potency2

Potency2

POTENCY

It seems as if the world was divided in two: our interiority and our exteriority. What I want to do is to investigate them both and to prolong them back in time, toward the beginning of the universe, creating two “fact-lines”, if we use a bergsonian term. The exteriority is dealt by the science, which phenomenologically is based on the perceptual mode of appearing, and first of all on visuality.[1] In the exteriority we see bodies, which move. So, it seems that, for us, the exteriority is divided into two: one is what the body is/does and the other is what the body can be/do.[2] The classical distinction between the actuality and the potentiality is based on this.

But let’s consider, with the help of science, ever smaller creatures, ever smaller bodies – animals, unicellular organisms, molecules, atoms, nuclei, protons-neutrons, quarks –, which corresponds also to the chronological order of evolution (the first levels of hierarchy are created first). On the microscopic level our macroscopic distinctions of body and movement or what the body does and what it can do, tends to vanish. Extending this “fact-line” further we have the original state where this distinction is abolished. In the terms of physics we could say that the dualities which are fundamentally the same reality – matter and energy, corpuscular and wavelike character of particles – are not distinguished as they are in our world. So, if we extend the exteriority toward the beginning, we have something which I would call Pure Action.

Then the interiority[3]. First of all we should bear in mind that the interiority is an original, not derived aspect of reality. You can add as much mutually exterior elements as you want, but if there was no interiority beforehand, you will never have it. Interiority is an ontological dimension of every being, and by this dimension this being is one being, one creature, and not merely a heap of elements. So, the essence of interiority is to make the elements of its body interpenetrate. Thanks to this interpenetration the elements of its body don’t remain indifferent to each other, merely spatially juxtaposed parts, but cohere and interact with each other. I would call this Surview (a term of R. Ruyer) or Insight and it must be one aspect of original being.

So, if we conceptualize the Beginning as having two aspects, Pure Action and Surview, in a state of interpenetration, then we could conceptualize the ulterior evolution as the contraction of Pure Action and the local and temporary limitation of Surview, creating zones of relative juxtaposition. So we have ever more complex bodies, that is, with increasing number of hierarchical levels of organization, and ever more sharply distinguished personal area of Surview.

The semiotics of this evolution is extremely interesting, and on a broad scale we can note two basic directions, how to increase complexity: (1) one is to add elements, using the same basic scheme. This is the case, for example, of the table of chemical elements, which arise from the addition of protons to the nucleus, or of chemical compounds, which act according to a small number of principles, mainly of creating electron pairs on the external electron shell. This is the “horizontal”[4] complexification. (2) Another way is to create a stable bound with one’s similar, for example, two atoms united by their electron shells, or several molecules united in a living cell, or several cells united in a multicellular organism (a kind of obligatory symbiosis). This is the “vertical” complexification, or an evolutionary “leap”. These two directions of evolution go together.

In the course of this evolution we can see how (1) body’s relations to its environment (“perception” and “action”) becomes more differentiated, (2) and how also its own structure and the rules for its reproduction are differentiated (for instance, in the case of a living organism, the difference between the genetic material as mnemonic cues for the regeneration of the organism, versus the rest of its body, germen and soma).

One aspect of my theory is that there are several levels of juxtaposition/interpenetration. In the West we normally just have two, body and mind, the first being considered as absolutely extended or juxtaposed and the second as absolutely inextensive. I would argue that the body still maintains some interpenetration (otherwise it would fall apart!) and that there is some juxtaposition in the mind (already the distinction of different I’s). I would conceptualize some levels, including a level which doesn’t have a good name in English (we could call it simply “breath” or “life-breath”), but is denoted by qi in China, prana in India and pneuma in Greece (similar concepts exist elsewhere). In my theory this would be a certain level of relative juxtaposition, intermediary between the “body” and “mind”, and which emerged in a certain point of time (viz. with the beginning of life)[5].

Using these fact-lines (contraction and limitation-sharpening), one could also make speculations about the future, prolonging this development in the other direction, towards the future. There are two possibilities. (1) creation of a new level of being, on the basis of some development of technology, perhaps by the putting together of artefacts and biological beings – this line follows the old logic of evolution; (2) if we take into account that by contraction the evolution has created ever more slow beings, i.e. beings with a greater power of contraction; and that the surview becomes ever more limited and concentrated – so one could imagine a creature who stops completely and remains focused on this – this line steps out of the habitual cycle of existence.

There are some ethical implications of this ontology. Normally we tend toward the exteriority and the resources of our interiority are all exploited to this end. I would conceptualize the possibility of tending toward the interiority: perceiving – to pay attention to the perceiver, thinking – to pay attention to the thinker etc. It has an artistic aspect in the sense that it is not immediately utilitarian, but it has also a scientific aspect in the sense that it is not arbitrary and its most general principles do not depend on personal preferences.

[1] I think this is valid also for the mathematics, although there the groundedness is not so evident and has been strongly mediated.

[2] Aand one is what the body is (all its potentialities) and the other is what it does (actually).

[3] Of course, the spatial distinction of exterior-interior itself belongs to the exteriority, but I use these terms here for the sake of more easy understanding. Later I introduce the terms „interpenetration“ and „juxtaposition“ which are more precise.

[4] This is a simplification, of course, because no evolution is altogether horizontal or vertical.

[5] This is not wholly consistent with Indian or Chinese theories, where qi and prana have a much larger importance. One possible solution would be that there two different concepts have merged, one more limited and concrete one, connected with breathing, and the other universal and abstract, similar to the concept of Surview in my terminology: cf the theory of 里气 or “principle” and “energy” of the Chinese “neoconfucian” philosophy). The motivation could be that through breathing one can accede the general “flow of things”. The “pneuma” of the Greeks was spiritualized, but similar tendencies can be traced also in India and China.