Finding the Overarching Principle

In philosophy, or in crafting a philosophy, people either consciously or unconsciously find a principle that they will live by.

For many, if not most of us, that principle can reduced to "adapt to survive", with a particular neo-darwinian emphasis on "to reproduce".

Now, for some people, this way of thinking can become the basis of their own ontology, in what they think and what they tell other people about what they believe. For the longest time, this has disturbed me.

It's not that I disagree with the Darwinian framework for how biological life seems to develop, but I disagree with the homogenistic nature of its thinking. For example, all of human reality could be reduced to "all people care about is sex", because the implication of "survive to reproduce" is "all of human thinking and behavior revolves around the gravity of sexual attractions. Ergo, people are intrinsically selfish, sex-obsesessed creatures.

This is probably the worst way human beings can be thought of, but unfortunately some people are led down developmental paths that carve out a mindset which seeks to affirm and defend this view, instead of questioning the framework supposed to be of "intrinsic relevance".

For me, reality is not simply a matter of evolutionary trends, but a transformation of trends, at one level, into something analogically akin at a higher level. We can begin at the very beginning if were going to think along these lines. So far, science believes something called a "big bang" happened. The astrophysical evidence strongly indicates this as being the probable reality.

What was before this bang? That is a matter of theoretical speculation, and so far nothing has come forth that harmonizes with existing physical knowledge. So, at the beginning, we have "unity". In unity, and then, "bang", multiplicity unfolds. We can quantify these two events as Unity at point temporal point 1), and then the ontological emergence of "multiplicity" (or more than one) as point 2).

From the get-go, reality is partitioned as a state of unity and state multiplicity.

Everything that emerged form that explosion, although separated into disparate particles, remained logically connected in a field-of-oneness with other particles. This has to do with weights, and spins and all that other stuff from physics.

Ultimately, rocks took on spherical shapes and so became planets. Once you crack a certain gravitational threshold, a body compresses into a spheroid. In one galaxy, in one solar system, the conditions existed for one planet, certainly situated, to develop a property that hitherto did not exist. This body was chemical-based, as all things in the universe are 'chemical', or molecular. This thing, what we call life, developed connections with other chemicals in such a way that continuity was established, subsisting as a "relational-whole", a state of harmony between external environmental conditions (source of food) and internal activities with the molecular (and then cellular) body.

Why were these bodies reaching for each other? Think of how bizarre this is, to begin with: why would a part of the expanding universe become formed in association with something else - a chemical attraction, ultimately becoming complex enough to produce a cell.

When you cast the question this way - with reference to what is known about our beginnings, to the current reality we exist within, what seems to be most relevant to my existence in this world, is, My existence in this world!. While the neo-darwinian will emphasize survivability as the overarching principle, I would posit "the conditions of my existence" as the overarching principle.

You can see the difference in epistemology. The bio-centered thinker can't "defocus" from his biological orientation, and, in doing ontology, take in the known whole - that is, the time period before biology.

In the evolution of our universe, we can identify - as far as we know - that things have gone from a state of existing (from not existing) as physical particles in logical relation, though volatile and chaotic at the edges. Out of this, life formed. Life emerged as a logical consequence of preceding molecular-chemical events (as well as other known forces which affect these events, such as electromagnetism, strong-weak nuclear force (which works through chemicals) and perhaps gravity) from the big bang.

Between life and the big bang we see a change in ontology. There is no "survival of the fittest" at the beginning of the universe. Bodies emanated outwards, and none seemed to be in a particularly better position than any other. Then life emerges, and this thing we call life seems to operate on the principle of "do what you need to to survive". Sex and reproduction ultimately becomes a principle, as when organisms grow they prefer to multiply themselves. Competition between species is a consequence of this principle over time. Species fight for life; some grow to eat others, and some grow to be eaten. In one line, humans emerge, and with them comes another ontological shift.

We can call state 1 as lifeless universe, stage 2 as life in universe and stage 3 as Self conscious Life In Universe. I think its fairly clear what sort of 'shifts' are being described. Of course, these were gradual, and, within humans, one could be misled by physical objective appearances that humans are "just like animals". But this would seem so only from an external, objectivist viewpoint. The phenomenology of importance, with humans, is in the brain: that is, the human mind.

Animals clearly have minds, and even centers of volition, as subjects experiencing life according to the historical relations of its biology with a particular environment. But animals do not have any elaborate awareness of themselves as actors in the world. This is partly a result of their physical morphology: the shape of the human body logically coincides with the nature of our cognitive abilities. Dolphins, Chimps, and Elephants, big brained also, are bring brained for a different environment, a different relational milieu, and so possess brains that function in radically different ways from one another. There is also the matter of metabolism, so the difference between brain/body becomes an important and predictive metric.

Human thinking is built atop mammalian nervous systems, which themselves are physiological extensions of cellular activities distributed between different cellular assemblies making up the "body" of the seen physical organism. These bodies, fundamentally, are attuned with the physical environment around them - not merely in the relational sense of "adapted" - but in the sense of actually being chemically and physically adapted to the conditions of existing in a nuclear-electromagnetic-gravitational universe.

The real confusing thing about this picture is the sense of direction. If all things in the universe have moved -----> this way, as a logical consequence of what came before it - in human beings, have a creature who can think whenever it wants - that is, automaticity can be inhibited and prevented from happening. And with value - a sense of whats important for the self existing in a world with other selves, each of which is aware of its future death - the unit of importance is not the banal fact of "species survive to reproduce", but the existential fact of human existence.

Notice, that in the beginning, there was unity.

Notice, that when species reproduce, they come together, from one to another, to form a unity - a continuity in time from one generation to another.

Notice, that with human beings, the abstract becomes metaphor. What was implied before is made explicit: Love

All animals live to reproduce. You can predict their behaviors based on this. Not all humans care to have children. Of course, its a lot more work for us. Even after 5 long years of raising our offspring, our job is not nearly done. But that kinda shows that we don't really follow the "survive in order to reproduce" framework. We reproduce if we want. We can even enjoy sex while inhibiting or preventing the chances of conception occurring.

But can you imagine how many humans there would be today if we were all driven in the same way as animals? With our ability to manipulate the world around us? We could accomplish some crazy reproducing if that was our foremost goal after survival. Animals basically rape each other all the time. At least it sure appears that way sometimes. What if we were like that?

I'm sorry if this is not the response you were hoping for. I found your thread very fun and interesting to read, I just wasnt sure what to write in response but basically... I agree.

originally posted by: Astrocyte
Notice, that in the beginning, there was unity.

Notice, that when species reproduce, they come together, from one to another, to form a unity - a continuity in time from one generation to another.

Notice, that with human beings, the abstract becomes metaphor. What was implied before is made explicit: Love

Yes, we all exist in an infinite field of relationship - ultimately in prior unity or love. Once this is recognized, the reality in which we live becomes more and more obvious and our life becomes patterned in and by the 'all' rather than just based on self-survival.

originally posted by: Astrocyte

The real confusing thing about this picture is the sense of direction. If all things in the universe have moved -----> this way, as a logical consequence of what came before it - in human beings, have a creature who can think whenever it wants - that is, automaticity can be inhibited and prevented from happening. And with value - a sense of whats important for the self existing in a world with other selves, each of which is aware of its future death - the unit of importance is not the banal fact of "species survive to reproduce", but the existential fact of human existence.

It is just an assumption that there is a you that can think when you want to. If it were true then you could stop thinking from happening or choose to have just happy thoughts.
If the big bang theory is correct then everything that happens is happening 'as a logical consequence of what came before it'. All that is moving is moving from that initial boom - like when you break in snooker - the balls just keep moving as they go, they don't change direction unless they hit something else, there is no one inside the balls directing them.

Thoughts which appear are just part of the movement. There can be an assumption that there is a director of the thoughts or body.
Really there is no one directing what is happening - it is just happening.

It amazes me that the little tiny bit of apparent matter seems to matter so much and the huge space in which it appears gets totally overlooked.