Contextual Rightness Realisation vs Natural Selection

When I take a walk my eyes survey the general scene. Everything that is seen is identifiable, represented in the idea form it is perceived as. People, trees, cars, the vast panorama of a view of London from an elevated position, everything is perceived and identified on a wave of now realisation. All these things are perceived as fixed idea forms in a context where they affect each other as idea forms. Whole enactments are stored in the mind in instant idea forms that occur to me in specific contextual circumstances as ‘that to do’ or ‘that done’. The whole body of my knowledge rests in the instant of the now I contextually realise it to be in idea form.

This act of now realisation is a mark and function of all living creatures: for it is the now realisation of their circumstances, in idea form, that enables them to respond in those circumstances to the forms perceived. The structure of a living form defines the capacity to form a representation in now realisation of contextual forms perceived and so respond to them. Each living form is a centre of now realisation of its perceived contextual circumstances. It both realises idea forms of existing things and actions in that context, and is itself identified and responded to as to idea form or identity.


Scientific observation of living forms concludes that they are the result of genetic mutations over vast periods of time; but as to asking how this occurs is to rest the case in actually observed natural selection. The term ’natural selection’ is a home-made device given virtual subject status as though effecting the precise changes in what is observed to be the evolution of living forms; and though each living form may be indicative of a searching power of resolution in its formation, the presence of a living, thinking, acting subject behind the observed process is denied because the former is unobserved and the link between the two is not discerned.

Natural forms, both inanimate and animate, come into existence as contextual rightness forms affecting each other as identity forms.  Chromosomes, for example, contextually affect each other as identity forms, interacting to produce the necessary genetic structure in the living host.  This assumes an insight into the end result of chromosomal interaction that can only be realised by a contextual affection for that end guiding the process.  The molecules that combine to make up specific chromosomes are composed of atoms with characteristics that enable them to combine as contextual rightness forms, but to the end determined by the same contextual affection. This implies the contextual affection is for manifestation of contextual rightness of forms at all levels in their respective emergence.  Atoms, chromosomes, organs and bodies, life itself, communities of living forms, through all is the one affection for rightness realisation acting to an end.  It appears, the uniqueness of this subject affection for rightness realisation in all existing contexts eliminates it from credibility because it has no evident identity form of its own. As a result the process of existence, as the realisation of all identity forms in affection of rightness each in a context of its emergence, appears to spontaneously occur, and is attributed to a virtual subject entity called natural selection.

Each natural form is an ‘idea form’ realisation in the context of its existence, an identity form fulfilling the contextual affection for manifestation of rightness, and affects other contextual forms, and is affected by them as identity forms. Each animal form is the fulfilling act of the context in which it is formed, a rightness form of those circumstances, manifested in the sustainability of its contextual life. A living form forms concepts of things perceived that are objective to its realising appetitive affections, more importantly, that realise in concept how things actually are in contextual existence, proving things to be of a conceptual nature as perceived identities.

One has only to look at the subtle features of a robin red-breast to realise that it is a contextual idea form that has been carefully fashioned, ostensibly through natural selection, as virtual subject process, to achieve rightness of form in the contextual existence. In reality, manifesting rightness of form proves an affection for rightness of form inherent to the context of its formation. Along comes a scientist, who carefully studies the robin’s characteristics and feels he has made a discovery, without acknowledging that what he knows and yet more of what he doesn’t know is already contextually known to perfection and is there to be merely observed by science. The robin is a contextual rightness form proving an affection for contextual rightness of form – the problem being the subject of the realising affection is invisible; therefore though the action is visible the enactor is not; therefore the robin appears as an automatic result of a process called natural selection. This raises the question as to why natural selection acts as though in affection of rightness of form, when it has no rhyme or reason to.

There is manifestation in the form observed as naturally selected of being in harmony with its context, where, if living, it both identifies other contextually perceived forms and is itself identified. The argument put forward that there is no acting subject affective of an end in every identity form is derived from what appears to be a tentative process, having many failures, with a measure of success put down to chance, which rules out the concept of a perfect creative subject called God. But this is to impose expectation of subject action that could identify the subject to get it right first time, not what appears to be trial and error as against the contention of the creationists, upholders of such a Divine being, who, they maintain, created the world in fully formed things and relatively recent living creatures.  In fact, the universal creative subject is in affection for rightness of form and acts for this realisation, but contextually, whereby every single form that emerges, at every step of the process, is a contextual rightness form, transitory freaks or ‘mistakes’ of nature included. That is why the readily identifiable forms of creation are there where they occur. It is the larger context of forms that determines the viability of those forms that survive, as rightness forms, and sets contextual rightness of form as the criterion for survival or existence for a given environment of forms.  Frogs do not appear in a sandy desert; but the contextual affection for rightness of form creates frogs as they are contextually right forms in an appropriate context.   A two-headed baby is not a mistake though labelled a freak of nature, but is a rightness form of the specific circumstances that contextually brought it into existence.  

What we observe primarily are the identity forms of things, then observe that they exist in a context which both accommodates them, which we call the environment, consisting of identity forms that are sustained in a contextual existence. The environment of identity forms is a comprehensive ecosystem each of the forms plays a role in sustaining. This is true for inanimate forms, as well as for animate. Why this should occur is a mystery resolved only in the according to each form rightness in identity in the process of identity forms that is sustained contextually. The quality of rightness introduces a principle of rightness in the formation of things enshrined in the so-called laws of nature. Science observes this and derives all its laws from the observation of what is perceived to be the case as right as against what is contrary or wrong. Science goes no further, asks no questions as to what is the independent nature of this principle of rightness that orders everything. To it, existence has plainly no subject cause, yet the conceptual nature of identity form points rationally to a subject source.


More by :  R. D. Ashby

Top | Perspective

Views: 3484      Comments: 0