HOME
johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2005 John D. Brey.
johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2005 John D. Brey.
It is
surely impossible to think of the infinite and the finite independently of each
other. Infinity is that which cannot be traversed; it indicates the passage to
the limit, the movement of transcending, of going beyond, of overcoming and
nullifying the here-and-now of the finite. And the finite? What else `is’ it,
how else name and conceive it, except as that which is given an identity by
being refused, negated by, set against the non- or un- or in-finite.
Brian Rotman, Ad Infinitum, p. 39.
Brian Rotman, Ad Infinitum, p. 39.
The
gross error of induction arises by the superficial setting of an arbitrary
stopping point—in ones thought processes—in order to protect those thought
processes from the unavoidable infinite regression that must inevitably occur
wherever the infinite (the unbounded whole of reality) is treated either as if
it might be legitimately circumscribed within some finite boundary (like sense
perceptions or language), or as though it might be ignored as irrelevant
concerning investigations of finite things. Induction is the instinctive
self-deceiving that acts specifically to free the unspiritual mind from the
theological ramifications of the inexorable infinity from which no thinking
person is ever genuinely freed.
Induction stops the infinite regression that destroys inductive logic only by the groundless elevation of some arbitrary boundary to the privileged position as the logical and justified end of the process of cognition. Materialistic scientists and thinkers, who base their worldview on induction, most often choose their own sensory mechanisms as the arbitrary stopping point in their wrong-headed examination of reality. They simply decide to ignore the subject-ive nature of their sense perceptions, and their language bound cognition, and take these arbitrary forms and functions as though they represent the epitome of phenomenological accuracy and correct sensory fidelity. They see their body not for what it clearly is—a genetic machine manipulating external perturbations in order to form a contrived inner environment—but rather, they see their body as a nearly transparent membrane, which just barely separates the absolute essence of infinite reality from their perception and cognition of it. Their mind is so completely engrossed in the 3D inner environment playing on their mind—that the precious undeceiving, which is the birthright of self-conscious spiritual creatures, is treated with the contempt and fear of a person who has been caught in an act of criminal perversion.
Induction results from acquiescence to a subjective separation of the finite from the infinite by means of the circumscribing of a finite self-centered subject inside an impermeable cell membrane. Once the inner world, circumscribed by the cell membrane, has been codified as the place in which reality is accurately perceived, the subject thereafter uses this inner environment as the whole paradigm for reality. The inner environment circumscribed within the cell membrane becomes the whole basis for the inductive logic which thereafter projects the subject’s inner environment outwards into the external infinite, to make believe that the inner environment is a mirror reflection of the real infinite exterior.
This inductive strategy is tautological since by setting an arbitrary boundary to reality, the subject makes the boundary necessarily bound reality within itself. This unjustified elevation to necessity of an arbitrary boundary (the cell membrane) forces everything circumscribed within the cell membrane (such as biology and language) to be necessarily accepted as the beginning and the end of reality itself. To accomplish this feat, the subject must invert the true logic that is the case (the subject is circumcised from infinity by circumscribing itself within an arbitrary cell membrane/boundary)—and become convinced that the infinite is reflected perfectly within the autopoietic[i] (or homeostatic) self-centered structure of the circumscribed subject.
In truth, a cell membrane is always impermeable and always represents an absolute boundary to any organism’s perception of the cosmos external to the boundary formed by the cell membrane. Contrary to the phenomenological logic of the circumscribed subject, the subject never (ever) observes the cosmos as it exists outside the cell membrane, but always constructs a mere representation of the external cosmos from the perturbations registered on the outside of the impermeable cell wall. In total contrast with the phenomenological logic of the majority of `human’ subjects, no human being has ever directly experienced the world outside their body, but rather, the experience every human being perceives (concerning the external cosmos) is always a contrived representation, or manifestation, developed arbitrarily from the external perturbations which bombard the outer layer of the cell membrane, the human body. -----In direct opposition to the experience of the subject, no human in all history has ever experienced the cosmos as it exists on the outer layer of the human body. The human body, like all cell membranes, is impenetrable, impermeable—and thus the world experienced inside the cell membrane is, as with all other organisms, a fabrication, an illusion, a representation—constructed and manufactured specifically for the subject, by the autopoietic essence of the subject.
Induction is a pernicious manifestation of the subject’s misplaced belief that the cell membrane (separating him from the real world outside the cell membrane) is a diaphanous veil, transparent and almost completely permeable in regards to the subject’s ability to observe the external cosmos. In complete contradistinction to the truth of the matter (the cell membrane is always impenetrable for the conscious organism), the subjective organism, self-deceived by inductive logic, always chooses to believe that the environment served up by means of the forms and functions of his body, is an accurate manifestation of the real world existing outside the boundary (the cell membrane) which imprisons the subjective organism in an absolute way.
This imprisonment, within the cell membrane, is the separation of a subject that is completely dependent on the infinite. This dependence of the subject (imprisoned in the cell membrane) on the outer infinite, whose perturbations become the shadows on the inner wall of the subject’s Platonic cave (the orgiastic inner world of the imprisoned subject), is the very dependence that is rejected by means of the self-deception inherent in the deceit of inductive logic. Using the unspiritual instinct of inductive logic, the subject—divorced from his relationship to the infinite—elevates the flickering phenomenological sensory perceptions on his cave wall to the highest place in his epistemological development. By deceiving himself into believing that the cell membrane is translucent, he literally makes the shadows on the inner wall of his body represent (for him) a perfect simulation of the infinite reality existing just outside his body. The real has become a mere simulation, and for the inductivist the simulation has become real.
By this ploy, the subject circumcises himself from the infinite, by the self-deceptive act of accepting his inner world as the accurate reflection of the infinite. In this way, he becomes like the most high infinite, by projecting his finite world onto the inner wall of his cell membrane. He then chooses to believe that what is then reflected back (for his conscious consumption) is not the mere reflection he contrived by reason of his organic form and function, but, rather, his belief in the power of induction convinces him that a mere reflection of his organic form (what he subjectively does with the outer perturbations to his cell membrane) is in fact the infinite reality outside his cell membrane entering his cell (in both senses of the word cell) in order that he might perceive the infinite as though through a crystal-clear lens! His representation of the infinite, his simulation of the infinite, becomes the reality of the infinite!
Induction stops the infinite regression that destroys inductive logic only by the groundless elevation of some arbitrary boundary to the privileged position as the logical and justified end of the process of cognition. Materialistic scientists and thinkers, who base their worldview on induction, most often choose their own sensory mechanisms as the arbitrary stopping point in their wrong-headed examination of reality. They simply decide to ignore the subject-ive nature of their sense perceptions, and their language bound cognition, and take these arbitrary forms and functions as though they represent the epitome of phenomenological accuracy and correct sensory fidelity. They see their body not for what it clearly is—a genetic machine manipulating external perturbations in order to form a contrived inner environment—but rather, they see their body as a nearly transparent membrane, which just barely separates the absolute essence of infinite reality from their perception and cognition of it. Their mind is so completely engrossed in the 3D inner environment playing on their mind—that the precious undeceiving, which is the birthright of self-conscious spiritual creatures, is treated with the contempt and fear of a person who has been caught in an act of criminal perversion.
Induction results from acquiescence to a subjective separation of the finite from the infinite by means of the circumscribing of a finite self-centered subject inside an impermeable cell membrane. Once the inner world, circumscribed by the cell membrane, has been codified as the place in which reality is accurately perceived, the subject thereafter uses this inner environment as the whole paradigm for reality. The inner environment circumscribed within the cell membrane becomes the whole basis for the inductive logic which thereafter projects the subject’s inner environment outwards into the external infinite, to make believe that the inner environment is a mirror reflection of the real infinite exterior.
This inductive strategy is tautological since by setting an arbitrary boundary to reality, the subject makes the boundary necessarily bound reality within itself. This unjustified elevation to necessity of an arbitrary boundary (the cell membrane) forces everything circumscribed within the cell membrane (such as biology and language) to be necessarily accepted as the beginning and the end of reality itself. To accomplish this feat, the subject must invert the true logic that is the case (the subject is circumcised from infinity by circumscribing itself within an arbitrary cell membrane/boundary)—and become convinced that the infinite is reflected perfectly within the autopoietic[i] (or homeostatic) self-centered structure of the circumscribed subject.
In truth, a cell membrane is always impermeable and always represents an absolute boundary to any organism’s perception of the cosmos external to the boundary formed by the cell membrane. Contrary to the phenomenological logic of the circumscribed subject, the subject never (ever) observes the cosmos as it exists outside the cell membrane, but always constructs a mere representation of the external cosmos from the perturbations registered on the outside of the impermeable cell wall. In total contrast with the phenomenological logic of the majority of `human’ subjects, no human being has ever directly experienced the world outside their body, but rather, the experience every human being perceives (concerning the external cosmos) is always a contrived representation, or manifestation, developed arbitrarily from the external perturbations which bombard the outer layer of the cell membrane, the human body. -----In direct opposition to the experience of the subject, no human in all history has ever experienced the cosmos as it exists on the outer layer of the human body. The human body, like all cell membranes, is impenetrable, impermeable—and thus the world experienced inside the cell membrane is, as with all other organisms, a fabrication, an illusion, a representation—constructed and manufactured specifically for the subject, by the autopoietic essence of the subject.
Induction is a pernicious manifestation of the subject’s misplaced belief that the cell membrane (separating him from the real world outside the cell membrane) is a diaphanous veil, transparent and almost completely permeable in regards to the subject’s ability to observe the external cosmos. In complete contradistinction to the truth of the matter (the cell membrane is always impenetrable for the conscious organism), the subjective organism, self-deceived by inductive logic, always chooses to believe that the environment served up by means of the forms and functions of his body, is an accurate manifestation of the real world existing outside the boundary (the cell membrane) which imprisons the subjective organism in an absolute way.
This imprisonment, within the cell membrane, is the separation of a subject that is completely dependent on the infinite. This dependence of the subject (imprisoned in the cell membrane) on the outer infinite, whose perturbations become the shadows on the inner wall of the subject’s Platonic cave (the orgiastic inner world of the imprisoned subject), is the very dependence that is rejected by means of the self-deception inherent in the deceit of inductive logic. Using the unspiritual instinct of inductive logic, the subject—divorced from his relationship to the infinite—elevates the flickering phenomenological sensory perceptions on his cave wall to the highest place in his epistemological development. By deceiving himself into believing that the cell membrane is translucent, he literally makes the shadows on the inner wall of his body represent (for him) a perfect simulation of the infinite reality existing just outside his body. The real has become a mere simulation, and for the inductivist the simulation has become real.
By this ploy, the subject circumcises himself from the infinite, by the self-deceptive act of accepting his inner world as the accurate reflection of the infinite. In this way, he becomes like the most high infinite, by projecting his finite world onto the inner wall of his cell membrane. He then chooses to believe that what is then reflected back (for his conscious consumption) is not the mere reflection he contrived by reason of his organic form and function, but, rather, his belief in the power of induction convinces him that a mere reflection of his organic form (what he subjectively does with the outer perturbations to his cell membrane) is in fact the infinite reality outside his cell membrane entering his cell (in both senses of the word cell) in order that he might perceive the infinite as though through a crystal-clear lens! His representation of the infinite, his simulation of the infinite, becomes the reality of the infinite!
All of
Western faith and good faith was engaged in this wager on representation: that
a sign could refer to the depth of meaning, that a sign could exchange for
meaning and that something could guarantee this exchange—God, of course. But
what if God himself can be simulated, that is to say, reduced to the signs
which attest his existence? Then the whole system becomes weightless, it is no
longer anything but a gigantic simulacrum—not unreal, but a simulacrum, never
again exchanging for what is real, but exchanging in itself, in an
uninterrupted circuit without reference or circumference.
Jean Baudrillard: Simulations, p. 11.
Jean Baudrillard: Simulations, p. 11.
*
* *
Induction-minded materialist take their first fatal step when they assume that the `human’ environment, which is delivered up by means of the human body (which body is a machine constructed of theories living in genes) is a direct representation of the world as it exists outside the conscious perceptions served up by means of the human body! Undermining this false inductivist paradigm, the Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin says:
Induction-minded materialist take their first fatal step when they assume that the `human’ environment, which is delivered up by means of the human body (which body is a machine constructed of theories living in genes) is a direct representation of the world as it exists outside the conscious perceptions served up by means of the human body! Undermining this false inductivist paradigm, the Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin says:
. . . it is the biology, indeed the genes, of an
organism that determines its effective environment, by establishing the way in
which external physical signals become incorporated into its reactions.[ii]
In his book, The Triple
Helix, Lewontin explains that it’s the biology of an organism, its genes,
that determine its environment (which environment is the whole world
experienced by the organism). Lewontin is clear that it’s the organism that
establishes the way in which the `external signals’ (or perturbations) will be
incorporated by means of the genetic design inherent in its biological
reactions. The organism decides which external signals will be relevant, and
even how the signals will be interpreted:
The common external phenomena of the physical and
biotic world pass through a transforming filter created by the peculiar biology
of each species, and it is the output of this transformation that reaches the
organism and is relevant to it.[iii]
From this logic it’s
patently clear that the only aspects of the external phenomena (the external
cosmos) which reaches the organism are those that have passed through the
`transforming filter’ created by the peculiar (unique) biology of each species.
What is relevant (experientially real) to the organism, is only those aspects
of the external phenomena, which the organism chooses to make relevant
according to whatever theory it decides upon in the `interpretive’ strategy
that become its genetic form.
Plato's metaphor of the cave is appropriate here.
Whatever the autonomous processes of the outer world may be, they cannot be
perceived by the organism. Its life is determined by the shadows on the wall,
passed through a transforming medium of its own creation.[iv]
Lewontin draws the truisms
of the previous statements to their final and profound conclusion; a conclusion
that destroys the illusion that the external phenomena is anything like what is
experienced once the organism has had its way with the external phenomena and
the external phenomena has gone through the `transforming filter’ that
subject-ively selects and subjectively interprets (even constructs) the objects
that will become a conscious, internalized, observation of the external cosmos!
-----The `subject’ (the organism) `selects’ which external phenomena it will
use in constructing a conscious environment (by its design and creation of a
body (which `body’ is a genetic theory machine)) from an infinite number of
options! The multifarious theory machines (body types) peopling planet earth
justify this decisive point.
Furthermore, once the organism has selected the various external phenomena that it will use (by constructing its body type (which is a mechanism designed to observe only those aspects of the external cosmos that the organism wants to give relevance))—the organism then has the complete freedom to take the external phenomena that it has internalized by means of its body (the tool that selects various external phenomena)—and design a `reaction’ or `response’ to the `selected’, or `internalized’ external phenomena. The `reaction,’ or `response,’ which the organism deems appropriate to each particular input from the internalized external phenomena—is a `reaction,’ or `response’ chosen in almost complete freedom by the organism! In other words, in complete contradistinction to the inductive paradigm of the materialistic Darwinist, it is the organism (theories living in genes), which `selects’ those aspects of the external phenomena that will become the environment, rather than the external phenomena `selecting’ the genetic theories that will become the organism.
Any reasonable person familar with Lewontin’s The Triple Helix, must acknowledge that even this non-theistic Harvard biologist has unequivocally stated, and justified, with science and logic, the truism that in total contradistinction to Darwinism, it is the organism that `selects’ the environment (by determining which external perturbations will be registered as real), rather than the environment selecting the organism. This is extremely profound! It justifies Plato's criticism of the inductive prison that is constructed when sensory data (biological and linguistic) is elevated to some non-theoretical presentation of a world that exists as the real object mirrored in the internalized environment constructed by the organism. Lewontin’s logic explains Baudrillard’s image of the inductivist’s simulacrum becoming reality itself, rather than a mere simulation.
The `human’ ability to undeceive ones self from the simulation devised and implemented by his biology (the sensory play running on his cave wall) justifies and illuminates the spiritual characteristics of the individual so equipped. Since the logic in Lewontin’s arguments is inerrant in it’s abstract dimensions, it can be seen, even here, in Lewontin’s arguments, that the human body is subordinate to the human spirit which enables the individual to `see,’ through pure abstract logic, that the human being has never experienced anything except the conscious manifestations of the external phenomena that have been `selected’ and reacted to according to the ad hoc decisions of the organism in general. As Schopenhauer insightfully quipped: `My world is my representation.’
Ironically, this ability to `see’ that our biological and linguistic observations are contrived autopoietically (that we are the autocatalytic catalyst of our environment) requires a metaphysical perch that allows us the occasion of `seeing’ our biological and linguistic observations from some meta perch not contaminated by the bias’s of the body and language that would normally and logically be thought to be the end of our observational capacities! Since our biological and linguistic capacities are clearly circumscribed within the finite inner environment, the only way we could undeceive our self from the power of the finite environment, is if we still, even after our imprisonment in the finite body and language, possess some link to the infinite, which empowers us to undeceive ourselves concerning the sin of inductive logic.
Furthermore, once the organism has selected the various external phenomena that it will use (by constructing its body type (which is a mechanism designed to observe only those aspects of the external cosmos that the organism wants to give relevance))—the organism then has the complete freedom to take the external phenomena that it has internalized by means of its body (the tool that selects various external phenomena)—and design a `reaction’ or `response’ to the `selected’, or `internalized’ external phenomena. The `reaction,’ or `response,’ which the organism deems appropriate to each particular input from the internalized external phenomena—is a `reaction,’ or `response’ chosen in almost complete freedom by the organism! In other words, in complete contradistinction to the inductive paradigm of the materialistic Darwinist, it is the organism (theories living in genes), which `selects’ those aspects of the external phenomena that will become the environment, rather than the external phenomena `selecting’ the genetic theories that will become the organism.
Any reasonable person familar with Lewontin’s The Triple Helix, must acknowledge that even this non-theistic Harvard biologist has unequivocally stated, and justified, with science and logic, the truism that in total contradistinction to Darwinism, it is the organism that `selects’ the environment (by determining which external perturbations will be registered as real), rather than the environment selecting the organism. This is extremely profound! It justifies Plato's criticism of the inductive prison that is constructed when sensory data (biological and linguistic) is elevated to some non-theoretical presentation of a world that exists as the real object mirrored in the internalized environment constructed by the organism. Lewontin’s logic explains Baudrillard’s image of the inductivist’s simulacrum becoming reality itself, rather than a mere simulation.
The `human’ ability to undeceive ones self from the simulation devised and implemented by his biology (the sensory play running on his cave wall) justifies and illuminates the spiritual characteristics of the individual so equipped. Since the logic in Lewontin’s arguments is inerrant in it’s abstract dimensions, it can be seen, even here, in Lewontin’s arguments, that the human body is subordinate to the human spirit which enables the individual to `see,’ through pure abstract logic, that the human being has never experienced anything except the conscious manifestations of the external phenomena that have been `selected’ and reacted to according to the ad hoc decisions of the organism in general. As Schopenhauer insightfully quipped: `My world is my representation.’
Ironically, this ability to `see’ that our biological and linguistic observations are contrived autopoietically (that we are the autocatalytic catalyst of our environment) requires a metaphysical perch that allows us the occasion of `seeing’ our biological and linguistic observations from some meta perch not contaminated by the bias’s of the body and language that would normally and logically be thought to be the end of our observational capacities! Since our biological and linguistic capacities are clearly circumscribed within the finite inner environment, the only way we could undeceive our self from the power of the finite environment, is if we still, even after our imprisonment in the finite body and language, possess some link to the infinite, which empowers us to undeceive ourselves concerning the sin of inductive logic.
It is indeed no trifling task, but very difficult
to realize that there is in every soul an organ or instrument of knowledge that
is purified and kindled afresh by such studies when it has been destroyed and
blinded by our ordinary pursuits, a faculty whose preservation outweighs ten
thousand eyes, for by it only is reality beheld.
Plato: Republic, book vii, 527, 528.
Plato: Republic, book vii, 527, 528.
* * *
The fallacy of induction is difficult to address for the simple reason that few persons have the cognitive wherewithal to separate pure abstract logic, reason, and truth, from the contamination of their physical sensory mechanism, the very mechanisms that are designed to confuse them. Immanuel Kant said:
The fallacy of induction is difficult to address for the simple reason that few persons have the cognitive wherewithal to separate pure abstract logic, reason, and truth, from the contamination of their physical sensory mechanism, the very mechanisms that are designed to confuse them. Immanuel Kant said:
What we have meant to say is that all our
intuitions [sense perceptions] are nothing but the representation of
appearance; that the things which we intuit [sense] are not in themselves what
we intuit [sense] them as being, nor their relations so constituted in
themselves as they appear to us, and that if the subject, or even only the
subjective constitution of the senses in general, be removed, the whole
constitution and all the relations of objects in space and time, nay space and
time themselves, would vanish. As appearances, they cannot exist in themselves,
but only in us.[v]
Every experiential quality
that our environment possesses is given to it by our mind. No human being has
ever come out of the mind to see what the world really is. Our eyes are not
windows on the world. They are mechanical devices that collect raw data (such
as an electromagnetic wave), which is sent as an electrical impulse to the
brain. Once the electrical impulse reaches our brain, the brain literally adds
the color, shape, dimension, size, texture, distance, etc., etc., to the
external cosmic void. Kant is saying if we remove every `quality’ (which our
mind adds as a `subjective’ (unique to the subject) characteristic) from our
`observation’ of the cosmos—then there is no longer anything like a human world
existing out there at all.
No quality imposed on `raw data’ is subject to the authority of the raw data. The experience we have of the color yellow is not forced on us by the electromagnetic wavelength of light that we experience as yellow. If our minds were re-adjusted by the affects of a drug like LSD, our minds might make us experience the same electromagnetic wavelength, which we now experience as `yellow,’ as purple, blue, or even the smell of chocolate! In other words one organism might decide to make the electromagnetic wavelength we experience as the color yellow, a quality it experiences as green, or blue or purple. There is no cosmic rulebook for organisms that says what they must do with raw data. There is no metaphysically correct translation of raw data that makes the quality added to the raw data correct or right! Organisms do with raw data whatever they chose to do with raw data. Even the raw data is subject-ive, in that the design of the body is the sole determinant of what sort of raw data is served up for the mind to add qualities to. Richard Lewontin makes this point very clear when he says:
No quality imposed on `raw data’ is subject to the authority of the raw data. The experience we have of the color yellow is not forced on us by the electromagnetic wavelength of light that we experience as yellow. If our minds were re-adjusted by the affects of a drug like LSD, our minds might make us experience the same electromagnetic wavelength, which we now experience as `yellow,’ as purple, blue, or even the smell of chocolate! In other words one organism might decide to make the electromagnetic wavelength we experience as the color yellow, a quality it experiences as green, or blue or purple. There is no cosmic rulebook for organisms that says what they must do with raw data. There is no metaphysically correct translation of raw data that makes the quality added to the raw data correct or right! Organisms do with raw data whatever they chose to do with raw data. Even the raw data is subject-ive, in that the design of the body is the sole determinant of what sort of raw data is served up for the mind to add qualities to. Richard Lewontin makes this point very clear when he says:
Whether or not gravitation is an effective factor
in the environment of an organism depends upon the organism’s size. Animals of
a medium or large size, such as vertebrates, are anatomically constructed under
the constraint of gravity. . . In contrast, bacteria living in a liquid medium
are not effectively subject to gravity, which is a negligible force on objects
of such a small size floating in a liquid medium. But the difference in size
between elephants and bacteria is coded in their genes, so, in this sense, the
organism’s genes have determined whether gravitation is or is not relevant to
them. . . although ignoring gravity in their construction because they are so
small . . . they are buffeted about by the thermal agitation of the molecules
in the culture medium, the force producing Brownian motion. We, in contrast are
not constantly knocked back and forth by the molecules of the air, because we
are too large for Brownian motion to affect us. Differences of size and of the
medium in which organisms live are of overwhelming importance in determining
the organism’s entire set of environmental relations, but these factors are a
consequence of the internal biology of the species.[vi]
Lewontin has come to see
that organisms create their environments, and that environments do not exist
apart from organisms. It’s quite exciting to see that Lewontin is done with
Darwinism. He says: `It is also necessary to realize that life as a whole is
evolving in external conditions that are the consequence of the biological
activities of that life.’ ---- The organism `selects’ the fittest environment
for its theories and life strategies by means of its `environment collapser,’
its body. This is in total contradistinction to the Darwinian idea that the
environment selects the organism by some form inherent in the environment. This
inversion of the Darwinian paradigm is extremely profound. It turns Darwinism,
induction, and the whole paradigm of the scientific materialist on its head!!
Indeed, Humberto R. Maturana, Ph.D. & Francisco J. Varela, Ph.D. (who coined the word `autopoietic’) said dogmatically that the Darwinian concept, whereby the environment creates the `selection’ pressure that leads to the form of the organism is: ` . . .completely the opposite of what actually occurs’:
Indeed, Humberto R. Maturana, Ph.D. & Francisco J. Varela, Ph.D. (who coined the word `autopoietic’) said dogmatically that the Darwinian concept, whereby the environment creates the `selection’ pressure that leads to the form of the organism is: ` . . .completely the opposite of what actually occurs’:
In effect, we often think of the process of
selection as the act of choosing voluntarily from among many alternatives. And
it is tempting for us to believe that something similar occurs here, too:
through its perturbations, the environment is supposedly `choosing’ which of
many possible changes are taking place [within the organism]. This is
completely the opposite of what actually occurs and contradictory to the fact
that we are dealing with structurally determined systems. An interaction
[between an organism and external perturbation] cannot specify a structural
change [to the organism], because that change is determined by the previous
state of the subject unity [the inner structure of the organism determines the
unity between itself and the external disturbance] and not by the structure of
the disturbing agent [the environment] . . ..[vii]
Maturana and Varela are
confirming what was just explained by Richard Lewontin. Brownian motion is a
real perturbation for certain bacteria but not for elephants and humans! The
fact that Brownian motion is a real perturbation for one organism and not for
another is completely related to the inner structure of the organism rather
than being related to the essence of the external perturbation. As Lewontin
rightly states it: `Differences of size and of the medium in which organisms
live are of overwhelming importance in determining the organism’s entire set of
environmental relations [the unity between organism and external cosmos], but
these factors are a consequence of the internal biology of the species.’
Lewontin is mimicking Matruana and Varela by clearly stating that it is the
`structure’ of the organism that determines the `unity’ between the organism
and its environment, rather than the environment somehow possessing the structural
authority that is the determinant of the organism inner dynamics. Maturana,
Varela, and Lewontin (all of whom have bowed down at the alter of Darwin at one
time or other) have all come to see that Darwinism is an inversion of the true
process of `selection’. The organism does the selecting, and not the external
cosmos, which only provides the various perturbations that are registered and
`reacted’ to according to the inner structure of the organism!
Darwinism represents a form of bio-ideological induction that attempts to codify and make doctrinaire the inversion of truth that is so evidently corrupt to a mind freed from its symbiotic relationship to the fallacy of induction. Induction accepts the cell membrane not as the impenetrable boundary which give the subject its subjectivity, but rather as a diaphanous veil hardly diminishing infinite reality! By suggesting that environments possess the authority to structure genes, the Darwinist has inverted and perverted the logic that demands that it’s the gene that `select’ which external fields and forces will even be considered as an environmental perturbation relevant to a given organism. As Lewontin, Maturana, and Varela have clearly explained, the inner structural dynamics of the genetic organism are the form that initiates and effectively determines the relationship between external physical perturbations, and the organism in question.
Darwinism makes the environment the determining agent in the evolving form of the genetic organism when we are aware that nothing of the sort can be the truth of the matter. Darwinism makes the very environment, which doesn’t exist without the organism, the engine of design selection and form, rather than conceding to the obvious truth that it’s the organism and its genes that are the sole determinant concerning what external perturbations will even be registered by the organism. The truth of the matter is that there can be no environment apart from the design and form of the organism. As Lewontin unambiguously states it: `The first rule of the real relation between organisms and environment is that environments do not exist in the absence of organisms but are constructed by them out of bits and pieces of the external world.’[viii]
Professor of semiotics (the study of communication by signs, and symbols), Thomas Sebeok (who was influenced by Marturana and Varela), states that: ` . . . nothing exists for any organism outside its bubble-like private Umwelt (environment) into which, although impalpably to any outside observer, it remains, as it were, inextricably sealed.’ Sebeok goes on to say that:
Darwinism represents a form of bio-ideological induction that attempts to codify and make doctrinaire the inversion of truth that is so evidently corrupt to a mind freed from its symbiotic relationship to the fallacy of induction. Induction accepts the cell membrane not as the impenetrable boundary which give the subject its subjectivity, but rather as a diaphanous veil hardly diminishing infinite reality! By suggesting that environments possess the authority to structure genes, the Darwinist has inverted and perverted the logic that demands that it’s the gene that `select’ which external fields and forces will even be considered as an environmental perturbation relevant to a given organism. As Lewontin, Maturana, and Varela have clearly explained, the inner structural dynamics of the genetic organism are the form that initiates and effectively determines the relationship between external physical perturbations, and the organism in question.
Darwinism makes the environment the determining agent in the evolving form of the genetic organism when we are aware that nothing of the sort can be the truth of the matter. Darwinism makes the very environment, which doesn’t exist without the organism, the engine of design selection and form, rather than conceding to the obvious truth that it’s the organism and its genes that are the sole determinant concerning what external perturbations will even be registered by the organism. The truth of the matter is that there can be no environment apart from the design and form of the organism. As Lewontin unambiguously states it: `The first rule of the real relation between organisms and environment is that environments do not exist in the absence of organisms but are constructed by them out of bits and pieces of the external world.’[viii]
Professor of semiotics (the study of communication by signs, and symbols), Thomas Sebeok (who was influenced by Marturana and Varela), states that: ` . . . nothing exists for any organism outside its bubble-like private Umwelt (environment) into which, although impalpably to any outside observer, it remains, as it were, inextricably sealed.’ Sebeok goes on to say that:
It follows that the secondary universal
sign-relation in the ontogeny of an organism is realized as an opposition
between the self (ego) and the other (alter) . . . [or the inner structure of
the organism and the outer dynamics of the cosmos]. This elementary binary
split subsequently brings about the second semiosic dimension [exchange of
signs and communication between the organism and the infinite cosmos], that of
inside versus outside. It is this secondary opposition that enables an organism
to `behave,’ i.e., to enter into relations to link up with other living systems
in its surrounding ecosystem.
In other words, the cell
membrane that first separates the organism from the external cosmos is the
beginning of the subjectivity of the conscious organism. The organism separates
itself from the external cosmos to become a subjective (self-centered, i.e.,
autopoietic) living organism. The membrane that separates the organism from the
outer cosmos becomes the first example of self, subject, and conscious willing!
The inner structure that is developed by each organism (inside its hermetically
sealed bubble) becomes the inner world, which the organism chooses to make the
paradigm for its whole reality. The organism subjectively (autopoietically)
`selects’ various outer perturbations from the external cosmos, to use as the
brick and mortar of the `subject-ive’ (autopoietic) inner environment.
What the subjective organism does with the outer perturbation (disturbances related to the outer cosmos, i.e., the primary physical forces) is wholly subjective and is in no way relational to any aspect of the outer disturbance. How the subjective organism puts the outer perturbation to work in the inner environment is completely subject to the `subject-ive’ whims of the autopoietic entity in charge of decorating what will become its self-centered world. To take the organism out of its hermetically sealed world would be to annihilate the organism’s personal subjective self-centeredness! It would be the whole and total destruction of the organism—for the consciousness of the organism (its ontological being) is completely related to its personal self-centeredness, and its personal, self-created relationship between itself and the cosmic `other’ (the external cosmos).
Once inside its self-centered circumscribed world/environment, the autopoietic organism projects its self designed and constructed environment outwards from itself, so that it in effect sees its inner world as a mirror reflection of the cosmos outside its self-centered conscious construct. -----The unfathomable ability of the `human’ organism to see what is going on here—to literally undeceive itself from its own organistic ploy (whereby in its self-centered subjectivity it attempts to circumcise itself from its true infinite essence)—this event marks the first spiritual activity in the undoing of the subjective separation of the organism from its infinite essence.
What the subjective organism does with the outer perturbation (disturbances related to the outer cosmos, i.e., the primary physical forces) is wholly subjective and is in no way relational to any aspect of the outer disturbance. How the subjective organism puts the outer perturbation to work in the inner environment is completely subject to the `subject-ive’ whims of the autopoietic entity in charge of decorating what will become its self-centered world. To take the organism out of its hermetically sealed world would be to annihilate the organism’s personal subjective self-centeredness! It would be the whole and total destruction of the organism—for the consciousness of the organism (its ontological being) is completely related to its personal self-centeredness, and its personal, self-created relationship between itself and the cosmic `other’ (the external cosmos).
Once inside its self-centered circumscribed world/environment, the autopoietic organism projects its self designed and constructed environment outwards from itself, so that it in effect sees its inner world as a mirror reflection of the cosmos outside its self-centered conscious construct. -----The unfathomable ability of the `human’ organism to see what is going on here—to literally undeceive itself from its own organistic ploy (whereby in its self-centered subjectivity it attempts to circumcise itself from its true infinite essence)—this event marks the first spiritual activity in the undoing of the subjective separation of the organism from its infinite essence.
Self-consciousness exists in itself and for itself,
in that, and by the fact that it exists for another self-consciousness; that is
to say, it is [has being] only by being acknowledged or `recognized.’ The
conception of this its unity in its duplication, of infinitude realizing itself
in self-consciousness, has many sides to it and encloses within it elements of
varied significance . . . Self-consciousness [of the organism] has before it
another self-consciousness [the infinite it’s set against]; it has come outside
itself. This has a double significance. First it has lost its own self, since
it finds itself as an other being; secondly, it has thereby sublated [negated
or denied] that other, for it does not regard the other as essentially real,
but sees its own self in the other.
Hegel: Phenomenology of Spirit.[ix]
Language moves in the middle kingdom between the `indefinite’ and the `infinite;’ it transforms the indeterminate into a determinate idea, and then holds it within the sphere of finite determinations.
Ernst Cassirer, Language and Myth, p. 81.
It is evident, however, even in daily life, that . . . each person says what he says or hears what he hears according to his own structural determination; saying does not ensure listening. From the perspective of an observer, there is always ambiguity in a communicative interaction. The phenomenon of communication depends on not what is transmitted, but on what happens to the person who receives it. And this is a very different matter from “transmitting information.”
Maturana and Varela, The Tree of Knowledge, p. 196.
Hegel: Phenomenology of Spirit.[ix]
Language moves in the middle kingdom between the `indefinite’ and the `infinite;’ it transforms the indeterminate into a determinate idea, and then holds it within the sphere of finite determinations.
Ernst Cassirer, Language and Myth, p. 81.
It is evident, however, even in daily life, that . . . each person says what he says or hears what he hears according to his own structural determination; saying does not ensure listening. From the perspective of an observer, there is always ambiguity in a communicative interaction. The phenomenon of communication depends on not what is transmitted, but on what happens to the person who receives it. And this is a very different matter from “transmitting information.”
Maturana and Varela, The Tree of Knowledge, p. 196.
[i] Maturana and
Varela coined the term autopoiesis to characterize those systems which (a)
maintain their defining organization throughout a history of environmental
perturbation and structural change and (b) regenerate their components in the course of their
operation. Autopoietic systems realized in the physical space are living
systems. Varela later defined a broader concept of autonomy, of which
autopoiesis is a special case. Autonomous systems maintain their organization,
but do not necessarily regenerate their own components. Autopoiesis is a form
of homeostasis (the ability or tendency of an organism or cell to maintain
internal equilibrium by adjusting its physiological processes) similar to
Richard Lewontin’s explanation of an organism creating its `environment’ by
means of its ability to manipulate the semiotic (or `external’) signals it uses
to internalize the external cosmos!
[ii] Richard Lewontin, The Triple Helix, (Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 64.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Immanuel Kant’s, Critique of Pure Reason, as quoted in Bryan Magee’s, Confessions of a Philosopher, (Modern Library, 1997), p. 249.
[vi] Lewontin, op. cit., p. 65.
[vii] Humberto R. Manturana, Ph.D & Franscisco J. Varela, Ph. D, The Tree of Knowledge, The Biological Roots of Human Understanding, (Shambhala, 1987), p. 101.
[viii] Richard Lewontin, Biology as Ideology, (Harper Perennial, 1991), p. 113.
[ix] Quoted from Frederick G. Weisss’s, Hegel: The Essential Writings, (Harper Torch Books, 1974), p. 70, 71. This translation is superior (in clarity) to A.V. Miller’s translation of Phenomenology of Spirit.
[ii] Richard Lewontin, The Triple Helix, (Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 64.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Immanuel Kant’s, Critique of Pure Reason, as quoted in Bryan Magee’s, Confessions of a Philosopher, (Modern Library, 1997), p. 249.
[vi] Lewontin, op. cit., p. 65.
[vii] Humberto R. Manturana, Ph.D & Franscisco J. Varela, Ph. D, The Tree of Knowledge, The Biological Roots of Human Understanding, (Shambhala, 1987), p. 101.
[viii] Richard Lewontin, Biology as Ideology, (Harper Perennial, 1991), p. 113.
[ix] Quoted from Frederick G. Weisss’s, Hegel: The Essential Writings, (Harper Torch Books, 1974), p. 70, 71. This translation is superior (in clarity) to A.V. Miller’s translation of Phenomenology of Spirit.