Building Blocks of Reality ~ Part 4

I ended my last blog with: "Observation makes it impossible to know about everything that is present within a system and with sufficient accuracy as to remove any behaviour which gives rise to chaotic solutions. The whole notion of a clockwork universe has turned out to be an illusion which was based on nothing but logic and faith ... Where does this leave us in being able to determine reality? ... Has the phenomenon of chaos been misunderstood and undervalued and could it turn out to be our greatest teacher?"

I am going to hold a concept or an understanding of chaos in mind as I look into some of the doctrines of the pre-Socratics, namely Anaximander (born in Miletus, Ionia c. 610 BC), Heraclitus (born in Ephesus, Ionia which was then part of the Persian Empire, c. 535 BC) and the Greek philosopher Parmenides (born c. 515 BC).

Of Anaximander, the commentator Simplicius had recorded, “Anaximander … said that the indefinite was the first principle and element of things that are, and he was the first to introduce this name for the first principle (i.e. he was the first to call the first principle indefinite). He says that the first principle is neither water nor any other of the things called elements, but some other nature which is indefinite, out of which came to be all the heavens and the worlds in them. The things that are perish into the things out of which they came to be, according to necessity, for they pay penalty and retribution to each other for their injustice in accordance with the ordering of time.”

Rather than explaining the presence of the physical world by suggesting that all of the world’s objects had an origin in a single element, typically water or fire, Anaximander had pointed towards an unformed state as first principle, out of which the opposites of the material world arose. His inference was that justice was evident in the presence of a natural order or cycle being perpetuated by first principle, necessitating for all things to be returned to their origin and thereby preserving equilibrium.

Heraclitus said that the world is in constant flux (that everything is flowing or involved in a process of change and to paraphrase, that it is not possible to step into the same river twice), there is unity of opposites (meaning that opposites coincide and that contradictions are inescapable) and that fire is the source and nature of all things. In a similar vein to Plato and Aristotle, a modern day critic has suggested that the doctrine of Heraclitus with regards to opposites violates a principle of logic and makes knowledge impossible.

Is Heraclitus indicating that reality contains paradox; that it is possible for something to exist simultaneously in two measurably different or conflicting states? Is knowledge incompatible with reality? Does reality have to be repudiated in order to be consistent with logic and to meet the criteria of knowledge? What to make of a body which appears to have constancy to an observer but is in flux or a process of changing through its metabolism? Contradiction can exist within the nature of relationship – does logic preclude relationship: ‘I am I and you are you; we cannot be both’ – does reality suggest that ‘I am to you as you are to me; we are one’?

Heraclitus said, “This world-order (kosmos), the same of all, no god nor man did create, but it ever was and is and will be: everliving fire, kindling in measures and being quenched in measures.” And, “For souls it is death to become water, for water death to become earth, but from earth water is born, and from water soul.” This suggests that what appears as death is transition or transformation and is part of a natural cycle or larger process of nature as a whole and that death in itself is not an end product; that which is the universe (or any part of it) does not periodically die in order to be reborn but is eternal; there is an implicate order or unity, even as its appearance might change through its process.

How are we to interpret identity, in that does it refer to part of a process or is it the whole? Can any one part be measured with accuracy so as to provide knowledge or is knowledge in this instance to be determined as a glimpse and not an ending in itself? Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts and would an interpretation of knowledge be more valid if it was to explore synergy? Could this be accomplished without knowledge of a cycle in itself? How does intention interfere with measurement?

Parmenides contemplated on the nature of ‘being’. From what can be gleaned from a fragment of one of his poems he conveyed an understanding of being as that which has always been and will always be, is ineffable and complete (omnipresent). As for how the presence of being is recognised, Parmenides pointed out that it is impossible to recognise what is not (i.e. what does not exist) and therefore what is necessary (as this would come from a misapprehension that something is missing) and that wherever there is thought there is being. His conclusion was that humans are misled by their senses and of perceiving that the cosmos is comprised of many entities rather than of one being; this misapprehension of becoming having arisen not from observation of change, but as a consequence of reasoning that opposition exists in differing states of being. His cosmology was that there is simply fire and night (an interpretation of this could be a reference to the Logos or implicate cosmic order and its reflection and actualisation). 

It is interesting that both Heraclitus and Parmenides interpreted the source of all things as fire. Fire is an element which consumes or regenerates itself through that which is before it and in its path, hence the nature of the ‘phoenix’ as an allegory of death and resurrection. So too is the ‘ouroboros’ an allegory of regeneration, but whilst the nature of fire is generally viewed as being distinct from that which it consumes, the nature of the ouroboros is understood as feeding upon itself. There are similarities between fire and the ouroboros and yet whilst fire is viewed as an inherent part of a modern day interpretation of reality, the ouroboros is not.

Why has the ouroboros been relegated to a realm of myth? Is this the legacy of a logical-analytical worldview? Would what has historically been regarded as ‘primitive cultures’ have been more intuitive than modern ones with regards to perceiving the presence of patterns, cycles and wholeness? What role does the capacity for recognising patterns, cycles and the integrity of a whole have in the functioning of an intelligent organism or species? Where a logical-analytical worldview has its shortcomings, is modern community relying upon the processing or ‘intelligent’ power of technology to ‘plug the gap’ and how would that be known?

Further, when and where did the concept of an adversary originate? Heraclitus’ doctrine embraces transition and an appearance of conflicting states, but how did he appear to regard human affairs? He said, “We must recognise that war is common, strife is justice, and all things happen according to strife and necessity. War is the father of all and king of all; and some he manifested as gods, some as men; some he made slaves, some free.”

Heraclitus concludes that reality is about accepting the world as it appears; just as there is transition in nature, so too in the midst of human relationships, suggesting that conflict or strife is a fundamental condition for the world to exist at all or else there would be uniformity. With regards to human relationships, he appears to accept that whatever is being manifest is simply human nature; that it is valid in the world and any opposition, conflict or struggle between humans is just, given that the world comes into being through the presence of conflict between elements and of the most able. He said, “To God, all things are fair, good and just, but men suppose some things are unjust, some just.”

To recap:

• Anaximander suggested that first principle (or apeiron, archê ) is indefinite and gives rise to all things; that to preserve justice or equilibrium, all things out of necessity must perish and transition to a state of their origin.
• Heraclitus put forward that flux, opposites and strife are fundamental for the world to exist and that conditions of becoming and of justice are inherent.
• Parmenides suggested that being is universal or omnipresent and that wherever there is thought, there is being; that humans are misled by their senses if they entertain thoughts of becoming, of what being is not or as to its scarcity (this belief may have arisen out of the perception that the cosmos is comprised of many entities who are in opposition with one another, rather than one being).

Each doctrine appears to be presenting a unique way by which a human being is capable of observing and participating in the universe. Anaximander suggests that first principle is beyond a world of appearances and that equilibrium in the physical world is maintained through an orderly or regulated process which may have something to do with chaos theory and entropy. Heraclitus’ view appears to be that the universe is emergent; is ‘being and becoming what it is through its many manifestations of itself’ and that transition is a more natural state of being than is constancy. Parmenides on the other hand, suggests that the universe as immanent; and ‘that being which is, both pervades and sustains itself’. Is the universe re-creating itself anew through its reflection of and experience of itself as a whole? Is it appearing to expand and create new terrain for itself through the reflection of and experience of its parts? Fundamentally, can one perspective of the universe know the whole or simply choose its momentum?

Philosophical conjecture with regards to an origin of the physical world and of cycles of birth, death and conflict has formed the basis of any group consensus as relating to power, justice and morality. The very axis of how a human has been able to perceive and experience its role within the cosmos would have shifted as a consequence. Is a human responsible for and at cause of restoring its place and role within what has been perceived as a chaotic nature or imbalance of the cosmic order; how might that effort of the will and sense of justice be accomplished – through piety, atonement, redemption, grace – purposeful creative-destruction, resembling of an apocalyptic ending before regeneration (with or without recognition of the workings of an implicate order) - or actualisation of an ineffable quality that is the universe itself?

It is a given that contemplation of the macrocosm and the microcosm has been taking place through the centuries; even as it appears as if chaos theory and a science of quantum physics is pointing towards a refreshing and revitalised way of observing an interconnectedness of nature, one which allows for finding common ground with the physicists and mystics of old.

There is something further to mention here, which Heraclitus had captured, when he said, “Many do not understand such things as they encounter, nor do they learn by their experience, but they think they do. Indeed, they do not process the information they receive: having heard without comprehension they are like the deaf; this saying bears witness to them: present they are absent.” He attributed this failing to the collecting of knowledge but without being able to decipher its content and comprehend its meaning. It is of course a process of determining meaning from knowledge and everyday experience which builds and reinforces a person’s worldview; it can also be particularly challenging for a person to be willing to examine and change their worldview, even in the face of circumstances which demand it.

Earlier in this blog, as I was drawing contrast between fire and the ouroboros, I noted that a world of myth and allegory has lost prominence in the world in favour of a logical-analytical perspective. I began to enquire whether what has been regarded as primitive cultures would have been more intuitive than modern ones with regards to perceiving the presence of patterns, cycles and wholeness. In particular, I was asking about the role that the capacity for recognising patterns, cycles and integrity of a whole is likely to have in the functioning of an intelligent organism or species. 

Heraclitus might have pondered along similar lines with regards to the nature of cognitive function; he wrote in the form of riddles, structured so as to be purposefully obscure and contain insights. This would have been engaging with the right brain of his students more than the left. It seems that his inspiration for this form of engagement and education was the Delphic oracle, whose riddles did not provide straightforward answers but encouraged people to interpret them in order to gain insight. Of it he said, "The lord whose is the oracle at Delphi neither speaks nor hides his meaning, but gives a sign."