KARL
JASPERS FORUM
TA 108
(Green)
Commentary
9 (to C8, Joseph Johnson)
ON
MATERIALISM, TRIALISM, and NATURAL LAW
by Serge Patlavskiy
14 August 2008, posted 23 August 2008
{1}
[Joseph Johnson] wrote:
" <3> What the materialists fail to understand is that it is
consciousness that is fundamental, i.e. the Source, the abstract, the general,
and it is the material that is contrived, derivative."
{2}
[S.P.]
I am not saying that materialism is false. The materialistic doctrine works
fine while we investigate the objects whose entropy state is quasi-unchangeable
during the experiment. But when we investigate the consciousness-related
phenomena we cannot neglect the change of the entropy state of the object of
investigation. In this case, to stay within the scientific framework, we should
come from the materialistic doctrine to, what I call, informationism, which
presumes that consciousness (or sensitivity to information), matter, and energy
are three equally fundamental factors that influence the existence and
development of our Reality. At that, "equal fundamentality" means
that none of the listed factors is derivative from any other;
"trialism" means that each of the listed factors has its sense only
when being regarded together with the other two factors (for details, see [1],
Table 1).
{3}
[Joseph Johnson] wrote:
" [S.P.] TA108 C3<20> "Consciousness, rather, organizes.
Namely, it tends to reduce the entropy of the system which is described by
informational characteristic. In case of the living organisms, consciousness
(or, the acts of processing and conceptualization of information) is
responsible for the effect of self-organization, and life as such. Therefore,
the formulated law may be accepted if by the term "creation" we would
mean "organization, or the improvement of something which already
exists". For example, "creation of a life-form" should be meant
as an "improvement, or organization of some already existent
dead-form". [J.J]: Stated in that manner suggests dualism; intervention in
a mechanistic universe, which is misleading. Bioscience reveals that
self-organizing even precedes living organisms, to say nothing of creation of
more complex atoms in stars, etc, so self-organization (consciousness) is there
from the beginning, further supporting the notion that the deeper structure of
natural order is singular, unitary, rather than dualistic."
{4}
[S.P.]
It is standing to reason that the effect of self-organization precedes living
organisms. What I say is that the life forms are such ones whose
self-organization is caused to a considerable degree by processing and
conceptualization of information, or by activity of consciousness.
Informationism presumes trialism (not dualism), or that even a dead-form has to
be described using the tri-unity of informational, material, and energetic
characteristics. From this follows that "from the beginning", the
consciousness-related factors played crucial role in emerging of everything
existent. A transition from the dead-forms to the living forms is not a
transition from something nonexistent to something existent. It is, rather, the
enhancement of the role the already available consciousness-related factors
start to play in a given complex organic (or non-organic) system. If those
factors play sufficiently considerable role, the effect of self-organization
triggers, and the (dead) complex organic system transforms into a living
object, like unicell or protozoan.
{5}
[Joseph Johnson] wrote:
"<6> Again, we wrote natural laws simply to describe our experience
of objective relationships within closed, isolated physical systems, rather
than to cosmos as a whole. They become essential tools to support our own
creativity, independent of the larger cosmic process. On the other hand,
natural order is the specification of the hierarchic structure of the essential
qualities of the whole cosmic process; qualities which begin subjective and
general, expressed as increasingly refined particulars, both objective and
subjective, as the cosmic process in time."
{6}
[S.P.]
If it is stated that the total number of the (exemplars of) consciousness in
the Universe is limited and conserves (see TA108 C3), does not it already mean
that we DO NOT "describe our experience of objective relationships within
closed, isolated physical systems, rather than to cosmos as a whole"?
Informationism presumes that the same natural law governs as the "whole
cosmic process", so the whole "machinery" of consciousness.
-----------------------------------------
[1] http://www.geocities.com/spatlavskiy/KeyIngredients.pdf
-----------------------------------------
Serge Patlavskiy
e-mail <prodigypsf (at) rambler.ru>