Mind, Memory and Archetype: Two Part

THE EMERGENCE OF EVOLUTIONARY PARADIGM

However, the evolutionary paradigm has established itself over the last two centuries. In the eighteenth century social developments, artistic and scientific papers were widely seen as an evolutionary and progressive. The industrial revolution made this point of view an economic reality in much of Europe and America. The beginning of the nineteenth century, there were a number of evolutionary philosophies and, by 1840, the social evolutionary theory of Marxism had been published. In this context of evolutionary theory and social cultural, Darwin presented his theory of biological evolution, which extended the evolutionary vision to life as a whole. Yet this vision did not reach the entire universe: Darwin and the Darwinists ironically tried to fit the evolution of life on earth in a static universe, and even worse, a universe that actually thought he was "running out" system, towards' thermal death.

Everything changed in 1966 when physics finally accepted an evolutionary cosmology in which the universe would be eternal. Instead, the universe originated from a Big Bang some 15 billion years ago and had evolved since then. So we now have a physical evolution. But we must remember that this is only about 20 years of age and the implications and consequences of the discovery of the big bang are not yet fully understood.

Physics is just starting to adapt to this new vision, which, as we have seen, challenges the most fundamental assumption of physics since the time of Pythagoras, the idea of eternal laws. To the extent that we have a universe that evolves, we are confronted with the question and about the eternal laws of nature? So where were the laws of nature before the big bang? If the laws of nature existed before the big bang, then it is clear that these are of a non-physical, in fact, are metaphysical. This pushes us out of the metaphysical assumption that is under the idea of eternal laws, as a consequence. 

LAWS OF NATURE, OR JUST HABITS?

There is however an alternative. The alternative and that the universe is more like an organism than a machine. The big bang is calling us back to the mythical stories about "shock the cosmic egg: it grows and grows it undergoes an internal differentiation that is more like a gigantic cosmic embryo than the huge eternal machine theory mechanistic.With this organic alternative, it may make sense to think about the laws of nature more as habits, perhaps the laws of nature are habits of the universe, and perhaps the universe has a built-in memory.

One hundred years ago, the American philosopher CS Pierce said that if we took seriously the evolution, if we thought that the entire universe is evolving, then we would think of the laws of nature with something on their habits. This idea was actually quite common especially in America, she was adopted by William James and other American philosophers and was widely discussed at the end of the nineteenth century. In Germany, Nietzsche even suggested that the laws of nature were subject to natural selection may have been many laws of nature at first, but only the successful survive, so the universe we see laws that have evolved through natural selection .

Biologists also moved toward an interpretation of phenomena in terms of habits. The most interesting of these theorists was the English writer Samuel Butler, whose most important books on this subject was "Life and Habit" (1878) and "Unconscious Memory" (1881). Butler claimed that the whole of life involved an inherent unconscious memory, habits, instincts of animals, the way in which the embryos develop, all reflected a basic principle of memory inherent in life. He even proposed that there should be a memory inherent in atoms, molecules and crystals. So there was this period of time in the late nineteenth century when biology was seen in evolutionary terms. It is only since 1920 that mechanistic thinking has become an area of biological thought. 

SURGE AS A FORM?

The hypothesis of formative causation, which is the basis of my work, part of the problem of biological form. Within biology there has been a long discussion about the understanding of how embryos develop and bodies. How do plants grow from seeds? How do embryos develop from fertilized eggs? This is a problem for biologists, not really a problem for embryos and trees, just do it! But biologists have difficulty finding a causal explanation for the form. In physics, somehow the question is equal to the effect. The amount of energy, matter, and 'momentum' before a given change is equal to the amount found after the change. The cause is contained in the effect and the effect in question. However when we consider the growth of an oak from a 'tusk', it seems there is no such equivalence between cause and effect.

In the seventeenth century the main mechanistic theory of embryology was simply that the oak was contained in the 'acorn': within each 'Tusk' was an oak tree in miniature that inflated as the tree grew. This theory was widely accepted, and was most consistent with the mechanistic approach, as was understood at that time. However, as suggested by critics that the oak is inflated and that oak tree itself produces 'acorns', the tree must contain inflatable 'acorns' inflatable, inflatable containing oaks, ad infinitum.

If, on the other hand, it comes as less so (whose technical name is epigenesis), so where does it come form?

How come the structures that were not there before? Neither Platonic nor Aristotelian had any problem with this issue.The Platonists said that the form was the Platonic archetype: if there is an oak, then there is an archetypal form of an oak tree, and all the oaks real are simply reflections of this archetype. Since this archetype is beyond space and time, there is no need to have it fitted under the physical form of a 'tusk'. The aristolelianos said that each species has its own kind of soul and the soul is the form body. The body is the soul, not a soul in the body. The soul is the body shape and is around the body and contains the goal of development (which is formally called entelechy). The soul of an oak contains oak possible.