KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA60 (Grandpierre)

Commentary 1

A SUPPLEMENTAL VIEW ?
by Joseph Johnson
15 June 2003, posted 24 June 2003

<1>
I've never seen a more convincing, more concise essay on the ontological structure of reality. Indeed, the sense of reality I draw from your arguments so closely parallels my own, raised by other argument, that I wonder if I can supplement your view in a meaningful way ?

<2>
In particular, I did not think in terms of ultimate principles of individual sciences such as physics, biology, and psychology. Rather I draw attention to the overall structure of natural order that seems to have gone unremarked. I point to the way all the sciences relate to one-another in terms of levels of complexity of systems that their languages describe, and how each higher level of complexity (say, biology) results in emergent properties for which the lower level science (say, physics) has no descriptive relational concepts. In other words, each level reveals its unique principle relating systems properties that have no existence at less complex scales.

<3>
Rather than consider principles of each science "ultimate," I find uniqueness at each of several levels that are themselves related in an overall structure of natural order. Given the original faith of science that all of natural order (including both objectivity and subjectivity) is singular, coherent, then it must follow that every particular is a more or less refined expression of that singular necessity. Every particular is an expression of the same ultimate abstract necessity.

<4>
We already have a recognized theory for the relationship between more or less refined particular expressions of the same abstract necessity. We call it abstraction theory (AT), and it speaks of the cascade or ladder of increasingly specific, more refined expressions, particulars of some higher defining abstract. What a surprise to see just such a relationship emerging from creation as a cascade of increasing complexities in expression; each level having its unique principles.

<5>
The implication of AT is that each level is a more refined expression of some all-inclusive ineffable abstract necessity. Given the utter subjective simplicity of unbroken symmetry at t = 0, and the (so far) impenetrable objective complexity at t = 0 + dt (creation), we find in symmetry a completely unadorned quality on the ladder of natural order defining the interface between implicit and explicit, subjective and objective. Symmetry is a hybrid quality in that it has both objective particulars as well as subjective abstracts. It is an abstract expressed through conservation law (Noether's theorem) into the created overlay of explicit physical particulars. The same symmetry is a lower particular of its higher more inclusive abstracts pointing toward the highest subjective all-inclusive abstract necessity.

<6>
AT tells us that what is being expressed from creation, forward, are increasingly refined particulars of an ineffable singular necessity. Where each particular is an abstract of more refined particulars, so is every abstract not only inclusive of all lower particulars, but is, itself, a particular somewhere in the field of even more inclusive abstracts, all the way to the highest all-inclusive abstract.

<7>
Where "natural order" seems to imply all and only constraints that are objective, I introduce the term "cosmic order," which includes both objective and subjective constraints. Where do we find subjectivity in cosmic order ? We observe that after some 14 billion years, system complexity is still on the increase, and likely to increase indefinitely, essentially through the creative agency of conscious mind. This suggests that cosmic order is not computable; that it cannot be completely described or fully realized by any finite description or finite set of processes. I take this to imply subjectivity. It is objective only in its quantifiable expression at unique levels of the several sciences. This seems to imply a cosmic order of subjective ends pursued indefinitely through limitless levels of complexities of objective means.

<8>
The underlying constraint of symmetry gives coherent (sustainable) evolving form to energy and our sense of differences and limits, particularly where we perceive only 3D+t in the 11D (or so) world of physics. With the rise of such limited consciousness, cosmos began to perceive itself (first-person perspective) in competition with many other examples of itself, so there arose the problem of confusion over multiple conflicting viewpoints. When consciousness first emerged, conflict was not a problem; indeed, conflict was constructive. It resulted in natural selection of neural systems that were increasingly perceptive of natural order and so more creative of increasingly complex systems essential to survive and dominate. Today, the power attendant upon this knowledge and creativity can be self-destructive for the species, so the same conflict that served evolution for eons puts at serious risk the continued survival of mind and the prospect of higher system complexity.

<9>
What is surprising about this emerging prospect of the end of the evolution of more refined expression of cosmic order is that simple observation shows that every single process on every scale, from quantum to cosmic, tends to "sustain and refine" itself. On the cosmic scale, every process across an indefinite front of particular beginnings, dividings, joinings, and endings, sustains the apparent mandate through ever more refined expression of the implicit highest abstract necessity. Without the organic/biological component, the evolution of complexity would have ceased eons ago in the silent fire and ice of cosmos. As it is, the conflict of natural selection, so constructive for eons in finally creating its own mindful creative agency, now threatens the entire enterprise of creative self-expression of cosmos.

<10>
Where in cosmic order is the solution to the problem of conflict between multiple competing viewpoints? We expect to find the answer in the several religions, but hardly anticipate finding it in natural order, of all places. But why not? The problem is the subjective one called relativity, and Einstein's remedy is the same for physics as it is for civil order. It is the symmetry solution: All laws must look the same from every perspective.

<11>
The fundamental reasons for the rise of civil order as a higher level system seems to be, first, to impose the symmetry solution to restrain conflict that had been essential to the evolution of mental faculties. There had to be the imposition of equality under the law for a sense of justice if we were to achieve survival through means other than conflict. In this sense, the symmetry solution, the equal application of law was essentially a restraint. To go beyond restraint toward something more positive and constructive, we look from the application of the laws to their content.

<12>
Thus the second mission of civil order is to enhance individual and collective creativity. Where symmetry prescribes the application of laws, the abstracts of symmetry prescribe not the laws themselves, but the subjective qualities of their content. We look for qualities of justice, aesthetics, etc., qualities keyed less to objective specifics than to our constructive emotions that were also selected into our nature through experience with smaller groups; mother, family, clan, etc.

<13>
Where we recognize ourselves of agents of this cosmic process we become aware that our species survival, to say nothing of further evolution, will not happen thoughtlessly, gratuitously, in the same way we evolved eyes and ears. The whole point of conscious mind is that hard mindful choice is the only path remaining in the evolution of more refined expression of the higher qualities of cosmic order. I say that evolution of mind is the increasingly self-aware fist-person perspective of cosmos, itself. Its choices to sustain its evolution by exploring cosmic order and giving it ever more refined expression are interpreted by mind into the metaphors of survival through science and technology, etc. We are simply the latest (local) agency of this overall cosmic process. Indeed, we will survive only where we take responsibility for the quality of our choices to achieve equality under law, and to write laws of, by, and for the people, laws that enhance the creativity of every individual, and the opportunity for its most cooperative and constructive expression.

My TA-53 adds detail to this perspective.

-------------------------------

Joseph Johnson