God, Matter, and Mind, and Time, Causality, and Symmetry
C. The Machine
The Spirit intercedes on our behalf with sighs too deep for words.
In antiquity, four elements were generally assumed to constitute matter. A fifth element was reserved for the heavens. The laws of nature not having been discovered, the kosmos could not be conceived of as epistemically isotropic. The phenomena coextended with the objects they pertained to, instead of falling into categories. The celestial sphere being one, eternal and unchangeable, it needed a uniform, undifferentiated, undifferentiable element of its own, unencounterable on earth, in the sublunar regions. This Fifth Element (FE) was named ether (aithree, or cloudless, clear) by Aristotle.
A modern advocate for an FE to exist is Ervin Laszlo (1). He considers a fifth field to be necessary to explain the four known basic force fields of physics, and their orthogonality. This fifth field he identifies with the so called Dirac pond, the ontological status of matter at zero energy. Conscious brains are hypothesised to be nodes inside this fifth field, to feed information into it, and to gain insights from it. Thus, the epistemic interrelatedness between immanence and transcendence is kept up, like it was in ancient times between the sublunar and supralunar regions. Reason is considered to be identical as well in the mind of man as in the mind of God – or whatever replaces Him in modern physics. This inability to diffenrentiate reason resulted in the notorious quantum enigmas.
Systems based on orthogonality use paradigms of four dimensions plus a fifth dimension that either is explicitly hypothesised, or is logically implied. The latter is true for Ken Wilberâ€™s four-factorial frame of the immanence (2). It lacks a cause for the four dimensions to be orthogonal unless one assumes a fifth dimension that keeps up the system. Wilber wants to explain evolution by declaring it the overall pattern of the kosmos. Evolution has started in the past, is going on, and will lead to unity with God. This is a sequential model. Sequential models end up in a 7-stage-system rather than in a four or five -dimensional system, and this is true for Wilberâ€™s theory of the evolution, too, with his seventh stage being the final and target one.
The logical flaw in all of these theories is that the Fifth Element cannot again be an element. In a 4-factor-system the cause for the four factors to be orthogonal cannot again be a factor. The FE cannot be part of the system it upholds. The fifth field meant to explain the quality and ontology of the four fields cannot again be a field. The Fifthness is not part of any fourfold system that it creates and supports. Natura creans is different from, and unexplainable out of, natura creata. – Seven-stages-systems are subject to the same criticism – a criticism in fact that is as old as all of these efforts of systematizing so that one wonders how it is possible that philosophers of all eras keep stumbling into this trap – as the seventh stage is transcendent and thus cannot be of the same quality as the immanent stages.
The fifth elements of 4-dimensional static or dynamical systems and the seventh stages of 7-stage sequential systems are identical in quality. Thus, we can neglect dynamical or evolutionary systems mostly New Age thinkers are fond of, and may restrict ourselves to the concept of Fifth Element (FE) as a general term that does include the 7th stage of respective systems. Fourfold dimensional systems constitute search engines for best possible solutions (BPS) to problems. The BPS having been discovered the substrate is destroyed. It must therefore be concluded that the BPS is stored elsewhere, presumably in the FE. As the reason for existence of the latter lies outside the system it maintains, this ontological cause must lie beyond even the FE. The latter thus appears as a screen that images the world to an authority capable of viewing this screen: God. Therefore, God exists. Also, God ek-sists, i.e. He is outworldly.
Up to and including the level of the FE, analyzing the 4-dimensional system and its implications leads to the recognition of the functions and purposes of the system. This property defines any system as a machine. Being a machine, or being costituent of an array of machines, is not compatible with the concept of God. Therefore, God is ek-sistant, outworldly, and is the necessary condition for the existence of the world, e.i. the totality of machines. He is the author of, and benefits epistemically from, evolution. Evolution strives for optimal solutions, only to destroy the substrate once this solution has been found. It destroys what it was after. The solution is taken away from the world, where it was found. Solutions are not for the world. The world does not – immediately – profit from them. They are not handed down in history for the benefit of succeeding species or cultures. There is no direct tradition. There must be an entity that does profit from them, because otherwise the causal structure of the machinery cannot be explained. This entity is out of the world, ek-sistant, transcendental. It is omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal. These are the defining attributes of God. Therefore, God exists. The world cannot tell us anything about Him, at least not in a naive or direct way, as it would be the case in Spinozean pantheism or innerworldly mysticism like Meister Eckardâ€™s, New Age, etc. The mechanism as such would be without sufficient reason without the existence of an author who profits from it. The mechanism is perfect, already. But, God is perfect imperfectness.
The entity the existence of which must be assumed has been called omnipotent, because all causality rests in it. It is omniscient, because it alone is capable of viewing the screen the world is imaged upon. And it is eternal, because it is non-sequential, with sequence being limited to a 7-stage-structure.
The theodicy represented above rests on a proof for concurrence. Concurrence is proven from the structure of the immanence. All immanence is proven to be contingent but structured. As concurrence needs an author or sufficient reason, God is said to exist, and to ek-sist. – A theodicy, this or a better one, if the latter is available, is part of the theory we need for the task we are up against, namely building a conscious computer. (The present author heads a respective research facility.) Any man-made substrate to host human intelligence needs to understand the environment to be contingent and structured, where the structures to be applied are transcendent a-prioris. The imbalance of behaviour as expressed in Letter to the Romans chapter 7 is necessary to cope intelligently with the world. Thus, a theodicy is where Artificial Human Intelligence starts from. It is of immediate practical relevance.
Any cognition, be it human or artificial, I consider to be governed by the three factors time, causality, and symmetry. Agents of cognition exist but three, too, namely God, matter, and mind. The agents themselves are pure monads and independent of each other. There is nothing of the agent Mind in the agent God, nothing of God in Mind, nothing of Mind in Matter, nothing of Matter in Mind, nothing of Matter in God, nothing of God in Matter.
The agents cognize reality. Instead of cognition, I prefer to speak of apperception. God’s apperception is called being, the apperception of the mind is called consciousness, and the apperception of the matter is called potency. Consciousness and potency are related by symmetries. They are related neither by time nor by causality.
Thus, I consider symmetry to establish the ubiquitous nexus of all reality, a function that could not be taken over neither by time nor by causality. – This premise implies, e.g. that the continuity of history is due neither to causality nor to time. A pure history, devoid of time, is conceivable. (Notwithstanding that our considerations about this as any conceptualization cannot do without the indispensable Kantian aprioris.) – Symmetry is a finite principle that follows a strict logic. This logic is five-factorial, where the fifh factor is pure orthogonality. I.e., the fact that the four phenomenal factors are independent is due to a fifth factor that guarantees this orthogonality. In religion, the five factors are personalized as the five supreme Gods, or are represented as as many supreme powers or principles. In Hinduism, the Gods are Indra, Vishnu, Shiva, Sakti, and Krishna, representing will, virtue, time, wile, and knowledge. Monotheistic religions, when analyzed beyond their surface level, reveal the same factorial structure. (Cf. Trinity in Christian religion.)
The elementary forces of physics are four in number: gravity, electromagnetic force, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force. The weak force may be reduced to an aspect of the electromagnetic force, or a fifth force might be introduced to better explain the interdependencies between these four forces. The surprising find remains that the number of forces that keep matter in existence is neither one, nor two, nor many. What is even more baffling is the fact that modern physics did not alter the number of forces hypothesized since antiquity, despite a dramatic change in qualia of forces. Prior to Newton, forces were regarded to be specific to the four elements and to coextend with them. Descartes, e.g. considered celestial objects to be kept in their paths by vortex like motions of a supposed gaseous fluid, the ether, a fifth element specific to the heavens.
The basic structure for symmetrical apperceptions, and therefore the specific structure of explanations wrought by consciousness, is five-dimensional, resulting in four-dimensional explanatory powers. The nexus of all reality does not need to be constructed. It is given apriori. It needs to be discovered. The discovery is equivalent to the formation of a new concept, or to a re-conceptualization of a known concept. Thus the ontology of universals is reality (contrary to the nominalistic position, they are not just names), at least so within this pre-established matter-mind framework man is confined to.
This ontological status rests on the changes in the qualia of the respective universal over time, i.e. through history, and cannot be established empirically. Ontological status is decided about via diachronical analysis, while synchronical analysis refers to methods, i.e. to perceptions, not to apperceptions. This puts time into a causal role for positive ontological status. Time is causal to consciousness and potency. The now, or dimensionless presence, is non-causal, because there is no time in it. Categories of time are two. The A-time, from Greek aion, eternally being, is time at standstill. It is described in Psalm 90, verse 4, where Moses, praying to God, says, â€žFor a thousand years in thy sight are but a yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.â€œ A-time is the result of all that has happened, and the content of all that can ever happen, a content that can be viewed at â€“ by God â€“ at one single glance, abstracting from the flow of time that has brought it about, or will be brought about by it. This flow of time I call C-time, from Greek chronos, the concept of time represented by the revolving stars and measured in days, hours, months, i.e. in repeating portions of time. A-time, in contrary, cannot be measured or portioned, it can only be viewed at.
A-time consists of universals which therefore are as real as are the instances in C-time that are quotations (universalia in re) of them. A-time, e.g. in form of mathematics (universalia ante rem), permits predictions of physical, celestial or whatever realities that are often verified only much later. Thus, A-time is causal to that reality consciousness considers empirical. The effects are substantiated in C-time, from whence they again crystallize into the apriorical consciousness of A-time. Thus the causal loop is closed. A-time, contrary to C-time, possesses Gestalt quality. Its content is over-summative (more than the sum of the data picked up during C-time events), and transposable. The latter property gives rise to creative achievements. The Gestalt property differentiates between the two categories of time. It is equivalent to an interface existing between them.
Instead of attributing causality to entities, or substances, or contents, I focus on the form of time these entities appear in. This time is called their eigen-time. If the eigen-time changes from A to C then the respective entity acquires causal potency, or “autonomy.” Entities without eigen-time cannot be causal. Causality is the interface between A-time and C-time. My friend O. E. Rossler (3) has studied the microcosmic properties of this interface, and has built a theory, called endophysics, around it that allegedly connects Relativity Theory as the C-time face of the interface and Quantum Mechanics as the A-time face of the interface. The idea as such dates back to Goethe who lets his hero Faust say: “Deep falls the night, in gloom precipitate; / What then? Clear light within my mind shines still; / Only the master’s word gives action weight, / And what I framed in thought I will fulfill”, which marks his transgression from C-time to A-time. Henceforth, Faust derives his cognition from a time that is at standstill. The interface he passes is called “Care”, personalized as a woman who, in her monologues, depicts herself as an observer from within. This observer keeps switching between progressive and retrograde forms of time, thus effecting a standstill of cognition and a nullification of thoughtbearing forms of consciousness. The interface does not think. It is intentionless autonomy. Autonomy does not depend on a telos. (Thus, Teilhard is wrong.) – For Heidegger, Care is the deepest source existence can be traced back to: “The being-there is being in the state of concerning about itself.” This notion of a limit of self-insight is compatible with the concept of interface.
Time can be measured (C-time) or viewed at (A-time, exclusively by God), but it cannot be observed. Attributing causality to time instead of to observables means to assume the same type of causality to mind as well as to matter. The bridge between the two is a common structure, the stability as well as the dynamics of which need a sufficient reason. The stabilities of mind as well as of matter are equally in need of explanation. – Using time here leads to important consequences for the management of higher education. The disparities in sciences and humanities are due to employing C-time in arriving at thoughts. (Heidegger: “We do not arrive at thoughts. They arrive at us.”) In doing so, the quality of C-time events of being quotations of A-time universals is forgotten. Quotational speech and thinking (which would heed the transcendent qualia of intentions) is replaced by symmetrical narratizations: The cognizing individual becomes an image of his intentions. Their necessarily fractional quality becomes constitutional for the person’s emotional, cognitive, and motor behaviour. On the academic level this leads to brute materialistic concepts of truth.
It should be kept in mind that the present situation of an over-complexity of knowledge results from an effort to bridge that disparity. The effort consisted in applying the scientific paradigm of physics to all other sciences and the humanities. It resulted from an effort of enlightenment, i.e. from a benevolent motive to educate mankind. We need to be aware of a tragic force that turns benevolence into its contrary. (After all, the Serpent meant to add to the comprehension of mankind.) – The physics paradigm and the motive need to be kept up, but to be understood and applied correctly: Mathematics and physics are A-time sciences, and the humanities need to be designed and understood sameways. This means to develop their mediation from out of their history or historical background. In psychology, e.g., instead of teaching laws of conditioning first that invariably lead to inhumane learning experiments and interventions devoid of dignity, graduate education should start with courses in ancient Greek and Egyptology, where man developed basic notions of the ego, of cognition (often referred to as justice), of motivation, and of individual differences (“virtues”). History and philosophy are equally important for all disciplines in humanities and social sciences in order to gain a personal position of immunity against perplexity, an immunity which to achieve is the aim of all academic education.
C. The Machine
C. 1. Space
The distance between God and man is not a constant, but evolves throughout history. If man inserts something immanent and vicarious between God and himself, then the distance between God and man is increased, and hence the effective power of God is augmented. Recent events of distance augmentation (DA) were the Lutheran reformation, in religious respect, and the French Revolution, and the consequences that entailed it, in secular respect. The latter historical event turned distance enlargement into a self-propelling process by spurring nationalism as well as sciences and technology. Historically, nationalism was the condition of possibility for the industrial revolution. What is more, nationalism must be hypothesized to be the ongoing source of scientific and technological creativity. The author of epistemic thought moved from within the individual to the objective spirit called â€nation.â€ The possibility of this kind of cultural evolution was created in the Letter to the Romans. St. Paul, there, deals with the two possible causes of behaviour, the moral law, and the chaotic drive. The latter causes non-willed behaviour that contradicts better knowledge. This behaviour produces immanent images of the good, the willed, or of the intended. All thought and behaviour produces but images or starts from them, without actually intending these images: A philosophy known from Plato. It implies a permeable spiritual umbilical cord between man and God. It got cut by the proto-Mohamedan Aristotle who maintained that the images or phenomenal world constitute the ultimate reality beyond which nothing is to be found besides a First Unmoved Mover (FUM). The latter he held to have created the phenomenal world in the form still seen today, eternally unchangeable. Thus, he inserted a diaphragm between man and God that augmented the distance between both. Where there had previously been a connection, certain, reliable, although not known in detail, between the realm of ideas and the world of man, now stood the unordered multiplicity of the phenomenal world as an unpenetrable scenery between the world and the beyond. Thus protected, the phenomenal world could get and did get populated by immanent deities who guarded the courses of states and served as immediate legal authorities. People knew right from wrong from knowing the deity the sphere of whom they resided in. The emperor of Rome served as the top deity.
There is a principle of simplification and compliance in this that was adopted by 20th century nazism, the so called Leader Principle (LP). Applying it each individual having to make a decision or about to take action asks himself: â€žWhich is the will of the Leader? How would he act in my place?â€ (cf. (4)) The content of the will of the Leader is equal to the best that can possibly be willed. Besides this content there is nothing else to legitimize the Leader. Thus, the LP is the process that distributes the power of any FUM to all individuals without reducing this power. From the top to the bottom level it is the identical will that is in effect. By copying the omnipotence the distance to the source of the omnipotence as well as the range of omnipotence are augmented. This mechanism is called â€multiple diminishing copying machineâ€ by the chaos theoreticist H.-O. Peitgen (5). Its first description is given in Letter to the Romans 5,12.
Nationalism inevitably leads to totalitarianism, because the latter is nothing else than the perpetuation of the diaphragm inserted between man and God. Totalitarianism is the test for this diaphragm. It passes the test, if it generates further augmentations of distance and makes Godâ€™s increasing power being felt. The most mighty diaphragm obviously consists in the total destruction of the world and creating it anew out of nothing (â€nihilâ€). This approach has been dubbed nihilism by Turgenjev (1818 – 1883). Nihilism is part of the conquerance of Western culture by Eastern culture. Richard Wagner (1813 – 1883) made his figure Lohengrin say â€Great emperor, receive this prophecy from me: A great victory will be given to you. Even in farthest days troops from the East shall never invade into Germany!â€ – The contrary to that poetic divination happened right there and then in the form of Russian orthodoxy gaining control over Western thought, as it had done before in the Lutheran reformation. In orthodoxy, the center of belief neither is truth, nor law, nor logos, but is Jesus Christ in his human aspect, considered to be alive in flesh. This is mirrored in Martin Lutherâ€™s very personal relationship to his God. The peace of Augsburg (â€Cuius regio, eius religioâ€, A.D. 1555) aristotelized Platonic Lutherism, and inserted the secular command over the belief between the people and their God. Dissenters, like the Mennonites, Baptists, etc. were exterminated without mercy. As a rule, any section of a society that resists distance augmentation is eliminated. This refers to Jews as well as to low living people. This is a law of cultural evolution. It is reasonable in the sense of the Letter to the Romans, because DA is the process by which the omnipotence of God is assured. The holocaust was a form of worship. To deny it having happened, as some neo-Nazis do, is an act of blasphemy. In contrary, the laws of cultural evolution demand to make it permanent by continually identifying DA resistants, i.e. new victims for the distance augmenters once the till then surviving distance minimizers have been extincted.
The authority of any administration is put to test by its ability to identify groups of the society that reside parallel to the constitutional hierarchy. The competition for the control of the administration is about giving proof of ability to identify respective sections of the society. In a democracy, the pretenders to power compete by pointing out, as convincingly as they are apt to do, groups to be considered enemies within. A democracy does not know about mercy, because its very reason of existence rests on its ability of exclusion. This exclusion hits those classes of the society that carry hope for redemption that is independent of the nation, and would not be met by the latter. Classes, in contrary, the hope for redemption of which is targeted at the state, are considered supportive of the latter, and are being pampered by the administration, even if they are of alien language and ethinicity. The aforesaid para-national hope for redemption may have risen on religious or other traditional grounds, or may simply be the result of social decline and poverty. This is of no importance, as it is only the result that counts. The respective classes are called â€mobs.â€ They are distance minimizers, because they do not acknowledge the state as a mediator between them and redemption. The mob is the most important part of any democracy, because the very prevailance of the latter rests on the identifyability of a mob class, or classes.
C. 2. Time
The greatest catastrophy in history, the 20th century holocaust, has put history to the test of being of any sense. Let us depart from the hypothesis that history is neither by chance nor mercy, neither caused nor developed, but is a thought. A thought is devoid of time. History is an image of time at standstill. Historical events never were these as such in their phenomenal appearance, but were, and always are, epiphenomena of forms. The appearance of these pure forms of historical events is independent of, i.e. not causally linked to, previous historical events. Forms are autonomous. Reactions to events may restrict the phenomenal range of variance of future events, but cannot trigger forms to become manifest. Forms are eternal. They make up a time that can be imagined to be at a standstill. This time I call A-time, after the Greek aion, eternally being.
The concept of â€autonomyâ€ simply denotes our ignorance about the when and how of forms becoming activated. There is an optimism as to eventually learning about these very processes, and this optimism is positive in a number of ideologies of omnipotence. The latter date back to Kant and Hegel, both of whom modernized the ancient assertion there to exist just a single logic and a single intelligence, so that God could not possess neither one of these in a form superior to that featured by man. Consequently, man would eventually be to recognize anything God recognizes, and would eventually be to know Godâ€™s very thoughts, and would finally recognize God Himself. This ideology led to designs of integrating manifolds into onenesses. In Romans 5, 18 it is Jesus alone who possesses the power of reintegration. The proponents of Russian maximalism (Solovjev, Berdjajev) suggested the unification of all religions into one super-religion, and the integration of sciences, philosophy, and religion into one super-science, etc. European history ever since Napoleon must be understood as the strife for the conquest of this promised oneness. If the One is anything that exists then there is only a choice between the best possible or the nothing. Thinking and doing then oscillate between alleged omnipotence and total destroyal. Only one people can be the best and hence can be worthy to rule the world. This entailed the fight between the respective competitors on one hand (world wars) and the hatred against any of these by peoples being chanceless even to enter the contest (3rd world). History passed this by, but in physics the ideology of the One survived in the doctrine of Relativity Theory there to be no faster speed than that of light. Viewed from Romans, this strife for the oneness is mere millennarism.
The control of A-time over epistemics grew such that the latter designed the universe as centered around a FUM, gravitation. Gravitation determines the structure of space and explains all of its phenomena. Causality for epistemics as well as for being obviously rests in (A-) time. The classes of a society differ by their concept of time. The distance minimizers or Ba-people live in A-time, the distance augmenters or Ka-people dwell in C-time.
A-time cannot be remembered, but can only be viewed at. C-time cannot be viewed at, but can only be remembered. It comes to an end at the now, and cannot be predicted with certainty. The parallel classes of the society thus represent two incompatible modes of thought. They are eye and ear of the â€objective spiritâ€ (Hegel). Their envy and enmity is not about to have and have not, it is about a way of being. The two modes of being are equivalent to the two modes of time. They meet by mutual extinction.
The question arises, which mode causes the encounter. The fact that it is invariably the Ba-people who are the victims is no final proof that the causality rests with C-time. Rather, having located causality in A-time with respect to the conquest of the One, it is to be assumed that causality as such is an exclusive property of A-time. This would imply that the eternally being (aion) time and again sacrifices its substrate, the Ba-people. The sacrifice, in general, is ritual assurance of access to A-time, an access upon which the C-people, the Ka, depend as well. The ritual is accompanied by narratizations meant to provide reasons for the ritual. In fact, these narratizations are irrelevant in that they are no inherent part of the sacrifice. They are signals that signal the presence of A-time. Their content may be, in the case of pogroms, that the Jews stole children from the Christians and ate them, or, in present day, the German chancellor may point out white trash to be eliminated for the mere guilt of being white trash. Any such content merely defines the narratization as a signal that signals the uncaused and unconceivable presence of a time Form, i.e. of A-time. The activity of the Form thus is, as it merely can be, communicated, but it can neither be triggered nor stopped.
There are two times, two parallel classes in society, and two mentalities. This system based on the number Two I call duality. The analogies and differences in dualities are linked by symmetries. These symmetries are specific to dualities and differ from symmetries in trialities, quadralities, and so on. – From the perspective of C-time the latter contains alien stretches of time that cannot be deducted from previous periods. They are downloads of A-time onto C-time. Using a term borrowed from music I call such a period a â€stretta.â€ During a stretta epistemics is controlled by paradigms of oneness, and in society the parallel classes of Ka and Ba are reduced to one by burning the Ba-people. The paradigms take the form of revelations. These donâ€™t reveal anything new, though, but are primitive adaptations of ideologies specific to the to be extinct Ba. Their spiritual heritage thus is adopted by the Ka, whereupon the Ba are thrown into the fire.
Sacrifice is determined by a negative, recursive aspect of the sacrificing people being projected into the object being sacrificed, usually an animal, and being eliminated with it. The negative aspect is part of the very essence of the sacrificing people, because of which the ritual has to be repeated in regular intervals. Let us call that negative aspect â€sin.â€ The sin of the Ka-people obviously is their very way of existence by inserting distance between them and God. This achievement rests on a deep conviction of inferiority. Neither are they able to conceive of God as a concept, nor to conceive of themselves as living under His face. Therefore, they keep constructing stages of approaching between themselves and Him. This is the process of cultural evolution. The Ka is where cultural evolution takes place. The matter that that process uses, and actually uses up, is the spiritual heart of the Ba. The stepstones that enlarge the distance are chiseled from Ba marble. As soon as this resource gets exhausted, the Ka perish. Both parallel classes of the society, Ka and Ba, are linked by mutual symbiosis. The Ba are in fact parasites, as Nazi and neo-Nazi politicians would have them, because they live materially on the Ka. The Ka in return feed on the spirit of the Ba.
The A-time, not the C-time profits from the strettas. True, it is during a stretta that scientific and technological achievements appear in the world, and exclusively do so during a stretta, not during regular C-time periods. What is new to the world, though, from the perspective of A-time is mere narratization and primitivation. The qualitative content of these is of much less importance than their signalling function. They signal a stretta. Einsteinâ€™s Relativity Theory and a Nazi politicianâ€™s verdict against Ba-people qualitatively lie on the same level. Both signal the presence of a period of time that is under the control of the paradigm of oneness, a control that encomprises epistemics, religion, and philosophy alike. These primitivations invariably are accompanied by a denial of space in favour of time, the latter ofcourse in its aspect of standstill. The earth is considered a unified one, and all action is guided by this aspect of the earth as being a non-differentiated unity. The narratization proper is called â€globalization.â€ Or, the ideology is promulgated that new space for the life of the nation needs to be conquered elsewhere, an ideology which, too, implies a de-differentiation and de-potenzation of space.
The Einsteinian Theory of Relativity is a transposition of the Egyptian religion onto physics. This is a primitivation, because by this occupancy of religion by physics alternative future transpositions are rendered impossible. This process I call materialization: Spirituality is occupied and annihilated by declaring it a structural property of matter subject to scientific methods and measures. Spirituality is employed to predict physics, or to construct recognition.
The prediction gained is much poorer in intension as well as extension than that out of which it was won. Within the predicted or constructed materialization right or false, best possible or junk are the single alternatives. Anyone alleging the possibility of there being a third alternative is considered a naturally born enemy within this world of the One. It is a world that tolerates only consent, which is equivalent to saying that it is intolerant in the highest degree. The control of behaviour is perfect. Author of the control is the incumbent of the best possible solution. This authority I call the â€Leader.â€ Those not in possession of the BPS mirror the Leader by imaging atavistic, outdated, immature, less than possible solutions of the Leader, formerly held by him. They know these atavisms, and hence know how to act, namely by imaging them, without needing to be told. This knowledge about a called for behaviour is aprioric under condition of the Leader Principle. This is a powerful feature of the LP. It always prepares for new land to discover. To the realm of the known no leadership is possible.
The machine-like world under the rule of the One makes one wonder how this machine works and to whose benefit. The principle implies that the oneness is maintained through arbitrary degrees of fractality. No author of action is superior to any other, and each exerts complete control of behaviour over any other. The LP is mutually active in all members of the society. This is possible only if all objects of behaviour are imaged in any subject of behaviour. In this case any communication is controlling and obedient at the same time. It always responds to objective stimuli by reproducing symmetrical responses. For all to be represented in any subject the latter needs to be a fractal of the whole. This is implied in the paradigm of the imperative of the One.
A stretta is that process by which a wholeness is broken down into fractals. The fractals are phenomena of the world and in so far as they are subjects of behaviour I call them agents. Any agent mirrors the world comprehensively. There is no part of the world that is not mirrored by the agent. There does exist a realm outside of the phenomenal world, and it, too, is mirrored in the agent. The mode of mirroring in this case is by absence. This realm encomprises the Unbearable Knowledge (UK) for which there is no symmetrical correspondence in the agent. This negative knowledge forces the agent to differentiate the world. The single means for the agent to use in this task is its own construction principle of multiplical symmetrical imaging. The agent assimilates the world. By this process its power of differentiating is enhanced. The agent accomodizes to the world. Both processes of internal growth enlarge the distance between the agent and the UK. The augmentation of distance thus turns out to be an evolutionary process under the control of the negative knowledge.
Evolution neither is autonomous nor is its own author. Autopoiesis is wrong. It does monitor itself, though, and somehow â€measuresâ€ whether the mode of absence is still possible. As soon as this is no longer the case the monitor stops the evolutionary process, the orthogenesis, by switching off the immune system of the agents. This applies to the quasi-species of the Ka. The question as to how the Ba bear the UK leads on to an alternative mode of cultural evolution. The Ka evolve, by DA, in the course of their own history, C-time, to ever higher stages of civilization, until they are finally switched off. The Ba cope with the UK by the mode of substitution. They deny symmetry. They reduce the me that might image the UK. Substitution is of two possible forms, time and space. The Ba migrate in both forms. Their para-national hope for redemption is pointed towards an unspecified future for which they live. The stably localized Ba deny their individual, specific time, and conceive of themselves as the by mere chance being present ones out of an indefinite sequence of generations. They conceive of this sequence of generations as being there in reality. The de-differentiation of individuality consequences a same of the soul so that concepts of parempsychosis are about: While the bodies change, the soul stays, true, or almost so, to the respective locality. All cognition and behaviour is deiktic, pointing away from the subject to something other than the subject, something that differs by space, or time, or qualitatively. Any possible evolution of the Ba can only refer to one of these three forms of the mode of substitution. Ba who migrate in space also migrate in time and substitute their spaceous change by a temporal one. Those who adhere to their space keep the time at standstill, too, and point away from themselves to a general virtual individual of whom they, the living, are minor copies. Anything worldly they conceive of as either a symbol, or a sign, or a vision, or, at best, as a negative or blueprint, but never as the true reality. The Ba thus live in a world in which space and time run perfectly synchronously. This is the prerequisite for the option of substituting space for time and vice versa at any instant. The mode of substitution may also be called the Seth Principle. It serves as the Ba-specific defense against the UK. Cultural evolution in this mentality consists of the evolution of the symbols, of the signs, of the visions, and of the blueprints that substitute the world and ward off UK. In the course of history the world, by this process, gets more and more mysterious, while the symbols, signs and visions gain in reality. That made-up world is no less logic, though, than the real world, just in an alternative way so. To recognize and explain this logic, higher and ever higher built structures of erudition are being created, which to accomplish, in the least, requires a learned literature. The world becomes readable, and truth resides in books instead of in creation. The knowledge accumulated mandates checking itself for internal consistency, because, otherwise the goal, i.e. the augmentation of the epistemic powers of the symbols, signs, and visions, might be missed. From internal consistency follow predictions about the world that so far in history have always proven to be true. The Ba do not evolve, they evolve something for someone, namely mind stuff for the Ka.
The predictive knowledge of the Ba, regardless as to how it is expressed (as art, science, or religion), is the more abstract the farther the Ka-people or distance enlargers have managed to expel God out of the world. The Ka and Ba processes are complementary, and none alone can enhance better knowledge about the world. Never in history did any ethnic group dwell in an ecological niche that would have permitted to do without such a gain of knowledge about the world, not withstanding that a few retreating peoples are known to have maintained a stable culture for longer periods of time in peri-arctic or tropic regions. We therefore must assume that a monitor exists that watches the existence of each Ka-Ba parallel classes society, that measures the communication between these two classes, and that switches off the respective civilization in reaction to the breakdown of the system. This Ka-Ba-duality (6) of coping with the impossible apperception (or UK) is the prime gadget a conscious computer needs to feature.
(1) LASZLO, Ervin: The Whispering Pond. Rockport 1996.
(2) WILBER, Ken: Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. Boston 1995.
(3) ROSSLER; O.E.: Endophysics. In: Real Brains, Artificial Minds. (Casti & Karlqvist, eds.) New York 1987.
(4) ARENDT, Hannah: The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York 1951
(5) PEITGEN, H.-O., H. Jurgens & D. Saupe: Fractals for the Classroom. New York 1992.
(6) The terms Ka and Ba are introduced according to: JAYNES; Julian: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Boston 1976. cf. Also: ASSMANN, Jan: Stein und Zeit. Munich 1991.