Life Itself

[Relinquish]

In truth, the presence of Reality Itself is inherently beginningless, endless and edgeless.

If this were not the case, the 'irreducible edgeless absence' beyond it's edge, the 'irriducible beginningless absence' before it's beginning and the 'irriducible endless absence' after it's end would just as PRESENT and REAL as the presence of Reality Itself.

Likewise, if the pure presence of Reality Itself were ABSOLUTELY absent, the 'irriducible absolute absence' that would therefore remain would be just as PURE, PRESENT and REAL as the pure presence of Reality Itself.

In this way, the pure presence of Reality Itself EQUALS the absolute absence of Reality Itself, and as such, can have no ACTUAL beginning, ending or edge.

It simply IS.

Evidently, occuring against this 'infinite background' presence is the 'finite foreground' process (commonly known as 'the universe').

Ultimately, the universe is nothing other than the single, seamless process of 'change'. It is seamless because it does not actually contain any 'solely self-inclusive forms'. In other words, the universal process of 'change' does not actually contain any separate 'things' or 'events'.

Any given 'particular thing' (for example, a 'tree') is always in a constant state of change, which is to say that 'the tree' is in fact a 'process' rather than a 'thing'. This process can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are 'not the tree', and are naturally comprised of 'other processes', ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present. These conditions are 'not those other processes', and are naturally comprised of 'other other processes', ALL of which can ONLY be occurring if the necessary conditions are present, and so on, ad infinitum.

Therefore, 'the tree' could not possibly be occurring in exactly the way that it is without the ENTIRETY of 'not the tree' (i.e. the rest of the universe) occuring in exactly the way that it is. In this way, 'the tree' naturally includes the entirety of the rest of the universe within it's own existence. Exactly the same is true of ALL 'particular processes', including 'Me' and 'Not Me' (and 'You' and 'Not You').

As such, the fundamental distinctions between all the different processes are purely conceptual, and so, do not actually exist outside of thought, in any real, physical way. Therefore, the only process of 'change' that is ACTUALLY occurring is that of the entire universe as one seamless whole.

The inherent asymmetry of the universe is naturally derived from the fact that (being the 'finite foreground' of Reality) it is the inseperable opposite of the causeless, boundless presence that is the 'infinite background' of Reality, the eternal nature of which is ever-changless and perfectly symmetrical.

The fundamental attribute of the absolute asymmetry of the universe is it's characteristic 'fractal' structure. This is the reason why the process manifests in the way that it does.

ALL apparent 'things' and 'events' are as they are simply because they are all 'parts' of this one eternally cyclic process.

Evidently, there are (at least for the moment) certain 'organic' parts of the process that are conscious of themselves and of their surroundings, just as there are certain 'inorganic' parts of the process that are NOT conscious of themselves or of their surroundings. This basic fact indicates that the universe is actually a (or rather, THE) Living Organism, naturally possessing a countless number of 'nerve ends' at all the appropriate points of it's 'body' (which are commonly known as 'life forms').

This, in turn, indicates that the causeless, boundless presence of the 'infinite background' is actually none other than Life Itself.

Some of the nerve ends of the Organism are of such an extreme level of physical complexity that they have the natural capacity to become 'hypnotized' by their surroundings. This hypnosis makes it SEEM to these extremely complex nerve ends (a.k.a. intelligent body/mind life-forms) that they are the separate, autonomous originators of their own particular movements.

As such, the absolute harmony that naturally exists between all the 'parts' of the Organism (and therefore, the Organism itself) is impossible to be seen by these hypnotized nerve ends. In it's place is seen a situation that seems confusingly fragmented, hostile and threatening. Seeing this, the hypnotized nerve ends are bound to suffer.

But this harmony certainly IS Here and Now, outside of the hypnosis, ever-patiently awaiting 'our' realization of (and resting in) it.

In this resting, there can be no suffering...

Thanks for reading

 

[siti]

First, thanks for sharing. I enjoyed your exposition of an organic process-relational worldview and I agree with a lot of what you said. However, I always have trouble with this bit - which seems to me to be an almost theistic turn (if you will forgive the religious undertone of that remark - I'll try to explain below) in this paragraph:

The inherent asymmetry of the universe is naturally derived from the fact that (being the 'finite foreground' of Reality) it is the inseperable opposite of the causeless, boundless presence that is the 'infinite background' of Reality, the eternal nature of which is ever-changless and perfectly symmetrical.

This looks very much to me like what Charles Hartshorne meant by his AP/RP (absolute perfection in some aspects, relative perfection in others) version of his preferred panentheistic deity. Whitehead made a similar turn IMO that also lead him towards a panentheistic model of deity. But what evidence is there to suggest that this perfectly symmetrical and changeless 'presence' is even possible, let alone actually exists, let alone is a necessary existence? Why can change not be the be all and end all of reality? We have absolutely zero experience or evidence of anything that is not - even momentarily - in a constant condition of flux and change. Not one shred of evidence of one single changeless miniscule fraction of a microsecond in the existence of any single sub-atomic to macro-cosmic 'entity' - ever, in the entirety of our collective human experience to suggest that anything changeless could possibly ever have existed.

Whilst I agree with most of your post, and I certainly agree that viewing the entirety of reality as a whole is a very beneficial way of viewing things, I am also mindful that the fragmentation and the striving to become (which is what the whole and the parts are constantly doing) seems to me to be what reality is really about. For me, the most accurate definition of "life itself" might very well be something along the lines of "an organic, organismic, striving to become". And the most useful spiritual and philosophical maneuver, to my mind, is not the attempt to escape the striving, but to embrace the struggle and make our peace with it.

I hope that makes sense and doesn't sound too critical - it wasn't meant to be critical. I enjoyed your post.

 

[bobhikes]

Interesting I too view the universe as a whole constantly changing. I think I would need more details as to why its perfectly symmetrical and your definitions for intelligence and life.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In truth, the presence of Reality Itself is inherently beginningless, endless and edgeless.

In truth, statements such as this are inherently worthless.

 

[Relinquish]

First, thanks for sharing. I enjoyed your exposition of an organic process-relational worldview and I agree with a lot of what you said. However, I always have trouble with this bit - which seems to me to be an almost theistic turn (if you will forgive the religious undertone of that remark - I'll try to explain below) in this paragraph:



This looks very much to me like what Charles Hartshorne meant by his AP/RP (absolute perfection in some aspects, relative perfection in others) version of his preferred panentheistic deity. Whitehead made a similar turn IMO that also lead him towards a panentheistic model of deity. But what evidence is there to suggest that this perfectly symmetrical and changeless 'presence' is even possible, let alone actually exists, let alone is a necessary existence? Why can change not be the be all and end all of reality? We have absolutely zero experience or evidence of anything that is not - even momentarily - in a constant condition of flux and change. Not one shred of evidence of one single changeless miniscule fraction of a microsecond in the existence of any single sub-atomic to macro-cosmic 'entity' - ever, in the entirety of our collective human experience to suggest that anything changeless could possibly ever have existed.

Whilst I agree with most of your post, and I certainly agree that viewing the entirety of reality as a whole is a very beneficial way of viewing things, I am also mindful that the fragmentation and the striving to become (which is what the whole and the parts are constantly doing) seems to me to be what reality is really about. For me, the most accurate definition of "life itself" might very well be something along the lines of "an organic, organismic, striving to become". And the most useful spiritual and philosophical maneuver, to my mind, is not the attempt to escape the striving, but to embrace the struggle and make our peace with it.

I hope that makes sense and doesn't sound too critical - it wasn't meant to be critical. I enjoyed your post.

Thanks alot for the reply, siti.

You ask, "Why can change not be the be all and end all of reality?". Good question! The fact of the matter is that the change that is going on has a very particular, apparently consistent asymmetrical nature, and this begs the question, "why does it have THIS particular nature rather than any of the potentially infinite other conceivable particular natures that it could have?".

While I realize that this question may be fundamentally unanswerable, I am nevertheless trying to answer it by suggesting a reason why it couldn't possibly be otherwise.

 

[siti]

Thanks alot for the reply, siti.

You ask, "Why can change not be the be all and end all of reality?". Good question! The fact of the matter is that the change that is going on has a very particular, apparently consistent asymmetrical nature, and this begs the question, "why does it have THIS particular nature rather than any of the potentially infinite other conceivable particular natures that it could have?".

While I realize that this question may be fundamentally unanswerable, I am nevertheless trying to answer it by suggesting a reason why it couldn't possibly be otherwise.

Well that last bit is ambiguous - it could be that "it couldn't possibly be otherwise" because of teleology (design/purpose) or inevitability (multiverse, eternal recycling universe). A perfectly symmetrical universe would probably annihilate itself in a couple of Planck ticks and such universes might be popping in and out of existence all the time and we'd never know it.

 

[Relinquish]

In truth, statements such as this are inherently worthless.

Maybe, but I do at least go on in the next few sentences to show my line of reasoning behind the statement.

 

[Relinquish]

Well that last bit is ambiguous - it could be that "it couldn't possibly be otherwise" because of teleology (design/purpose) or inevitability (multiverse, eternal recycling universe). A perfectly symmetrical universe would probably annihilate itself in a couple of Planck ticks and such universes might be popping in and out of existence all the time and we'd never know it.

All good points here, siti. I am in fact positing an eternally recycling universe.

However, there is also the question, "how do life forms ever emerge in a universe which materialistic science describes as being fundamentally non-living?", which I am trying to answer by suggesting that IF the universe is actually fundamentally non-living, then it would simply never be able to give rise to the conscious parts of itself that are commonly known as life forms at any point during it's existence.

Therefore, the universe is not actually fundamentally non-living.

Then comes the (utterly philosophical) question, "WHY is the universal process fundamentally alive?".

The only answer to this question that seems at all plausible to me is that Reality Itself EQUALS Life Itself.