KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA63 (Leslie / Rees)

Commentary 38 (to C26, Muller)

NOTE ON ABSTRACTION
by Joseph Johnson
22 February 2004, posted 28 February 2004

<1>
Again we can profit by distinguishing between perspectives of process and content. It is clear that giving name to sets of attributes is the most common use of abstraction in designating and remembering content, such as the set of attributes meaning Cow, or even her membership in content of more abstracts sets, such as "animal" and "entity."

State:

Content, timeless

Name

List of attributes

Membership in more general list/s

<2>
AT is concerned with process, which is to say creativity; the evolution of system complexity that is played out for billions of years ending only with the (apparent) inevitability of thermal equilibrium.

<3>
In creativity, the basic unit of "what is drawn from" the particular is not the name, but the principle or necessity of which the particular is an expression. In other words, the active and directing principle is identified by what science calls "analysis." The connection we are making is that analysis equates to abstraction.

<4>
For example, Force is the abstract of the product of such particulars as Mass times Acceleration. Force is also the abstract of Pressure times Area. But I am sure it will be found that Force is a particular of some more abstract imperative, in the same sense that biological systems are sustained at the quantum level by quantum physical principles and at the molecular level by chemical principles.

<5>
Given this example, it surely must be clear that the web of abstracts and particulars is infinitely complex; that every quantum jump in the cosmos is a particular expression of an implicit necessity, and part of any "tree" that we might elect to "analyze" as its "system." By comparison, our conscious awareness has quite limited capacity and so relies heavily on abstraction to focus on what is meaningful. That is why our mental faculties were selected for the capacity to reduce experience to meaningful abstractions, precisely the same faculty that we exploit as "analysis."

<6>
When we explore the "depth of abstractions in content" such as BessieàCowà Animalà Entity, we ask where do we find the same "depth" in process? The answer is in the connectivity in the evolution of complexity across cosmic time: physics à chemistryà biology, etc. As scientific analysis is generally concerned with content of isolated systems, such as physical or chemical or biological, it has only limited concern for the relevance of the content of any one system to the evolution of the whole. It has found utility in affirming the connections represented by physical chemistry, biophysics and biochemistry, but this only goes to serve my point that, say, principles of chemistry do not emerge arbitrarily, independent of the structure of natural order that was ALREADY IMPLICIT at the moment of creation. The point is that every logic of process from creation to thermal equilibrium was IMPLICIT at creation.

<7>
While the above sounds deterministic from the classic perspective, it is NOT. This is because of the structure of natural order described by AT which tells us that any imperative that is deterministic from the perspective of AT can be satisfied by ANY of a whole class of particulars, and this freedom expands, multiplies with every new level of complexity, virtually without limit. This is exactly what is called CREATIVITY. It is why cosmos can evolve such exquisite complexity through process that appear so chaotic and random as clouds of particles, gravitating into bunches here and there, to condense into generation after generation of stars to manufacture the heavier elements that gravitate into planets and ponds of algae on a bright summer afternoon. Below is a rough comparison of the cosmic creative process and human creative process across time where each increase in complexity is a more refined particular expression of the same implicit abstract imperative. The human "need" is implicit in the undefined the cosmic imperative. The result is the potential for the indefinite evolution of system complexity and the potential to realize the higher abstracts of symmetry.

<8>
Process:

Cosmic Creativity:

(Ground)

Create Resources

Gather resources

Fabricate parts

Assemble product

Refine product

Human Creativity:

(Need)

Analysis

Plan

Create Resources

Gather resources

Fabricate parts

Assemble product

Refine product

<9>
As argued elsewhere, cosmos will not sustain the organization of any objective system (such as a star or even civil order) that does not embody the principles of symmetry in the distribution of its energy, nor will it sustain any subjective system (society) that does not pursue and embody the abstracts of symmetry. I have no idea what is "real" but I do know where to look for survival.

That is just "the way it IS."

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

Joseph Johnson