As the most complete expression of holopoiesis, the creative evolution of the universe as a whole can be characterized as a non-linear yet progressive transition from an initial state of near-absolute heteronomy affected by externally related, differential mechanisms to an end state of near-absolute autonomy enjoyed between internally related, integrated organisms — an asymptotic movement from necessity to freedom — which fractally instantiates, at the macroscopic level, the same process undertaken by each and every occasion of experience at the microscopic level. From base to apex (from the quantum mechanical to the cosmological), the entire holographic universe at every scale is transcendentally constituted by this immanent movement towards self-emancipation, felt as the concrete experience of “unity-in-diversity” or being in communion with others.
Since there is no communion that is not recognized as such (according to the law of dependent origination) by at least one of its members, far from being an aberration in the development of cosmic history, consciousness is a necessary yet contingent arising begotten by the same forces governing the matters of matter prior to its own genesis. Neither an accident of blind probability nor fashioned all-at-once by a creator deity, consciousness is nothing but a higher-order, emergent property of the self-compelled, macroscopic integration of microscopic proto-conscious events (which are neither sentient nor insentient), functioning as a novel form of agency in its own right non-reductively supervening over its constitutive members.
The dialectics of recognition initially structuring the relationship between different consciousnesses vying for self-recognition from each other at their embryonic stage of development gives way to an advancing maturation into a dialogic of reciprocal transformation through which each consciousness comes to recognize the other as a condition for its own existence, thereby disclosing the open-emptiness of their shared reality together in order to make space for the coming reality that is to include and transcend them.
In short: it is in the nature of nature to awaken from the nescient slumber of numbing isolation to the communal rapture of omniscient cognizance, and this process of awakening is programmatically inscribed into the very fabric of space-time itself understood as a cumulatively evolving series of boundless events or occasions of experience. Elaboration on the concept of holopoiesis would consist of a systematic description of this process, articulated in the most general sense as a cyclical coalescence of the two ultimates — open-emptiness and inclusive transcendence — in which their separation and consummation recursively iterates until a difference can no longer be apprehended, a terminus coinciding with the end of the present universe.
3 Replies to “A Self-Emancipating Universe”
As the most complete expression of the entropic principle, the creative dissolution of the universe as a whole can be characterized as a non-linear yet progressive transition from an initial state of near-absolute autonomy enjoyed between internally related, integrated organisms to an end state of near-absolute heteronomy affected by eternally related, differential mechanisms— an asymptotic movement from freedom to necessity— which fractally instantiates, at the microscopic level, the same process undertaken by each and every occasion of experience at the macroscopic level. From apex to base (from the cosmological to the quantum mechanical), the entire holographic universe at every scale is transcendentally constituted by this immanent movement of self-emancipation, felt as the concrete experience of “unity-in-dissolution” or being in communion with others….
haha I see what you’re trying to do here but the pattern isn’t quite reversible like this. For instance, the universe as far as we know it doesn’t begin with organisms but with the successive genesis of subatomic particles and forces which are relatively “mechanistic” in contrast to the “organic” processes that crystallize much later in cosmic history (though for Whitehead’s philosophy of organism even these “mechanical” developments have an organic character).
For me this process of holopoiesis is not opposed to entropy although it does seem to be negentropic as a consequence of the immanent movement towards self-emancipation as being-in-communion. Dissolution is a necessary part of the process of coalescence, since each moment passes away to make space for the next moment (just like how death and life are conditions for each other).
I’m trying to move in a direction in my work where it’s not necessary to qualify every positive view with a negative counterpart or vice versa in an effort to avoid giving precedence to either the positive or the negative. Instead I want the positive to be implicit in the negative (such as my work with Unphilosophy) and the negative to be implicit in the positive (like in my work here).
Glad to see your light hearted “haha”. Yes I could see as I wrote that it wasn’t quite reversible but I couldn’t resist. As you say one could dispense with the mechanical perspective altogether as whitehead does, although I haven’t read him to any great extent, my engagement being wholly intended to contextualise my practice. I recently finished reading Thomas Nail’s Being and motion and his book on Lucretius. I found them very helpful. He has dispensed altogether with mechanical materialism, physicalism or the dialectic.There’s something a little contrived in his elaboration of the idea of the fold and its relation to sensuousness but his extension of awareness to all organised entities , living or otherwise. is astonishing in an avowed materialist.
Anyway, appreciate reading here very much.