02.28.09
More on ‘end of history’
End of eonic sequence, end/beginning of history
The history of vitalism is very tricky, as is the critique of it in the coming of scientism. The problem is that we have to name a ‘biological force’ to fill the slot created by the invocation of ‘vitalism’ as an abstraction. That is hard to do. In any case standard science’s devotees are so traumatized or up in arms at the mere used of the word that it becomes counterproductive. However, the point is that we sense the existence of some larger factor in evolution, something to ‘drive’ macroevolution, and the existence of that larger framework is hard to gainsay.
As to the end of history, it is not my job to explain it, and it can be difficult to make sense of Hegel here, especially once you read some of the history of the idea, which is really that of Kojeve and then of Fukuyama. So it is not the same as my ‘end of the eonic sequence’. Anyway, the echoes of Hegel in the eonic model are fascinating, but only that, fascinating.
Stephen P. Smith said,
February 28, 2009 at 3:21 pm
On vitalism: It is enough to note that something fundamental, or acausal, relates to life and evolution and provides the grounding of a space-time fabric that cannot otherwise be caricatured. One does not have to go as far as the felt fundamentality (as I have done), to understand this.Contrary to common belief, the discoveries of biochemistry do not rule out my vitality hypothesis because such a pretense commits the fallacy of excluded middle. Its that simple!
Regarding the connection of the “cunning of reason” with the”end of history”: We might note that something fundamental remains beyond our egocentric awareness while this knowledge remains available to the cunning of reason (for those capable of precognition). The end of history points to the passing of conflict, however, when the egocentric awareness also discovers what is found fundamental.
Stephen P. Smith said,
February 28, 2009 at 8:05 pm
[.... The problem is that we have to name a ‘biological force’ to fill the slot created by the invocation of ‘vitalism’ as an abstraction.]
This is only a problem for a scientism that is unwilling to remain within its range of application. As soon as this scientism ventures beyond this range, with its narrow assertion about the absence of vitality, scientism is no longer science but a fool that continues to be a victim of its own narrow definitions.
Science carries the responsibility to study reality the way it is, and not the way it ought to be for scientism. And one does not need a “name” to make a caricature of what is found self-evident and vital. What is there must be discovered, and we must bring no preconceptions, and we must therefore tame what is dearest to us. Only those that have not yet reached the summit need a name. Otherwise, we cannot demand that the name giver be itself a mere name, as what we are approaching is the acausal boundary that underwrites the panpsychist will that Schopenhauer discovered. See my review of Skrbina’s “Panpsychism in the West” for more about this “will” that science must face and that scientism can’t name:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3G04N7OB2VD8B/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
Yet what is self-evident and vital, remains despite the crises in science.
nemo said,
February 28, 2009 at 11:05 pm
I feel that this is what happens when I compromise with Hegel’s ideas: the end of history is not my idea.
So I am not sure what it means, does anyone?
Stephen P. Smith said,
March 1, 2009 at 12:36 pm
If there is to be a teleology (either natural or supernatural) then the “universe” shows a direction (note that I put the word universe in quotations to permit at Kant’s transcendent). The second law of thermodynamics hints of a direction once we appreciate that the second law is starkly real and left unexplained by the highly touted statistical arguments that are found incomplete.
Now back to your question: the problem is that science, say defined in a narrow context so as to permit scientism, is not consistent with the universe’s directive. Scientism tries to name everything and then subject the named phenomenology to the old science; they are stuck in the word game that has now been falsified. My treatment of the “word game” is well describe in my above review of Skrbina’s “Panpsychism in the West,” and it is well worth the read for this reason alone; particularly, if the meaning of vitalism is now being questioned.
What is needed, however, is for scientists to transform as they approach the acausal while bringing the right level of self-discipline. Otherwise, they would not be in line with the universal directive and they will go off path into something like scientism. Remember, we are approaching something that provides the source for our apparent volition, and there need only be One source for absolute determinism to fail.
Also, my review of B. Alan Wallace’s “Embracing Mind” is worth study if it is our hope to transform scientists and move them away from scientism:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1BGH92LKQ53DB/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm