Re: Argument for world-soul, in Fechner's own words

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

Thanks, John. Good point. We do want to keep this list focused on Rosen and
topics related to Rosen. :)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John M
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 11:04 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Argument for world-soul, in Fechner's own words
>
>
> Dear Mike,
> I like poetry (some of the time) so I read your long post with gusto.
> Nevertheless the last thing I would 'like' to see on this list (as I
> experienced on 4-5 other ones, including the earlier Don-lists) to evolve
> into a 'religious' hubbub about rationalizing the unrationale.
> (Right-hemisphere emotional faith vs left hemisphere rational
> speculation).
> *
> Just one little pick:
> >..."the earth as
> > what it is, namely, as a coherent material system out of which the
> > totality of its organisms was developed..."<
> taking the material model to explain the omitted circumstances. How (on
> earth) did the Earth become coherent? and a material system? about the
> earth-bound organisms Hoyle suggested a "panspermia", the space-travelling
> seeds to find physical conditions to rebuild life - which is just a
> postponement of the problem, - [but contradicts the pius and patronizing
> (biblical? I don't read it) style of the sermon] - of course it is open to
> the question: "and how did it all occur where these 'pansperms'
> came from?"
>
> You wrote so smart, well informed and (I believe)
> Rosen-compatible things, I
> think the "soul-train" is out of whack. Descartes HAD to include it: the
> inquisition was still alive, while Rosen (IMO) could not formally
> dismiss it
> because of the 'inquisition-spirit', still actively lurking in
> the minds of
> a big part of the (Christian) science-audience he wanted to reach.
> And Descartes did not have the benefits of complexity-thinking.
>
> To JohnK's remark about "psyche":  we better identify that topic, what we
> want to include into it - before we pave the argument for reductionist (or
> even religious) science.
> The adjective "psychological" is not so dangerous, just as 'conscious' can
> be OK - vs the elusive 'consciousness'.
>
> Best regards
>
> John M
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "McIntyre, Mike S." <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 6:42 PM
> Subject: Argument for world-soul, in Fechner's own words
>
>
> > Translations by Walter Lowrie, from Religion of a Scientist:
> >
> > [p. 133]
> > Has nature or the world a soul? -- that means, To the totality of that
> > which we see and apprehend, the whole system of bodies revolving about
> > one another, greening and blooming and carrying the creatures and their
> > history, does there correspond a unified Being which only to itself is
> > apparent, just as to the totality of that which we apprehend in man, the
> > whole system of circulation, veins and bones, there corresponds such a
> > being?  Such a Being is no more to be known by telescopes, deep dril-
> > lings in the earth, measurements and all the mathematics in the world,
> > than is the corresponding being in us to be known by microscopes, scal-
> > pels, chemical analysis and mathematics.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > [p. 150 ff.]
> > The ~common~ view is reluctant to think that such a dry object as the
> > earth, in which no trace of free choice is apparent, might be animated
> > by soul.  ~Natural science~, delving deeper, sees the earth as a purely
> > astronomical, geological, meteorological, physical object, finding in it
> > no more hint of a soul than a place for its exercise.  ~Materialism~,
> > standing upon the shoulders of natural science and raging against heav-
> > en, finds in anatomical and physiological facts the strictist proof
> > against a soul of the earth; for in its view the soul is merely a prod-
> > uct of the nervous system.  ~Idealism~, flying like the eagle towards
> > the sun and beholding the earth with its tail, raises ideal difficulties
> > from the point of view of the ideas of independence, autonomy, freedom,
> > individuality, personality, etc.  ~Theology~, claiming to be officially
> > guaranteed in the possession of heaven itself, does not find the anima-
> > tion of the stars among the dogmas which affirm its title to possession;
> > it will not suffer pagan gods to enter this heaven, and would erect no
> > wall of partition between us and God.
> >
> > The whole difficulty of the common opinion and of natural science stems
> > in the last resort from the fact that, instead of regarding the earth as
> > what it is, namely, as a coherent material system out of which the
> > totality of its organisms was developed and in which they all are now
> > united, men conceive it rather as something external to its organisms,
> > something contrasted with them, as indeed it is not -- neither ~astro-
> > nomically~, for it revolves around the sun as an indivisible whole, with
> > all its animals and plants; nor ~geologically~, for the organic kingdoms
> > have developed in connection with its geological epochs, and their re-
> > mains lie buried in it; nor ~meteorologically~, for the air of the earth
> > is at the same time the breath of man, its pressure holds the blood in
> > his veins and the head of the femur in its socket; nor ~physically~, for
> > the law of the conservation of living energy in the earth is valid only
> > when man is taken into account; nor ~teleologically~, for everything
> > which here has been educed separately, along with all which has not, is
> > as aptly designed and adapted to the whole as is everything in our lit-
> > tle body, which in turn fits teleologically into the greater whole.
> >
> > Have then animals and plants fallen upon the earth, that they may be
> > regarded as something contrasted with it externally?  Or have men, ani-
> > mals and plants fallen away from the earth, that they may be regarded
> > as something separate or separable?  Or is their existence in separation
> > even so much as thinkable?  Nothing of the sort.  They belong to the in-
> > ward development of the earth, they are components of an organization of
> > members which was accomplished in the earth by its own forces, and even
> > now it is only as such they are capable of enduring.
> >
> > From the beginning, as it is even today, a coherent earthly system, in
> > form self-contained, like the many material systems floating far from
> > one another in the heavens, has in the course of its initial development
> > organized, as the substructure of the whole, embracing the whole, pene-
> > trating the whole, comparatively simple partial systems, namely, earth,
> > water, air, and out of them smaller systems, in form self-confined,
> > namely, the individual organisms; and following substantially the same
> > principle, it has out of these composite organisms produced
> comparatively
> > simple partial systems, in form self-contained, as substructures of each
> > whole, embracing and penetrating it, namely, the individual organs, such
> > as bone, skin, nerves, veins, and smaller yet.  And from the first to
> > the last step of this process of organization there is visible no dis-
> > continuity in matter, effect, or aim.
> >
> > As with organization, so it is with life.  The great periods of days and
> > years, while they regulate the life of the whole earth, regulate there-
> > with in the most general way the life also of all its organisms, in
> > sleeping and waking, in activity and rest.
> >
> > The leaves and flowers of a plant are attached outwardly to the stem;
> > the flesh and nerves of an animal are attached outwardly to the bones;
> > both the vegetable and animal kingdoms as a whole are in turn attached
> > outwardly to the ground.  But leaves and flowers and stems are connected
> > materially, actively and purposefully with the plant, and only inwardly
> > do they stand in contrast to the plant as a whole.  Finally, animals and
> > and plants are connected with the whole earth; they too stand only in-
> > wardly in contrast, in so far as one can ~conceptually~ contrast the
> > parts with a whole.
> >
> > The stem on which the flower sits is designed more simply than the
> > flower; the trunk to which the stems are attached is designed more sim-
> > ply than the stem; the soil upon which all the trunks sit, and which
> > furnishes support to all bony systems, is designed more simply than
> > wood or bone; it is not wood and bone over again, yet it is so designed
> > that wood and bone can find in it their rest and support, constituting
> > with it a purposeful connected whole.
> >
> > All this is not metaphorical, is not an hypothesis: it is a simple and
> > literal statement of how things are.  The relation of the members to a
> > human body as a whole does not recur here exactly in the same way -- how
> > much indeed there is in this which runs counter to the comparison! --
> > rather the argument proceeds from one case to the other by broadening
> > and exalting.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > [p. 155 ff.]
> > For is not the earth in its form and content, like our bodies, and like
> > the bodies also of all animals and plants, a unified system, a system
> > relatively closed, like our bodies but not exactly similar? is it not a
> > system which, though it is subjected to stimulus and determining influ-
> > ences from without, determines itself and develops from within, engen-
> > dering inexhaustible variety? although in certain aspects physically
> > determined, does it not on other sides produce incalculable effects out
> > of its own fullness and creative power, and comprize in itself relation-
> > ships of predominance, coordination and subordination? is it not a being
> > which in the continuous course of its development gives evidence of ebb
> > and flow and a falling and rising of activity?
> >
> > With respect to all these signs by which a body resembles a soul, signs
> > which our own body has and loses [in death], the earth stands not below
> > its men, animals and plants but far above them, but it presents these
> > signs in an inexpressibly broader and more exalted degree.
> >
> > Now here, as is the case with plants, since it is true also in the case
> > of men, all these signs do not signify the presence of an actual soul
> > really awake, but only a disposition for such a thing, the essential
> > prerequisites for a soul awake and active.  However, the signs of wak-
> > ening and being awake wherewith the argument still has to be filled, and
> > with this the symbol of the soul made full and real, we have in the case
> > of the earth more directly than in the case of the plants, for the fact
> > that the earthly creatures are awake and intelligent.  For since a man
> > cannot be said to be sleeping when eyes and ears are awake, neither can
> > this be said of the earth when thousands upon thousands of eyes and ears
> > are awake in it.  In the case of the plant we could infer this wakeful-
> > ness only by analogy, but in the case of the earth we have a part in it,
> > an immediate awareness of it.  We lack nothing but an immediate experi-
> > ence of the inclusion of all this wakefulness, all the content of souls,
> > in a unity corresponding to that in which we feel all our soul life
> > concluded.  This experience we cannot have, nor ought we to require
> > it, for this conclusion is away above ours; the whole soul of the earth
> > must be ours if in us we were to have its unified conclusion, whereas
> > in fact, like a small circle within the greater, we comprize only a part
> > of its content.  But what is experienced, what is visible, we must re-
> > gard as a sign of the invisible.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Kineman [mailto:***
> > Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 9:35 AM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: MR as ontological, Fechner
> >
> >
> > Let me add a caveat on panpsychism. I mentioned it only to not throw it
> > out automatically; I do not profess panpsychism as such. It has much
> > historical bagage we would dispose of. My actual statement was pointing
> > out the inconsistency of condemning panpsychism, while necessarily
> > considering psyche and while having a scientific ethic that seeks
> > generality. So, my position would be that we should be open without
> > criticism to explore the generality of the psyche. I would not,
> > therefore, assume that everything involves psyche, but would explore
> > that hypothesis.