More on level two and three

To continue where I left off in my previous posting: level two seems to entail the source of cycles. Very mystically, the Aeons represent time-periods in which particular facets of consciousness/energy are being developed. We can also expect something like "timers", "pacers", etc., to have their origin here. The notion of recurrence has already been mentioned in respect to hyparxis and autopoiesis. Organisms have to maintain themselves, homeostasis, etc. and they need food/energy from outside sources to do that. Exchange of substances, circulation in a sense is expected to accomplish that feature.

Level three shows the building of form, the organization of form and function, in the Young model there is stage 3, the taking on of a center. In esoteric teaching there is the idea of elementals (micro-elements, life-atoms, whatever you want to call these building blocks of life) taking a form that is organized by some (semi)conscious factor - be it plants, animals or humans. We can take stage 5 and stage 6 as the ensemble of psychophysiological forces, in stage 5 less developed qualities and in stage 6 more or higher developed qualities - something to research a little deeper. Keep in mind that plants are not the stupid creatures one might be inclined to think. No, there is now proof that some plants recognize certain predators and produce chemicals to attract the enemies of such predators. A guy at Wageningen University  has researched that stuff, I believe for his PhD. Fascinating.

Stage 4 can be taken as a combination of combinations between "stages" (be it substances, elements, functions). In a simple way one can look at this stage as the infrastructure ("body") of an organism, and look at the psychological/cognitive functions as higher "stages" (or possibilities, spheres, influences, functions, energies) expressing themselves through the body. It all boils down to a very intricate meshwork of hierarchical-heterarchical components forming an ensemble, sometimes designated as holarchy. I suppose that biologists know quite some things about  the cell at this point in time (certainly more than about embryology), so this might provide a good starting point for a study of biological process.

Comparing Bennett's ideas to Young's work

Comparing the ideas of Arthur Young with John Bennett can be fruitful. It made me realize that Bennett's hyparxis, a time-like power, actually has a lot to do with level two in the Young model. In modern parlance one could say that agency has to do with level two (and with level one). Will, related to the concept of hyparxis,  is active on level two. On a similar note, we can say that the Ancients related Kundalini, the Life-force or shakti, to adaptation of and to the environment. As I have written in an evaluative article about Young (see my ebook),  level two has to do with interaction with the environment taken in the widest sense.

The 'axis'  Level two-Level one seems to me correlated to the inner flow of consciousness. Also, decision making seems to involve level two (emotions, a.o. in the Young model, stage 6) and level one. Lots to research!

On a sidenote: Bennett associates the property of 'spin' with hyparxis (for photons/elementary particles). Something to keep in mind. Light is the connecting factor between the Macro, level 1, and level two ('soul' level in Young's model). Stage six is important in my own fourfold model as it is the intermediate regulating factor between level 1 and the lower levels.

Interaction and events seem primary to time to me. Time looks like an abstraction. Thinking about this, I realized that a proper designation for level two might be something like 'Duration', rather than time. It also is the level where all kinds of elements are unfolded from the bosom of level one. Stage two in Young's model could be correlated  with the Serpent force (Kundalini) about which Subba Rao had some interesting things to say. More about him in another posting.

One more thing: stage six is on the right side of the sevenfold arc as per Young. It seems to have to do with regulation (astrological symbol: planet Mars). Sometimes the ancient symbol of Scorpio (generation) is associated with stage 6 (which can also be taken as transformation in a spiritual sense - when appropriate. There is so much symbology applicable here. Think of the Eagle with the serpent in its claws - the symbol of regulated life-force, ideally spiritual Regeneration.). Stage two has also designated a symbol: Jupiter-Zeus-Chronos (Chronos as Duration rather than time!). How Sagittarius fits in is not entirely clear to me, but it seems to be correlated with the many classes of micro-elements that are generated at this level. In esoterism, the nine prajapatis (with Jupiter making the tenth) seem to be mightily involved with this - the Gnostics have their system of Aeons (Time-Duration again!) which has a whole lot of meanings attached (see Simon Magus in his Gnostic system).

What I am looking for in all this is formost generative force, regulation, interaction, adaptation, selection out of available options, choice, to name a few correlatives to this level. One can expect that biological systems will display some or all of these features. Recurrent life (force) is something that can be correlated with hyparxis too, and it makes sense when we think about autopoietic systems that rebuild themselves constantly.

It pays off to do some study of ancient symbols when researching the fundaments of a true holistic science!

Comparing Bennett to Young

Comparing the ideas of Arthur Young with John Bennett's can be fruitful. It made me realize that Bennett's hyparxis, a time-like power, actually has a lot to do with level two in the Young model. In modern parlance one could say that agency has to do with level two (and with level one). Will, related to the concept of hyparxis,  is active on level two. On a similar note, we can say that the Ancients related Kundalini, the Life-force or shakti, to adaptation of and to the environment. As I have written in an evaluative article about Young (see my ebook),  level two has to do with interaction with the environment. Level two-level one seems to me correlated to the inner flow of consciousness. Also, decision making seems to involve level two (emotions, a.o.) and level one. Lots to research!

On a sidenote: Bennett associates the property of 'spin' with hyparxis (for photons/elementary particles). Something to keep in mind. Light is the connecting factor between the Macro, level 1, and level two ('soul' level in Young's model). Stage six is important in my own fourfold model as it is the intermediate regulating factor between level 1 and the lower levels.

Interaction and events seem primary to time to me. Time looks like an abstraction. Thinking about this, I realized that a proper designation for level two might be something like 'Duration', rather than time. It also is the level where all kinds of elements are unfolded from the bosom of level one. Stage two in Young's model could be correlated  with the Serpent force (Kundalini) about which Subba Rao had some interesting things to say. More about him in another posting.

One more thing: stage six is on the right side of the sevenfold arc as per Young. It seems to have to do with regulation (astrological symbol: planet Mars). Sometimes the ancient symbol of Scorpio (generation) is associated with stage 6 (which can also be taken as transformation in a spiritual sense - when appropriate. There is so much symbology applicable here. Think of the Eagle with the serpent in its claws - the symbol of regulated life-force, ideally spiritual Regeneration.). Stage two has also designated a symbol: Jupiter-Zeus-Chronos (Chronos as Duration rather than time!). How Sagittarius fits in is not entirely clear to me, but it seems to be correlated with the many classes of micro-elements that are generated at this level. In esoterism, the nine prajapatis (with Jupiter making the tenth) seem to be mightily involved with this - the Gnostics have their system of Aeons (Time-Duration again!) which has a whole lot of meanings attached (see Simon Magus in his Gnostic system).

What I am looking for in all this is for most generative force, regulation, interaction, adaptation, selection out of available options, choice, to name a few correlatives to this level. One can expect that biological systems will display some or all of these features. Recurrent life (force) is something that can be correlated with hyparxis too, and it makes sense when we think about autopoietic systems that rebuild themselves constantly.

substance philosophy

To get a feel for the importance of substance in the continuity of life and many other issues, you could study books like: "The Possibility of Metaphysics: Substance, Identity, and Time"  by E. J. Lowe; Clarendon Press, 1998.

For now, I direct my attention to the process of creation as a whole, but I'll come back to considerations of substance when necessary to my investigations. Keep in mind that I use the old Eastern method of study: first get a global picture, then descend into more detailed descriptions. Ponder about these things and your intuition will develop alongside with your experience in life.

Value adding

In my holonic model, value and meaning play a role in the whole of the process of the descent of the micro-element along the arc and the subsequent ascent. The macro-system can perform "judgments" as to what to do (a role for consciousness). The "levels" can in some sense be described as "spheres": on the left there is more emphasis on physical-energetic side (and information), on the right side there is more emphasis on principles of consciousness, although there may be visible expressions, like in (level of ) organization of production and distribution of substance or flow of value (money, esteem, mission statement, moral idea) through a system.

The supervisory role of will, c.q. consciousness,  is conform the ideas of Assagioli, and some of that can be found in cognitive models of the mind, like ideas of Baars in his book "In the theater of  consciousness".  Keep in mind that this pertains to a global function. That is simply necessary to explain the workings of the system, to explain the integrity and autonomy of process. Consciousness as such is whole, transcending earthly time, while attention is partial and in time (transactional, I think).

The idea of substance as eternal and indestructable is very old. It is the necessary ground that makes the value experience possible. It is the only way the qualia problem can be solved!  It connects the different levels. On the macro-level it can take the form of a kind of  light-substance. Not only ordinary light, but also subtle forms of it exist. This light can carry a pattern (encoded, enfolded), not a strange idea since scientists and technologists  have succeeded in artificial encoding of radio and television content as a superimposed signal on broadcast waves. The pattern is unfolded, decoded in later stages, notably  levels 3 and 4. But this is all food for research when we research the producer subsystem in conjunction with input system, decoder, converter, etc.

Value adding

In my holonic model, value and meaning play a role in the whole of the process of the descent of the micro-element along the arc and the subsequent ascent. The macro-system can perform "judgments" as to what to do, like consciousness on the first level. These "levels" can in some sense be described as "spheres": on the left there is more emphasis on physical-energetic side (and information), on the right side there is more emphasis on principles of consciousness, although there may be visible expressions, like in (level of ) organization of production and distribution of substance or flow of value (money, esteem, mission statement, moral idea) through a system.

The supervisory role of will, c.q. consciousness,  is conform the ideas of Assagioli, and some of that can be found in cognitive models of the mind, like ideas of Baars in his book "In the theater of  consciousness".  Keep in mind that this pertains to a global function. That is simply necessary to explain the workings of the system, to explain the integrity and autonomy of process. Consciousness as such is whole, transcending earthly time, while attention is partial and in time.

The idea of substance as eternal and indestructable is very old. On the macro-level it can take the form of a kind of  light-substance. Not only ordinary light, but also subtle forms of it exist. This light can carry a pattern (encoded, enfolded), not a strange idea since scientists and technologists  have succeeded in artificial encoding of radio and television content as a superimposed signal on broadcast waves. The pattern is unfolded, decoded in later stages, notably in stage 3, level 3. But this is all food for research when we research the producer subsystem in conjunction with input system, decoder, converter, etc.

Objectification and De-objectification

The left side of the arc shows Objectification, the taking of distinct form, while the right side shows De-objectification, i.e. adding of value to the "object". In economic terms, valuing has to do with pricing, or money. In psychological terms, there's a range of values, especially on the social level (value judgments, norms), beliefs, etc. On the more abstract level there's aesthetic judgment and (internalized) moral values.

This passage from objectification to  de-objectification is pretty well established in many quarters, including economy (as in adding value and price),  esoteric teaching, and also in such theories as Leontiev's activity theory. See links

http://www.comnet.ca/%7Epballan/AT2.htm

http://www.comnet.ca/%7Epballan/AT.htm

http://www.comnet.ca/%7Epballan/Mentevol.htm

http://www.comnet.ca/%7Epballan/functionalism.htm

I did not convert to dialectical materialism, the thing is simply this: every research angle can yield some useful points of view, elements in the big mosaic of life. It's like the seven blind people touching the elephant in the parable. They each report a different structure of the elephant and couldn't understand each other. They fiercely disagreed as to how the elephant looked like. Yet, they all reported correctly about a small part of reality. So, look at the world from different angles and try to integrate different points of view, as far as is possible, logically and philosophically speaking.