Society & Lifestyle
|Perspective||Share This Page|
Selection & Sustainabilty
|by R. D. Ashby|
A monkey in a forest identifies in appetitive life affection all the forest features, trees, fruit, others of its kind, other animals. As an adapted creature of the forest context, it does this instinctively, or through having acquired knowledge from experience; all objects, and the associated responses to them, as pertaining to its life appetites, being affectively realised through perception, and retained conceptually in instant idea form.
Likewise, for all animals, the instant affective idea form realisation of what is perceived, what action to take, referentially retained, is acquired from instinct or experience, pertaining to its contextual subject formal needs in the appetite to live. To the monkey and the spider, everything, in the instant of the sight or sense of it, realises an affective referential idea form of reliable objectivity, one formed in a life appetite affection, and integral to an affective course of action, which is retained in instant affective idea form.
How living forms are so precisely adapted to survival in their respective habitats is typically reconciled by the scientific observation that they have acquired the particular formal characteristics through random genetic mutation, and then are naturally selected, which selection science does not characterize as an affective process, since there is no acknowledged creative principle affection at work.
It is easy to observe that there is a process of natural selection at work for adaptive forms. It implies the adaptive form is selected for survival in the context of its emergence. Yet, it appears to be a case of the adaptive form being the outcome of random genetic mutation, even though it appears to possess contextual perfection of form. Rather, let the outcome be its own evidence in what is observed to be both adaptive and ephemeral non-adaptive forms. Non-adaptive forms show themselves up as unselected for in a wider context of forms and thus perish. Adaptive forms in being selected show themselves as part of that wider context of forms in which their adaptation is sustained one with the other sustainable forms of the context.
It is the wider context, manifested in mutually affecting sustained contextual forms, that determines the rightness or adaptability of the emergent form, which is thus contextually selected and sustained. This would reveal the creative principle to be in affection of a sustained contextual manifestation of ‘that which is’ or rightness realisation. Thus the non-adaptive form, or even the mal-adaptive form, the so-called freak of nature, in its emergence as contextually identified, proves itself as a contextual rightness realisation, even as the adaptive form realises rightness of form in its contextual emergence, but the latter is selected for in the wider sustained context, whereas the former perishes.
The emergence of the non-adaptive form might argue for the randomness of genetic mutation, but that this is itself one determined by the affective principle for ‘that which is’ or rightness realisation, as defines any contextual act. As the creative principle is one, the rightness realisation that each genetic mutation incurs is manifested in that context; as the rightness realisation that governs the arrangement of atoms in a molecule, the arrangement of those particles that constitute atoms; ultimately, the structural basis of rightness realisation of higher contextual form: in each case, what emerges is a contextual rightness realisation, implicitly of contextual affection for rightness realisation of the creative principle.
Science argues that genetic mutation is of a random nature, occurs over vast stretches of time, and ‘it so happens’ that a particular bird, one of the set of Darwin’s finches, say, develops a specialized beak that gives it a survival advantage in a given habitat.
You could also reasonably infer that the habitat need of a bird for a specific form of beak is directly communicated in the sustained contextual medium to affect the mechanism of gene mutation, which to human eyes appears random, to enable the precise form of beak in the bird. The outcome of adaptive beak form not merely suggests, but confirms in the fact, ‘what is right’ being contextually communicated to effect gene structure, rather than that it is the chance or random mutation of human reckoning. However, that non-adaptive forms also occur in specific contexts where they are destined to failure, would indicate ‘trial and error’ in genetic mutation – but that the non-adaptive form is a contextual rightness realization in its own right, though in the wider sustained context of forms it emerges in it is not selected to survive.
There is an interesting case of selection as affects human society, where men are born blind, or with some other lasting defect, yet are able to survive amidst the sustained rightness forms of normal persons because they are perceived as fellow human beings. This exercise of compassion proves a wider context that sustains the defective human forms in human society, and differentiates humans from other species, where defective forms are unsustainable.
The wider context determines the sustainability of the adaptive forms within it, in which rightness forms can exist sustainably, and life forms can live for a sustained period, in a mutually supportive role, as evidenced in ecosystems. Life forms manifest sustainability in procreation and survival in generations, proving the sustained rightness of context in their own rightness forms. Consider that if all forms had but a brief existence as non-adaptive even in a wider context – there could be no concept of sustainability, since everything as it emerged as a rightness realisation in a sub-context would perish in the wider context.
The universal context of sustainable forms is one into which all locally sustainable contexts blend and are integral to. For example, life on earth is sustainable because the earth’s position in the solar system is sustainable, and so on to a sustainable universe. The sustainability of life on earth is ‘in tune’ with the sustainability of the universe. The contextual affection that realises a context of sustainable forms on earth is the same that realises the sustainable context of heavenly bodies, and sustainability on the level of quantum particles.
Life, thought, compassion, is a sustainable feature in the sustainable context of the universe; in the creative affection that formed the universe as a sustainable contextual process of rightness realisation in all its sustained forms.
|More by : R. D. Ashby|
|Views: 978 Comments: 0|
|Top | Perspective|