WHETHER A PATTERN OF LIFE FOLLOWED IS A SYSTEM
The Global Patterns of Life: A New Empiricism
Evolutionary theory became respectable with Darwin, but the
success of his work need not be taken as evidence of truth, or even
maturity. Darwin’s approach to species variability was simply the first one
to be generally accepted, and although the ‘Darwinian method’ has been
central to biology for over a century, signs of iconoclasm are beginning to
emerge. The rise of ‘vicariance biogeography’ is one of these, and few
comparisons show the nature and weakness of Darwin’s approach more clearly
than the juxtaposition of his biogeography with this more recent, and more
mature version. Of course, a problem inherent in Darwin’s method may well
indicate one in large sectors of scientific theory, so ubiquitous is the
form of thought. A critique of such broad habits of mind may intimate a
paradigmatic shift rather than a simple correction, and the immediate
future of Systematics promises to be quite interesting.
When we can feel assured that all the individuals of the same species, and
all the closely allied species of most genera, have within a not very
remote period descended from one parent and have migrated from someone
birthplace, and when we better know the many means of migration, then, by
the light which geology now throws, and will continue to throw, on former
changes of climate and of the level of the land, we shall surely be enabled
to trace in an admirable manner the former migrations of the inhabitants of
the whole world.
Darwin begins his discussion, in chapter eleven of The Origin, with
the “great facts” of distribution. The most basic is that each area of the
world has its own distinctive inhabitants (now called a distinctive biota).
However closely an area in the new world may resemble another in the old,
in terms of climate or other physical conditions, the majority of organisms
that live in each will be peculiar to the region. Secondly, the regions
showing very distinct biotas are distinguished from each other by natural
barriers (i.e., oceans). Correlating barriers or great distance to
difference and the lack of barriers and/or distance to similarity, Darwin
argues that common origin can account for the similarities between groups,
and time in isolation from one another for the degree of difference between
them. He concludes, a few pages later:We are thus brought to the question
which has been largely discussed by naturalists, namely, whether species
have been created at one or more points of the earth’s surface. Undoubtedly
there are many cases of extreme difficulty in understanding how the same
species could possibly have migrated from some one point to several distant
and isolated points, where now found. Nevertheless, the simplicity of the
view that each species was first produced within a single region captivates
the mind. He who rejects it, rejects the vera causa of ordinary generation
with subsequent migration, and calls on the agency of a miracle.
Of course, each organism has more particular features as well. The
lamprey has a notochord, while the shark and perch have vertebral columns,
but the shark vertebrae are cartilage while the perch vertebrae are bony.
But despite the fact that each organism is unique, the branching diagram
does display hierarchical relation — i.e., all of these animals are more
closely related to each other than either is to the lamprey because they
both possess vertebral columns. The ‘relation’ displayed in a cladogram,
therefore, is merely the logical summary of shared and unshared characters.
(A thing is different from another to the degree that it possesses
different characteristics, and the same to the degree that it possesses the
same characteristics. ‘Relation’ is measured in terms of degree of
departure from commonality — the smaller the departure the closer the
relation. The shark and the perch have a spinal column in common and thus
their departure from the lamprey, which does not possess the column, is
greater than their departure from each other.) By now it is clear that a
strong relation between taxonomic and distributional data is visible even
before we make a historical interpretation. The general pattern is as
follows. When we look at informative groups (groups which show restrictions
of distribution as against those which show none), we find a good deal of
endemism at the species level — i.e., animals restricted to a few areas or
a single area. At the genus level of the kingdom, and most often before
this level, everything is globally distributed (speaking now of living
groups). Thus, geographic restriction grows with taxonomic differentiation,
yielding a rough correlation between taxonomic and distributional
differentiation. Common patterns evoke common cause explanations, and thus
a historical interpretation would suggest that geographic differentiation
(of the present landmasses) and the taxonomic differentiation (the
branching of present taxonomic groups) are linked — the branching of
cladograms represents the splitting of continents as well and, as Humphries
and Parenti claim, “the world and its biota have evolved together.”
Pattern is recurrent relation, but no relation is itself sensible but a
matter for ‘the eye of the mind.’ It must be thought, or ‘intended,’ to be
perceived, and until we think it we cannot 'see' it, no matter how clearly
it lies before the physical eye. Thus the relations implicit within
phenomena have been made explicit by the mind — in the above discussion,
spatial and logical relations. ‘Theory’ in this case is the conceptual
contribution by which we perceive these relations. 'Explanation,' as
distinct from description, has not yet made any contribution. As things are
brought from indifference into relation they are also brought from
unintelligibility to intelligibility. As the unity of relations becomes
more intense, so does intelligibility, and thus the demand for causal
relation, for scientific investigation cannot stop with existent patterns.
The observed world does not merely exist, but also becomes, and the
patterns under examination presuppose development. There were two patterns
(logical and spatial), each requires a becoming, and these developments
must also be brought into relation.
Chaos describes systems whose behaviour seems erratic and
unpredictable, because it is, but only when you are looking at them at a
single moment in time. Observe a system long enough, however, and
particularly from a bird’s-eye view, and a definitive pattern appears. The
pattern was previously hidden because of our vantage point but is now
suddenly clear as day. Once you see the pattern, you might gasp and chuckle
out of wonder because you can finally see that chaos has a shape! The shape
is evidence of the inherent orderliness of chaotic systems, which defies
the popular notion that chaos describes the disintegration of order.
Scientists consider chaotic systems to be deterministic. At the
same time, chaotic systems are rooted in autonomy. You might once again be
pondering the apparent contradiction of these two statements. By the way,
can we take a moment to admire how chock full of paradoxes chaotic systems
are? How can something be pre-determined and act with free will? To
understand how both are true, let’s examine each quality one at a time.
Chaotic systems are deterministic in the sense that we can see the
shape of a system that starts to emerge if we observe it long enough and
therefore determine the overall trajectory of the system. The shape of a
chaotic system represents a predictable boundary of behaviour the system
does not go beyond. We can’t predict or control what the system is doing at
any point in time, but we can determine where it’s headed in the long term.
The boundary of behaviour is not an external control on the
system, however. A chaotic system is in fact creating the boundary that it
exhibits. This self-control and self-shaping is what makes chaotic systems
autonomous. A chaotic system is operating with free will at all times as it
follows its own internal rules. The rules are followed over and over at all
levels of the system. What does that remind you of? If you say fractal,
you’re right! Chaotic systems are fractals. It should be noted that while
all chaotic systems are fractals, not all fractals evolve into chaotic
systems. Chaotic systems require the establishment of multidirectional,
nonlinear feedback loops that feed information back to the system. So to
summarize, the overall trajectory of a chaotic system is predetermined due
to an internal logic, but it is this very same logic that allows the system
to act with autonomy at any one point in time.
If all of this is too abstract, let’s personalize it by considering
how our own lives are chaotic systems. I’ll use myself as an example. In my
thirty plus years of life thus far, I have experienced countless twists and
turns. I have also made decisions and taken actions that are wildly
different from each other. My family and friends have frequently been
surprised by my life choices. But despite the great number of different
situations that I have found myself in throughout my life and the diversity
of choices I have made, they all share something in common: I was always
acting in service of my values and what I understood to be my calling in
life. And I know that I will continue to act in alignment with my values
and mission in the future. So let’s say I live to 80 (I hope I do) and look
back on my life, I would see that even though my life in a particular year,
month, week, or day seemed chaotic because no one was able to predict the
things I did, my life in its entirety had a clear trajectory, a clear
shape, and the source of that shape was my values and mission.
Chaos teaches us many ecological design lessons, some of them deeply
uncomfortable but no less important. Do not fret over the seemingly
disorderly nature of things at a particular moment in time. We must zoom
out and take our time to look at the big picture. Start with mission,
values, and the smallest scale of relationships, and trust that these
elements are the source of internal order. There is no need for you to
expend your energy trying to control anyone or anything. Trust also that
these elements will lead you to where you want to go, even if you can’t see
the final destination, and that wherever you are is where you need to be.
There is no need to predict every move. Focus on quality, not quantity.
Chaos describes systems whose behaviour seems
erratic and unpredictable, because it is, but only when you are looking at
them at a single moment in time. Observe a system long enough, however, and
particularly from a bird’s-eye view, and a definitive pattern appears. The
pattern was previously hidden because of our vantage point but is now
suddenly clear as day. Once you see the pattern, you might gasp and chuckle
out of wonder because you can finally see that chaos has a shape! The shape
is evidence of the inherent orderliness of chaotic systems, which defies
the popular notion that chaos describes the disintegration of order.
As life is a chaotic system, even for one who followed a
restrictive system, B G the summing up of Vedic way of life warns Arjuna
like as a rank holder down under to a last in line.
The quest for peace often seems elusive because we neglect this
fundamental principle and fail to begin with something in our immediate
vicinity - our consciousness. The Gita informs us that the desires of
individuals who identify with their bodies and whose minds are ravaged by
envy, greed, anger, and unbridled ambition initially transform into speech
and eventually become actions.
In the Gita, Krishna instructs us to rest our consciousness in him and know
him to be the beneficiary of all our sacrifices, our ultimate well-wisher
and benefactor. In such a state of mind, one is free from pangs of misery.
In yogic traditions, there are two important concepts: Sathya, the goal
or destination, and sadhana, the path to reach that goal. {TRUTH IS IN LIFE
HAS A STAGES OF PROGRESS ONLY’; THUS, EQUALITY IS VARIABLE; BUT NEVER IT
SAYS IS UNREACHABLE; IN CHAOS, SUSTAIN THE BUDDI TO STAY ON SPOT TO BE
PROGRESSIVE.}
Our end goal is to uplift our consciousness to the level of sattva guna and
beyond by engaging in daily spiritual practices of worshipping and chanting
the names of God and associating with similarly spiritual-minded people.
Engaging in these practices manifests divine qualities of purity,
truthfulness, compassion, forgiveness, righteousness, and control of the
senses within.{ONLY SYSTEM STARTING FROM A HUT TO A CASTLE TP PEAK THE
SATVA GUNA TO MAKE THE MIND STABLE TO BECOME THE ONENESS UNLIKE THE DUALITY
RELIGIONS}
Society, after all, is merely a collection of individual consciousnesses.
The more self-contained and spiritually minded people we have, the more
peaceful society will be.
K RAJAAM IRS 291124
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 at 04:25, Jambunathan Iyer <[email protected]>
wrote:
> *There is a difference between being stuck in life and continuously
> progressing. It can be small or big, but constantly progressing is what
> takes you closer to your goals. But for unsuccessful people, there are
> patterns they follow that prevent growth. Avoid them and cultivate routines
> that lead to success.*
> N Jambunathan Rengarajapuram-Kodambakkam-Chennai-Mob:9176159004
>
> *" What you get by achieving your goals is not as important as what you
> become by achieving your goals. If you want to live a happy life, tie it to
> a goal, not to people or things "*
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoqSR2pD_FPfceN%3DgCyELbYN4PNDOuWBx9zw%3Dar3FZ6PGg%40mail.gmail.com.
