between opposites], we see growth as circular [or helical] [and within each element an inner spiral] [and, of course: branchings, terminations…]

…in the sequence of growth, then, we discern the following logical-historical elements:

• First: [the primary element of both existence and knowledge, or becoming, growing, learning … and here is one point of contact [actually a multitude of contacts] between evolution, the individual …] is difference or distinction;

…and if, rather than stasis or mere eternality, these come into being - that is, if they have a logic [perhaps] - and grow and change: they must be supported by dynamic processes, equilibrium and transition … and implicit here, again, is evolution: and of the unity or continuity of being and knowing … and becoming and learning

And: distinction contains implicitly: tree and forest, place and territory, multiplicity and singularity … and information and context, fact and pattern, and percept and concept; and here evolution is implicit as explanation: initially

Information ⁄ function or fact ⁄ pattern -- “the evolving helix” -- are tight bonds, but later pattern separates out as image and then symbol … and the bonds, always-present, are now loosened and may be forgotten … so that in the process of higher degrees of universality of adaptation, the actual bond becomes a potential one “waiting” for a connection to fact … we are talking, then, of realms pure and applied

Also implied, since the relation of fact and pattern is not constant but requires transformation [within awareness] is:

• Second: the idea of process, related to which is the non-uniqueness of fact and pattern … and “build up” [from difference] of fact: pattern-> complex fact: familiarity, transformation, gestalt-> simple fact and [higher order] pattern: … the spiral part of the sequential dialectic

Alternately: original distinction ~~~~> multiplicity> combination> process> distinction of distinction> pattern … higher order pattern … relation and co-development> knowledge of: fact> pattern

• Third: suggested by the first two items and implicit within them - especially: fact and pattern, percept and concept … and process - is the idea of knowledge [as distinct from the object of knowledge] … but note that the idea of knowledge - and knower - as distinct from the object of knowledge - I.e., the mention and occurrence of the idea - is not a claim of the validity or completeness of the idea: I hold that the object, the knower, and the knowledge are approximate words for a system of relations and entities - processes that are in a state of evolution, interchange and interaction - mutual evolution and interchange, interaction, nor am I arguing a fundamental distinction between interaction and interchange … but I do display the idea of knowledge, certainly, as a stage in the dialectical process

I further note that while I am not arguing for object or subject independence, I am not arguing against it either, for evolution does not occur at a uniform rate: there are stabilities and equilibria amid the flux: and in these equilibria - I.e., within the scope of these equilibria - there can certainly be objective knowledge according to appropriate criteria … nor can skepticism ever rule out objectivity - in process - that goes beyond such equilibria [the given] and enters the domain of universal process [the real] … that is, what happens when we are skeptical about skepticism and cynical about cynicism

… and there is an importance to the idea of knowledge [beyond knowledge itself], for this implies not just knowing, but

Knowledge [knowing] as an object of knowledge;

And, therefore, epistemology: every primitive field of knowledge has its incipient [at least implicit] epistemology: in the sense of thought, not merely about thought, but the use of thought … and the questions about use can be analyzed into questions about validity [and therefore about nature] and about utilization of thought … and even if this separation is not absolute, it has a place; and the reflections so generated enhance the development, effectiveness and use of knowledge;

Knowledge as an object also implies knowing [the process], mind [the conscious embodiment of the process, the organization of knowing] and spirit as exemplified by our direct awareness and its lack of foundation in the material world; which distinction does not arise if we do not separate into distinct categories our awareness of externality and of awareness itself, but which arises naturally in the so-called material systems of explanation which do not incorporate in their categorical framework the idea of the direct experience of consciousness and which to date do not find amid their superstructure of theorems or heuristics that direct experience - although they may find behavioral or mechanical correlates of such experience

Note also: that while we may distinguish: knowledge/object, we may also distinguish knowing/action

• Fourth: suggested by the second item process [interaction] in interaction with the third [knowing, mind] and the suggestion in the third [embodiment of mind] and by intuition [based in causality: mind ⁄ matter: the effect of each upon the other …] is the inclusion [from the beginning, perhaps] of mind, knowledge as part of the world

The values of regarding mind as part of the world: [1] unity, [2] comprehension, [3] knowledge, mind are not ephemeral, [4] enhanced understanding of [a] human nature, [b] universal possibility: leads to effective action and choice

• Fifth: by generalization and consequence from the fourth item:

[a] rationality: since knowing [object] becomes part of knowledge … we think about thinking and experiment with it: the processes of thinking can be analyzed

… and, of course, rationality can go too far and become mere rationalism [which is fine as speculative philosophy] … and science, pragmatics, value and ethics and morality, wonder, openness, these are among the elements that bring us back to the world

[b] General philosophy and understanding of the world of existence and process; being, becoming, action; knowing and relationship; and human affairs

[c] Importance of imagination and experience in generating the spiral of growth and completion:

Which correspond to the generation of random trials in combination of teleonomy with world evolution. Random or teleonomic in mind - learning - growth - discovery equate to imagination and rationality … and note, it is not merely imagination and rationality that are important, but their interaction as well

• sixth: in elaboration of items 4 and 5, that is, in the existence alongside the world and in the world: knowledge of the world, we encounter [a] two distinct modes of description: matter and mind or spirit, [b] and yet these modes of description relate to parts of the world: we do not hold mind to be outside of the worldly universe [as in the usual caricature called Cartesianism] and being part of the universe, each - mind and matter as modes of description - is capable of rational and empirical study. Note, nor do we as in certain caricatures of eastern thought regard the “material” world as illusion. We find that [c] each system of description may be both self-consistent and agreeing with the relevant phases [domains of coherence] of experience and yet neither is complete with regard to all facets of experience nor contains the other. It is a matter of experience that no material system of description specifies all experience in the domain of knowledge and mind … and vice versa. But it is clearly possible to have a number of systems of description which, together, cover the full range of accessible experience. It would be necessary to include some socio-temporal concepts of allowable experience. [d] Nor do we claim that there is no reality or that “mind” and “matter” are merely facets of description. Rather, at the present stage of development, we perceive two [for example] facets of experience - “mind” and “matter” - whose descriptions are incomplete and yet which may correspond to phases of existence … nor do we argue against the development and union or merging of the concepts … and ways in which this may happen are discussed, after elaboration in item 7, and in item 8 … however, as absolutes, we can not claim mind-matter as modes of existence but, rather, as modes of relation

… from the discussion of mind and matter we may generalize these notions to:

[1] In recognition of the incompleteness of all actual, formal, explanatory, consistent systems: the logic of multiple [or alternate or complementary] systems of description; these refer to phases of existence - or relations, or phases of relation within existence, and not to “alternate realities.” The modes of description are seen as forming facets of an ongoing dialectic within existence in which centers of internalization, individuation and completion within existence expand in their adaptation and incorporation of the elements of said existence

[2] A primary dichotomy encompassing many cultures is the mind-matter or mind-organism dichotomy. The actual meaning of matter is not uniform: historically or cross-culturally; nor is that of mind-spirit, yet there are common elements

Some features of the relation between mind-matter:

They interact and are interdependent [as seen in concept; as will be seen in item 8, in evolution, and, as is directly apparent, in function]

There is interchange between the elements of experience in their allocation to the categories of mind-spirit and matter: individually, historically, and cross-culturally … and of course there are commonalties

At the same time there are forces of convention in every society as to the allocation and separation of the domains: these have to do with the elements of experience and the elements of failure and success of the society, with human nature; and, no doubt, despite these causal or explanatory factors, the allocation is only partially determinate

The elements of matter have to do with the tangible, the immediately known, the utilitarian and their transformation. The elements of spirit have to do with the potential, the implicit, the synthetic and their transformations. Owing to the incompleteness of all adaptations: corporeal and mental, these must be interactions with existence and within understanding of the phases: mind and spirit,

And despite the forces of convention and separation: necessary for the continuance of societies. Also necessary are the growth and interaction of the conceptual and actual domains of matter and spirit and their institutions: the shaman, the seer, the priest, the poet-scientist …: necessary for material and psychic [spirit] health

There is a tendency to suppress one or other [in case of a dualism] of the elements or phases of existence, or descriptions, among societies and to bind minds to related convention. But owing to the potential being not contained in the actual, such suppression and binding cannot be of absolute success

The modern world [1989: as a mass and ignoring the pockets of divergence] emphasizes the material; the tendency to this emphasis is accelerating; the emphasis contains contradictions which include the enhancement of the emphasis, “growth”; … and there is a countermovement which, in many of it predominant manifestations, uses the language of the material aspect. It will be useful to record some considerations of mind and matter

Matter

The concept of matter is not fixed or concrete:

The “elements” of the Greeks

Greek atomism

Modern materialism determinism

Newton’s ideas: space and time; mass; gravitation

The theory of heat

The theory of fields; the reality of fields

Relativity

Indeterminism

Quantum theory

Existence as ephemeral

In pushing the concepts of matter to the extreme instead of remaining within the safe bounds of convention and conservatism, matter confronts spirit. This may be becoming manifest in the quantum theory

Proofs of matter: we recognize no absolutes. The proof of matter is the success of material systems of description. But this success is not complete

Spirit and mind

In order to talk of spirit, consciousness, the innerness of [self-] awareness, mind, we in the west must first have a clear notion of our concepts of matter

The nature of spirit and mind: concepts:

Potential rather than actual

Subjective experience, awareness

Unity of subjective experience

What remains after death … and its connectedness and continuity: communication?

Substance effect

Form potential

What completes material description [in function, and in evolution?]

Awareness choice

Will action

What knows?

Proofs of spirit:

From its nature

From its emergence: the spiritual mode of description can not [yet] be founded in [or traced back to] the material [in its primordial form]

The primality of the subjective experience: the given - the spirit is most real [matter: an inversion of reality]

Incompleteness of material description from mechanism through evolution, to teleonomy and [through recurrence, perhaps, or some process perhaps not yet known] teleology: concerning: consciousness. We cannot assume that the material is any more than our best description of it. Interaction between mind and matter

Recurrence and hyper cycle

Necessity in meaning and explanation: Given the emergence of a self-consciousness and its existence: that it is a singular event is the more fantastic hypothesis … and is contrary to the motivation of the singularity, perhaps

Comment: nowhere am I saying that the fact that we do not understand the material level “disproves it”; rather, I am arguing [I] that any notion that matter is more complete than the sum of our best description is unfounded, [ii] matter as real is a hypothesis no less than spirit is real, [iii] matter as explanation - the external mode - is necessarily incomplete [as is spirit, perhaps], [iv] spirit is the primary real from a certain point of view - the most immediate; matter is the construct … a useful construct which can be used subversively

Necessity of spirit, dignity, self-respect: application

Related to psyche and universal of the totality of the domains of nature, society, psyche, and the universal

In the satisfaction of human needs

Incomplete [operationally] at pure material level]

Spirit, mind, dignity and relation to material deprivation [within limits]

Spirit and joy

• Seventh: in elaboration of items 1 and 6:

World: fact and pattern

Mind material world

Internalizes nature society universal

Mind “meets” matter; physical organic matter “meets” mind

Elaborate this to include perceptual representation, in addition to symbolic, and so: art

 

Mind

Memory image

Icon free

Word interaction with world

Language logic math culture

Philosophy poetry thinking about thinking

Memory, syntax, rationality

Politics representation

Note: the skeletal nature of the above and many supplements in evolution & design and supplements, personal design, others …

Also note a variation:

World

Subjective objective

Mind-world-object

Nature society universal

The material the living culture spirit mind

Knowledge

• eighth: history: genesis and ongoing transformation: which confirms process and evolution and, through the notions of fact, pattern, explanation: mechanisms of evolution are already suggested by: the second item [and in elaboration of that item]; by the intuition of time, by the essential incompleteness of all static systems of explanation [perhaps], and, perhaps, by the continuity of becoming and [be-]knowing by the essential incompleteness of all static systems of being; from the notion of patterns as actually existing, of types of patterns: and from the existence of patterns of patterns: as in the notion of generation and dynamics and, especially, as in the notion of complexes of complexes implying: an eternal existence without origin [or/and continuous with meaning] or creation [and necessitating a real explanation of the force of creation and so subsuming creation under either: the meaningless eternal or evolution] or evolution; and by relatively direct “fossil” data [universal, geological, biological, archaeological, historical …]

We employ evolution as an idea of great scope:

≠ Evolutionary study and explanation are often contrasted to descriptive, structure, or functional studies and in this way evolutionary explanation is seen as a limited idea. However: evolution, its patterns and mechanisms, are derived from the given, as are the structural and the functional, and each enhances the power of all. Thus we see instead of isolated modes of explanation, combined modes: evolutionary, structural, and functional, all with basis in [and enhancing knowledge and the concept of the given] and all mutually enhancing - a composite system in which the idea of evolution is a source of especially significant power of explanation, understanding, and centering and unifying

≠ although modern evolutionary thinking begins as a topic in biology [centered around 1859] [and note: at least some “primitive” peoples have had at least [as is our own view] mythic representations of natural selection leading to adaptation - if relatively partial] its scope, even in biology extends much beyond topical status; as systematic, unitizing, as generative of an explanatory system of economy and understanding … and more: evolutionary explanation extends its power into the domains: physical cosmology and fundamental physics, geology, history, society, mind, fact-pattern, the universal, religion … and into the four fundamental domains: nature, society, consciousness, the universal … and into the generation [and therefore unity] of these domains and the synthesis in understanding of the domains

… this evolution is much more than just a topic: there are two types of pattern: patterns of relation [space] and patterns of generalization [dynamics, evolution … dynamics is included in evolution] in time … and evolution refers to the fact and nature of patterns in time as generative of patterns in space … that is, time, and therefore evolution, is more important than space [and relation] perhaps, because evolution is the becoming of patterns in space. Note: we may say “time progenerates space,” but see the next paragraph

A question: the model: each entity has its own time - which times are coordinated, regulated by communication … and hence [1] the interrelation between evolution and relation, that is, time-space coordination and the primacy, singular nature of time, but [2] how can there be a time within an entity without structure … and [3] what is the communicant - and is it not an existent and continuous with the communicators?

I have written elsewhere on the basis of evolutionary ideas … the most powerful use of these ideas is

Evolution and its “mechanisms” as a system of understanding and explanation

≠ 1. It is evolution alone that explains the origin of structure in a non-teleological systems … and note that I prefer to say non-teleologic rather than mechanistic, because I do not wish, here, to either deny or confirm teleology, but rather to ask what power of explanation we have with the lesser “assumption” of mechanism; that is, mechanism is included in teleology - which is consistent with mechanism equaling teleology. Note also that mechanism is not an assumption, since it merely says that what generation and explanation there is shall be local … but not not-global; since global systems can be interpreted as local. This complex of claims can be analyzed [or at least, perhaps] as limits of the local

≠ 2. It is evolution alone that can explain structure with regard to human purpose … put another way, human purpose can be explained as a result of evolution … that is, and evolution leads to teleonomy, purpose [and teleology of a certain type]

≠ 3. Through evolutionary study and explanation, we unify [in understanding and relation]:

Matter [inorganic, organic]: that is, nature

Actual, potential

Matter [nature, society] and mind [spirit]

Material foundation: matter, mind

Known, unknown: in process [in mechanism “blind” variation and

Selection]

≠ 4. It is implicit in the above that evolution can explain; found; frame: [provide a framework for]; relate [unify]: elements of reality

Motion

Being process

Matter spirit material free

Nature society-> knowing-> choosing-> acting-> learning->

The universal

≠ 5. As an example of the explanatory power of evolutionary thinking, consider the question “do insects feel pleasure and pain?” … my answer is that they do not, or if they do, it is minimally so. But: since we cannot communicate with and do not have the appropriate empathy with insects, how can we know this? Do not insects react to positive and negative stimuli in ways that we do that indicate pleasure and pain? … Explanation: reactivity may be stimulus leading to response [s-> r] and does not necessarily imply the intermediate stage of pain or pleasure. Thus s-> r is adaptive, for certain protective behaviors. When is pleasure and pain adaptive? Not merely as a source of reaction: for that the less complex s->r is sufficient. Pleasure and pain are adaptive when the organism has a memory that develops over its life: that is, its behavior can then be learned: the organism learns what situations are painful and can avoid these by anticipation. Thus learning: memory is required for pleasure and pain to be adaptive. But insects are largely programmed, instinctual, in their behavior - if not wholly. Hence the conclusion

Note: [1] this is an argument against the sociobiology of e. O. Wilson and others; [2] this is an essentially evolutionary argument, not only in its use of adaptation but especially in the notion that [time patterning] an adaptation will not develop if it cannot be used [that is, what would be adaptive in the right conditions will not develop without the condition]; [3] the argument also shows that learning, memory is not merely adaptive but makes for generalized adaptability; that is, learning, memory is adaptive to the complex, the potential, the variable, the ranging …

The point here is not the specific argument or its importance: the point may be in itself trivial or nontrivial and the argument correct or incorrect. The point is the power of evolutionary explanation: it allows us to make objective an argument which would otherwise be subjective

That is, evolution provides a framework for objectifying some arguments

Note that the argument above, generalizes to the conclusion: emotion is contemporaneous, in its development, with [or subsequent to] memory and thought. “Lower” emotions or drives and feeling-responses with memory, “higher” emotions with image manipulation and thought which brings us closer to the animal “world” than is often thought. This is a reverse of the common line of thought that brings some species closer to the “world” of human mind and mentality

≠ 6. Evolution explains the origin of individuality, and individuality provides a basis for evolution: individuation is an internalization of the processes of the world, and these processes include evolution. Organism is internalization, coding of the processes of stability and transformation of the physical world onto itself; that is, the stability becomes coded - regenerative. [Now organism evolves.] Complexity is internalization, coding of organization, symbiosis, etc. Note that Margulies’ theory of origin of eukaryotes is a counter to the idea that the “tree” of life is branching and not mingling. Mind is [partial] internalization, coding of some of the very processes of evolution; such as, variation, selection, mutation, reproduction, combination [sex, including multi-sexuality]

≠ 7. Thus we see that there is an intimate relation between evolution and the deep structure of being, including organism and mind. Complexity is naturally due to [1] expansion of the universe, world, and lowering of energy densities; [2] organization of given organisms for niche finding: [a] the niche of reproductivity and heritability, [b] organism, [c] complexity, [d] mind

• Ninth: in application of items 2 to 7 and 8 [and by analogy with and generalization of 3]: the interaction of 7 and 8:

Integration of evolution and structure [process-state] in concept and actuality which significantly enhances explanation and imagination in all areas …

• Tenth: and thus provides a foundation [working back and recycling the spiral process] for the elements of the real:

Ideal

Real

Process: action: k-> a or {k [a]}

Dimensions: n-> s-> p-> u and their “unity” [without reduction]

Politics

Freedom and empowerment

• Eleventh: inclusion and definition of the elements: [see section 5, human modes of knowledge]

Culture, tradition, social institution

Includes the “person” as a social institution [and hence empowerment]

Problems and solutions [= problem and solution]

Opportunity and empowerment

• Twelfth: elaboration

• Thirteenth: continuation … rebirth; being in [the] ongoing process: spiral dialectic

Dimensions of knowledge. Question of completeness

The discussion to this point has included some of the major elements and dimensions of knowledge. In a sense, these elements form a system

Completeness is an important issue. Despite the impossibility and futility of specific completeness, it remains an issue. We distinguish static completeness [that of any give adaptation of system; such completeness is within certain extent-duration bounds] and dynamic completeness [that of comparing and resolving emergent elements [horizon] [imagination] against the emerged [given] [ground] [rational]

An implementation of dynamic completeness is in balance of specific and open elements: in persons, social institutions, knowledge …

The elements of the real are built up [in the spiral dialectic: ongoing] from the given

This includes the phases of stasis

Completeness [dynamic] includes a concern with building connectedness among the elements of the given. Any truly new bridge requires an initial leap [blind]. Hence: heroism, experiment [controlled, non-controlled], adventure

Mere lists are insufficient. System building is absolutely essential [alongside with lists]. But, as Hegel saw, there is death, and only death, in stasis. We are concerned with the succession of systems, as in life. As in life, death is the generator of life. Ends are the generators of beginnings

The open institutions: from a practical point of view, we can not ignore any elements of existence: being and knowing. But there is a limit to accumulation. Discarding, letting go are significant. Unabated accumulation is death

Wholeness is adventure

Certainty is insecurity

7           Completeness in knowledge and action

Past. Knowledge can not be more complete than the universe of evolutionary, historical and individual experience. But developing such completeness as there is within this framework is a value. Such completeness is through dialectic, evolution

Future. Evolutionary possibility suggests that absolute completeness is neither a value nor [within current actuality or conception] available. For completeness [wholeness of persons and cultures]:

Knowledge is to be balanced by wonder

Process will remain in the cycles of

Knowledge-> action-> learning

[which originated in process]

On action

Knowledge-> action ˘ possible-> actual

Rather, beginning action is a process of actualization, but not complete. Therefore, while the range of action is smaller than the range of knowledge: the question of completeness of action is relevant … the approach [an approach] to consideration of this question is reflection [through reflection] on the relation between individual actions and the whole


Anil Mitra | Resume | Horizons Enterprises™ | Home | Site-Map | Useful Links | Contact

Philosophy of Mind