I have introduced the term structure (we can discern or infer) and
the question of how structures (we can discern or infer) do arise or
come about, i.e. the question of structure formation, for short.
Understanding structure formation is basic to all the rest. Sorry for
what may look like a digression to the reader
By the term "structure" I denote matter-energy-formations that are
distinguishable from the rest of such formations in that they are
recognizable, describable, of a certain regularity such that they are
(nearly) repeatable and/or systematically changeable, perhaps by
conditions within or around them. We observers and imaginers/thinkers
play a role in discerning structures; but the structures themselves
may also show behaviors that support such discerning.
Structures in this understanding need not been static; many processes
are of such regularity. E.g. an organism is rather a process than a
static structure. It cannot be important whether we humans with our
given endowment with sensory system that make certain distinctions
between static structures and processes; thus we should not define
either or. We would, and we actually did, our accidental capability
much too weight in our understanding the world. Structures include
e.g. atoms, molecules, stars, movements of any kinds of bodies,
gravity systems, electromagnetic fields, minerals, organs, organisms
(plants or animals), social systems, human made artefacts of all
kinds, programs or texts or any systematic arrangement of symbols in
books, libraries, computers, buildings, and, of course humeral and
neuronal states of complex organic systems (called brain-minds), etc.
etc.
Perhaps, there may exist a better term than "structure", I'd welcome
suggestions. I have not found any so far. The choice is connected
with the decisions to take norm time conceptions not so serious
whatever their practical value may be. I need a term embracing
structural qualities on all dynamic levels including the static limit
of no change within practicable criteria.
"Structure" obviously is not a sharp concept. That would make no
sense. It would only prejudice understanding. And I cannot see what
we could gain by beginning with sharp definitions. Forget about
Descartes' "clear and distinct" ideas. They have never become clear
when they were retaining some relation to a reality existing
independent of our conceiving it rather than being pure symbols. Of
course, we can define symbol systems clearly and distinctly.
Mathematicians, computerists, logicians may do that in order for
their systems to function; its possible on paper and to some extent
even in the head, though we should be aware of their flexibility
there. But we should not confound these symbol systems or texts built
of such with what the symbols and the texts are to refer to. I like
to be a realist wherever I see a chance to be it and only
provisionally operate nominalistically for bridging gaps between
observations. And that only with an obligation to do the best to
bring in as many and sufficiently connected reals as possible to fill
such gaps.
Note that mine is not a materialistic conception although my parlance
may mislead so far to misunderstand me. To describe something
discerned in terms of matter and energy is an interpretation; as is
to describe it in geometrical or form terms. Such are meanings
attributed from a certain point of view that has become common by
modern science but is not at all justified by the observable facts.
Few of the structures we can discern in our everyday sphere are
explainable by the laws of physico-chemistry; in spite of not
contradicting such law, such law is simply not sufficient to explain
why the structures we can discern are or appear just as we can
recognize and describe them. Physico-chemists have given up the
distinction of matter and energy into separate realms, they are just
aspects; but most of them still believe that form follows
matter-energy necessarily and can be explained fully from
matter-energy-qualities of elementary particles. What a nonsense. All
cosmic, mineral and organic structures in particular, i.e. organisms
and their pertinent environments, are as they are by historical
process, accumulated through scores of generations of structure
formation. At any position of these chains or, better, evolutive webs
something could have run differently and, as a consequence, what we
do discern might as well look and operate differently because it is
different or because our means of describing have changed. This is
valid for atoms, molecules, small or large, for stars and milky ways
or nebulae or dark holes, and most important to understand the human
condition, for everything that is the case on our planet's surface,
broadly understood (and probably on other heavenly bodies as well.
Let me catch that idea in the claim that whatever is pertinent within
our sphere has been or is emerging in an evolutive process, that
consists in interaction or transaction of pre-existing structures
bringing forth new structures or modifying, actualizing or demising
other structures. There is, in my view, no need at all to posit any
additional factor or cause for anything.
This would imply that evolution in a generic sense is the process we
have to understand. And if we exclude that, we will misunderstand the
human condition. In my opinion, this is largely the case with the
human sciences, including most of biology.
The claim is the one single assumption I make: There is no structure
in the world that comes about as it does on other conditions than
interaction or transaction of pre-existing structures. In other
words, no plan, no idea(l), no scheme (that would not be a part of
the world itself and thus simply another structure interacting) or
whatsoever. This is a bold claim, analogous to, say, the conservation
principles in the mid 19th century that has brought natural science
so radically forward.
You might inquire about the origin of all, the very first structure
formation. I do not hold this a reasonable or answerable question. A
grand view of something like pure energy cooling and expanding and
forming particles which can then interact is sufficiently plausible
at the present state of knowledge. And why should I care for what was
before. For those particles appear sufficiently stable and capable to
found all the rest of what we can discern. And fear the atoms would
suddenly stop to be stable in large numbers is not my sorrow; for if
this happened we humans would immediately stop to exist.
Alfred
--Alfred Lang, Psychology, Univ. Bern, Switzerland http://www.langpapers.net --- alfred.lang@psy.unibe.ch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 01 2002 - 01:00:07 PST