Transcendent Materialism

Like the last blogpost, Aug 31, this is a long piece.  It was originally posted  at the end of 2010.  In many ways it is the fulcrum around which everything turns.  I look forward to your reactions.

In Sweet Dreams, 2007 (SD), Daniel Dennett answers his critics.  But his attempts to show that human consciousness is not distinguishable from zombies and robots, explain why he has been so heavily criticized.  His efforts imply that “matter,” even in the human brain, is inert, mechanical … utterly devoid of life.  Dennett’s reductionist illustrations do not even come from biology or chemistry, they come from physics alone.  All his “thought experiments” are based on the paradigm of computer programming.

The “computer model” of the human brain, it must be acknowledged, is not a fact; it is science fiction.  No one really knows how the brain functions.  And yet, basing himself solely on such a model, he claims to draw conclusions about human consciousness and experience.  It’s hard to see how this analysis doesn’t reproduce exactly what he claims to reject:  a “greedy reductionism” that sees all non physical phenomena as illusion.  Dennett’s version of materialism, I believe, leaves him no other choice.  A dead, inert matter does not square with the emergence of life or with the human experience of a world of meaning.

We humans live in a plane of meaning, a symbolic world — in computerese, a virtual world — that we have created for ourselves.  The human realities that we call culture, which include language, ethics, politics, poetry and art of all kinds, and even science, are the products and vehicles of meaning.  Meaning is an exclusively human phenomenon.  It is not a biological “thing” but it has, over time, hard-wired its symbol-making requirements into the human brain.  Dennett’s view of human consciousness defended in SD assumes a cerebral substrate that is similar to computer circuitry.  Such a barren image almost begs to be supplemented by a Cartesian “second substance” (immaterial spirit) to account for meaning.  Dennett fights back against that tooth and nail.  I agree with him; there is no “spirit.”  But the battle he wages, in my opinion, is born of his faulty definition of matter.  He himself summoned forth and now struggles to cast out, the spiritual daemon that always accompanies an inert matter.

He calls his theories “thought experiments” instead of what they are … fantasies.  His omniscient robo-zombie is a metaphor.  We do not know how matter pulls its rabbits out of the universal hat.  By saying that they are not distinguishable from robotics, he implies that those functions are entirely exhausted at all levels in the laws and properties studied by physics.  It does not explain what we experience … it rather explains it away.  Despite his earlier claims to the contrary, if you embrace his vision, you must conclude that your conscious experience, and its symbolic products, are somehow an illusion.

A different approach

I believe one can be thoroughly materialist and understand things very differently.  If we assume that what we see before us is what is really there, then we don’t need “thought experiments” employing robots.  We can let reality itself provide the imagery that illustrates what matter really is.  I claim that what matter does right before our eyes tells us what matter isHow it does what it does is another question.  Dennett, however, has decided that matter is to be judged by how it does things, not what it does.  Let me clarify the distinction:  What matter does is to produce emergent forms of life on earth, and in humans the ability to recognize their own powers of recognition, and produce the symbols we call culture.  How it does this is through mechanisms of astonishing complexity composed entirely of more primitive processes and forms of matter.  The salient point I am trying to make is that how matter works and the elements of which it is composed do not necessarily establish the limits of what it is, or what it is capable of doing.

Let’s flesh this out.  If the existence of material mechanisms proves matter is only mechanical and inert, then matter is something different from the way we perceive it.  We experience matter as alive in its emer­gent forms and in human activity cognitively penetrating.  Dennett’s image of the zombie and the robot implies it is not, and he goes to great lengths to explain why we only think it is.

The facts, as he presents them, are these: unconscious neurons, linked in phalanxes, and firing in the human brain, activated by a sensory input originating outside the organism, somehow produce not only consciousness (recognition and meaning) but a subject — a self.  How do we get from billions of unconscious cells and their bio-chemi­cal reactions to the conscious self when there seems to be no organic center of consciousness in between … no “soul,” no “pineal gland” or other cerebral structure where the self and its power of recognition resides and oversees the process?

Put this way, the question emphasizes the direct, virtually unmediated relationship between mindless mechanism and the apparently intelligent behavior it produces.  Consciousness and self are the product of vast numbers of unconscious automatons — cerebral neurons.  Physically and metaphysically speaking, there is nothing else there but unconscious constituents … where does a conscious self come from?  Dennett is consistent: he says there is none … it comes from us … it’s a story we tell ourselves..

Dennett claims the “self” comes exclusively from “narrative.”  Ancient humans, he says, discovered words, and began to communicate with one another about common concerns — survival.  Language is the key.  In trying to explain its motivations to others (as part of basic planning) the human organism becomes aware of itself.  What emerges from this narrative is the self.  The self does not exist as a separate “thing” either organically or spiritually.  It is the product of human symbolic communication, a result of culture; it is mediated by language and occurs within a language community.  I find this view illuminating in many respects, but not in all, as I will explain.

One of his many critics described Dennett’s explanation this way:

… There is no internal witness, no central recognizer of meaning, and no self other than an abstract “Center of Narrative Gravity” which is itself nothing but a convenient fiction.  … For Dennett, it is not a case of the emperor having no clothes.  It is rather that the clothes have no emperor. (Voorhees, 2000, cited in SD, p.146).

The self and “narrative”

We have to go deeper and wider.  Cognitive science isn’t the only discipline in play here; for the phenomenon of “self” is not only humanEvery living thing similarly manifests symptoms of being a “self,” certainly not with our level of reflexive consciousness, but just as certainly aware of its own distinct and appropriated individuality.  This is true wherever we find life.

The interpretation of common features that are found across a multitude of disciplines belongs to philosophy, not to positive science.  Dennett’s “narrative” explains “self” as a virtual reality emerging from processes emitted by human neurons firing in the human brain.  But what about the “self” which is evident in my cat “Toni” (yes, yes, narcissism has no limits!) who not only recognizes that I give her food and let her in out of the cold, but also manipulates me emotionally in between and well in advance of the moments of required service?  There is no language or feline community in her case and yet she is supremely aware of who she is in contradistinction to me and she deliberately relates to that distinction.  What about the deer who exhibit a conversion of external stimuli into reactive self-awareness that is close to instantaneous.  No narrative here either.  What of the flies, whose brains are smaller than a grain of sand, that desperately struggle for freedom in the spider’s trap?  And then there are the protozoa that move toward food and away from enemies. These last have no brains at all, not even one “computerized” neuron, and certainly no narrative.  How do we explain their “sense of self”?  And finally the tree, the bush, the plant who do not transfer the nutrients and energy they have mined to any other organism but themselves.  They are also individuals.  This sense of “self” they all exhibit — each at their respective level — where does it come from?

“Narrative” may richly characterize the phenomenon in its human apparition, but it doesn’t explain it in others, and that means it is probably not the ultimate ground in us either.  The universal extent of “subjectivity” is a clue to where the solution lies.  For IF the phenomenon of the self is found everywhere, the source of “selfness” must exist not only before human narrative and before the evolved nervous systems of the higher animals … it must exist even prior to the pyramid of terrestrial life itself.

I ask rhetorically: Wherever could that be?

Self as subject of existential energy

I propose that the gravity-like “organismic individuality” we experience in living things, is in fact, an expression of a universal, ever-present property of every particle of matter itself.  It is not something welded to or added to matter, nor is it a “result” of matter’s mechanism, or the emergent forms that evolve from it.  I believe this “existentially thirsty” particle-based individuality is as intrinsic to matter as a dimension like length is to any extended thing.  Material particles are energetically driven to survive by aggregating and integrating with other like particles.  Matter is intrinsically existential and communitarian. This energy, I maintain, is not merely a characteristic, it is the very nature of all material reality … and material reality is all there is.  Material energy is an existential dynamism that creates the arrow of time by insisting on existing through self-complex­i­fi­cation.

It is indisputable that all living things are driven to survive.  IF there is a dynamism, a drive, it has to bear reference to a center.  A drive cannot be anchored in nothing.  If there is a drive, something must be driven.  That, I claim, is the primordial source of “subjectivity” in the universe.  It is rooted in matter itself.

In a final step, as this existentially self-orientated matter complexifies in its emergent forms, the original elements submerge their individuality in the unity of the newly evolved individual.  At the particle level, quarks and gluons, producung the stong and weak nuclear force fields, form hadrons; at the atomic and chemical level, protons (hadrons) with their electrons coalesce to become oxygen in the heart of stars.  Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen become water.  Water looks nothing like either of its components.  Are we deceived?  Is water not wet …?  That new “thing,” then, is the cumulative gathering of the energy-generated “subjectivity” of its de-individuated components.  To call it H2O is actually a misnomer.  The ensuing composite is WATER; it is no longer either gas.  It is a new “individual” re-invented as a function of the integration of its parts.  This submergence of the individuality of the components in the single identity of the composite is an invariable feature of every example of emergence — whether living or not — throughout cosmic space and time.  It is a physical thing that is repeated at the chemical, and biological levels, and virtually at the anthropological / sociological level.

To those who would say that the drive has no center, I would answer in that case it would have to be borne by the whole as a whole.  IF everything (as opposed to every thing) is the “driven,” then everything (as everything) would have remained eternally as it is.  There would have been no change, no evolution, because there is no gradient — no differentiation — within an absolutely homogeneous totality.  Existential change (evolution) occurs because one part of the whole finds a way to transcend its current state by integrating with others.  And that can only happen because each particle bears the burden of the drive to survive.

This scenario is completely different from Dennett’s, but in my opinion, it is more faithful to the evidence.  Material energy in itself — in all its states, whether primitive or highly developed — is a living dynamism, an existential self-embrace that manifests its potential in evolutionary emergence and the virtual realities of human culture.  The cosmo-ontological basis for emergence and “meaning” on the human plane, therefore, is to be found prior to the mechanisms that matter utilizes for its magic tricks.  The machinery that matter uses follow an insistent intentionality — an energy — toward self-transcendence that I claim is the very energy of existence itself.  This energy is naturally creative.  It produces new things … and new behaviors that emanate from those new things.  This version of materialism I call “transcendent materialism.”

This vision is not only compatible with what science has discovered, it also squares with reality as we experience it.   Dennett’s does not … that is why he has had almost two decades of vigorous reaction to his robotic metaphors.  People disagree with him vehemently not because they believe in the existence of “spirit,” — the majority of his critics are atheists — but because it is not the way we experience things.  He will counter that we experience the sun rising and setting, too, and our experience has been proven to misrepresent where the motion actually resides.  Reality, he declares triumphantly, is counter-intuitive.  But the examples don’t match.  Heliocentrism is a proven fact.  And once the reality of the spinning earth circling the sun is explained and understood, people can readily imagine it and they adjust.  Both are only views of physical motion; neither one demands that the experience change or be denied.  In the case of Dennett’s zombies and robopeople, however, there has been no adjustment because, besides there being no proof, the examples do not ring true to human experience.  We experience an abyss of difference between life and non-life and between rationality and other forms of consciousness.  To say that life is simply our way of mis-perceiv­ing the random fluctuations of a dead matter is a prejudicial interpretation of a “fact” that is still waiting to be discovered.  Dennett’s dismissive explanations of what we experience in our own flesh as lush and profoundly relational — what we love most in life —  simply do not “compute.”

By my premises, a charged material energy, innately characterized by the drive to survive, has produced all the mechanisms and combinations necessary for its “purposes” (to continue existing).  These “mechanisms” (the “how”) may well turn out to be the very same that Dennett claims science will discover at some time in the future.  How matter does things does not affect my case, because the nature of matter precedes its operation and explains subjectivity.  What it does takes priority over and guides how it does it.  A richly human virtual “self” may emerge from the mechanism of narrative, but all mechanisms are grounded in the primordial “subjectivity” embedded in matter that is the anchor of the survival drive.

Of oaks and acorns

Dennett implies that mechanisms exist because matter is inertly mechanical.  But that’s a non-sequitur.  There is nothing that precludes the possibility that a primitive “intentionality to exist” — the very energy of matter itself as I have been defining it — may be what is responsible for producing the mechanisms that accomplish its goal.  This hypothesis does not constitutea teleology, because the word “intentionality” here is a metaphor.  There is no “purpose” involved.  I am not talking about a choice or a plan; and by “subjectivity” I do not mean a consciousness of any kind.  It is a blind, non-rational, mono-focused, paroxysmal self-embrace — an urge that is locked on survivalHow can I be so sure what it’s like?  Because not only do I see it all around me in every living thing, but I have it in myself, and so do you.  I experience it interiorly.  I am a specimen of matter’s energy and I know how this involuntary reflex for self-preservation functions in me.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with my mind or my will … or my species!  It functions even if I am in a coma.  It is similar to a myriad of other tasks that are accomplished by the organic substrate of my body mindlessly, apart from any input of knowledge or intention on my part.  It is an urge … and it dominates.  It is everywhere, observable in all living things and, I claim, explains the creative transcendence we see in evolutionary emergence at pre-life levels.  Spinoza called it the conatus sese conservandi, “the urge for self-preservation,” and everything obeys it.  In our universe, conatus rules.  It explains everything.  

Dennett’s thin and brittle matter has to explain away life and consciousness and art and culture as an illusion of some type — some form of misperception on our part, like the way we misperceived the motion of the earth as the rising of the sun.  This is emphatically true of the “realities” of human culture — the meanings and poetic “narratives” that we have used for eons to construct the virtual human world in which we live.  Matter has done this.  How could matter even randomly stumble upon a combination of its own constituent elements capable of conjuring a symbolic universe unless it possessed the potential that would allow it to happen.  With this hypothesis we are closer to a simple one-factor, Ockham-approved solution than we are with Dennett’s tin-man “zombie” that just looks like it’s alive and capable of creating art … but can’t  tell, and doesn’t really care!

An ironic twist is that Dennett’s arguments run in both directions.  If he can claim that the perceptions of a zombie or a robot cannot be distinguished from what we experience as living sentient organisms, then the reverse is also true.  There is nothing that proves that life cannot be present in the elements of mindless mechanisms and in potentia even before its observable emergence.  The presence of mechanism does not prove that the mechanism did not materialize under the intense pressure of an existential self-embrace — the drive to survive.

Some may respond by saying I have simply retro-fitted primitive matter with a dualist “spirit” that I deny to its later versions.  But, turning the argument on its head, I believe it is rather the objection that comes from a “dualist” projection.  These people cannot get past the apparent inertness of matter.  Despite my clearly defining dynamic matter as one single unalloyed thing, they imagines “life” as a separate “something” glued onto or injected into an inert substance.  But any such imagery is gratuitous.  There is no evidence for it.  It is a result of the internalization of the Platonic-Cartesian spirit-matter paradigm which has dominated Western thought since 350 bce.  A mechanistic view of matter like Dennett’s is a direct heir of that dualism.  Historically the existence of “spirit” implied the existence of an inert matter.  But they are correlates, so the inverse is true as well.  Start with an inert matter and you evoke its siamese twin.  I believe Dennett is trapped by this dualism; he chose the reductionist side of the coin and vainly tries to recover lost unity by exterminating the other side.  It won’t work, and besides, it’s not necessary.  The living unity of reality is primordial and doesn’t need to be proven.  There is no “spirit.”  Matter is exclusively responsible for what it has become.  What you see is what is really there.

To the argument that physics sees no evidence of the presence of this energy in unevolved matter, I ask, how then do you explain the atomic integrations that produced the elegant table of the elements all of which express their own unique properties even though built only of primitive sub-atomic particles; how do you explain the emergence of molecules, from simple to complex to self-replicating, to viruses, none of which a bio-chemist would call alive and all of which are increasing complexifications and manifestations of a cumulative individuality … and absolutely necessary to the later emergence of “life?

Here’s an analogy (but please note, it’s only an analogy):  the forest floor under a large oak tree is strewn with thousands of acorns.  What sign of life do they have?  They are like stones.  Cut one open and it’s still like a stone.  You will see nothing until you know the “code,” i.e., the mechanism of transformation.  The “code” is acorn + moist earth + sufficient warmth + sunlight + time.  All those variables must be there for the equation to work, and an acorn will emerge into an oak sapling, otherwise it remains as dead as a stone.  But, an acorn is not really a stone.  Try using the “code” with a real stone, and nothing happens.  Universal matter is one thing or the other.  Dennett says it is like a stone.  I say it is like an acorn.  But then he has to explain how this stunning raucous spectacle of life and human artistry we see right before our eyes is not pure illusion.

The potential, like the oak in the stony acorn, is an energy that was always there — it is a real potential … for a reality … that does not yet exist … an oak tree.

The ultimate question  

We have been able to identify the existence of a universal, creative conatus as the source of every emergent thing in the universe and the ground of subjectivity and human culture.

But the characteristic primitiveness of this universal “urge,” no less present in the most insignificant quark or electron as in myself, seems to bear no similarity to what our ancient religious “narratives” projected.  In the West, our ancestors imagined themselves spawned by a personal Parent, like us in every way except for the extent of “his” power.  This “God” observed the unfolding sequence of events and reacted as we imagined he might.  He was internally in touch with our hopes and fears.  He was powerful to intervene for us, but he had his own needs which served as conditions for his help and would reward or punish us accordingly.  Such narratives mimicked human parental and authority relationships.  It was natural.

But we have learned that the force responsible for our human life is not like a parent at all.  It is very primitive … as primitive and undeveloped as anything we have ever encountered on this earth … and it is “cyclopean,” one-eyed … mono-focused and to us, mindless.  It is more like a seed than a “person.”  The fact that these primitive bundles of energy have over eons and eons complexified to elaborate “mind” in humans as the current pinnacle of a vast pyramid of emergent forms, is baffling and astonishing.  We spontaneously look for “mind” in the elemental building blocks themselves.  It is as natural as believing that we were brought into this world by a parent.  But there is no actualized “mind” there any more than that there is an actualized oak tree in an acorn.

This is a conundrum.  I love being human, and having my friends and family, and all the things I do under the sun.  I am naturally grateful for what has made this all possible.  But it seems I cannot relate to material energy because what material energy has become in me now can only relate interpersonally … and material energy, as far as I can see, is not a person… and yet, I am a person.

All emergent forms are only and always made of the same primitive constituents.  Evolution does not mean that primitive matter creates something else, like a new kind of matter — life from non-lifeRather, evolution means that matter such as it is, has morphed its own primitive driven self into a new form and function, for there is nothing present in any emergent form that is anything other than the same primitive components. Thus all “things” in the material universe are emergent forms of the very same dynamic origins.  The universe is like an organism … and what it has become in us, is what we experience as ourselves.  We are nothing but material energy … and we are human beings.

Matter is unfathomable as mechanism alone.  We and what we do are real.  The fact that the human organism is simply pristine matter means that existentially energized matter has the potential for being human.  You can’t argue forward from potential to product — from “cause to effect.”  But once the end product is realized, it is a tautology to reason back from the effect to the potential.  If matter became something, it had to have been capable of becoming that something.  That is what continues to evoke in us the sense that matter is a mystery — meaning precisely what the ancient Greek word mysterion meant: a layered, multidimensional reality where you step into one dimension and you suddenly find yourself in the presence of another or many others … like a set of Russian dolls.  But the dimensions are not different things, any more than the length and width of an object are different things.

So we continue to grope after what we are.  When we look into the past, however,  we don’t see a recognizable parent but rather a self-transcending energy that we humans understand thoroughly: a potential, a power, realized in us — matter with meaning.  We understand meaning; it’s our stock-in-trade, and we create symbols to work with it.  “Parent” is a metaphor, an evocative human symbol that means not what physics says about quarks and gluons at the beginning of time, but what they became — what they (we) really are here and now — human quarks and gluons.  The most important legacy of materialism is that if humans are matter then matter is thoroughly human.  Yes indeed, we are dealing with counter-intuitive misperceptions: … we think we are looking at quark-gluon mechanisms and they are actually human beings.

What else are we looking at that we might not see?

Tony Equale

7 comments on “Transcendent Materialism

  1. theotheri says:

    Tony – It is good to read this post again. On this reading I found myself remembering how some 40 years ago as a psychology graduate student I arrived at conclusions consonant with yours. I was faced with the assumptions of the severely reductionist theories of Behaviorism compared to those of Gestalt psychology. Behaviorism in some ways was presented as the braver theory, willing to accept the nihilism of a godless universe reduced totally to the laws of physics. Thought, therefore, was an epiphenomenon, not real in itself, but, like a shadow, no more than an illusion created by other more fundamental realities.

    Gestalt psychologists, on the other hand, argued that the whole is NOT greater than the sum of its parts. In other words, they argued that identifying all the individual parts out of which an organized entity is made will not fully account for what the whole has become. They did not use the words emergent,as I recall, but they argued that as the level of organization changes,so does the very nature of the object or organism. The printed word cannot, therefore, be reduced to black marks on a page, the human organism cannot be reduced to the several hundred dollars worth of chemicals of which our bodies are composed. A flower can not be fully described simply by describing its individual parts without understanding how they interact with each other to make a flower. They argued similarly, that thought and experience, however they emerge, are real, not illusions or mere epiphenomenon, Thought may depend on a functioning brain but cannot be reduced to those brain processes.

    I opted then for the Gestalt assumptions and still do. But it was only after reading your work in recent years and thoughts by Chomsky that I began to understand how matter might actually produce thought, something that seems so ultimately immaterial. Einstein gave us the key, didn’t he, with his wonderful E=mc2. Matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. Matter, therefore, is dynamic, not mechanical.

    I keep the formula E=mc2 posted on my bulletin board the way I used to keep holy cards as inspiration.

    Thank you, once again, for this reminder that true science need not lead to the deadening hand of a mechanical universe.

  2. theotheri says:

    Addendum from Terry: I wonder why you say that meaning is an exclusively human phenomenon. It seems to me living things obviously give a meaning to objects — this is something to eat, this means we are going for a walk, this is dangerous, etc. Does “meaning” mean something different as you are using it in the context of this post?

    • Tony Equale says:


      I agree. Animals identify and relate to elements in their world at their level. “Meaning” as I used it attempted to represent the symbolic world we humans create for ourselves — human culture in all its forms — through which we perceive the significance of the things we encounter. It was perhaps not the best word to use without a modifying adjective, “human.” Thanks for the “heads-up.”


  3. rjjwillis says:

    I may add a comment that could expand the conversation. I will leave further ones to another moment.

    I think you are correct (as the fine comment just before mine pointed out) that Dennett’s reducing of consciousness to the robotic simply flies in the face of perceived reality.

    That being said, i do think he has a point. I would explain it using a real distinction between ego and self.

    The ego has as its very nature the task of maintaining whatever it is. It does this by gathering and accumulating and enhancing. It dwells, therefore, on the level of transmission; that is, moving A to B to C and so forth.To do this it employs signs that direct its activities so as to become bigger, better, greater, stronger, wealthier. For the ego the ironic bumper sticker is true: whoever has the most toys when we die wins.

    If my experience were only that of ego, I would go along with Dennett’s explanation that nothing is required more than the robotic movement about of material things that simply aggegate (when winning) and de-aggregate (when losing). Language and narrative could very well be an account that the ego tells to explain this pseudo growth and pseudo diminishment. (Think of the narratives of most political history! Who last grabbed hold of Poland?)

    But I experience more than ego as I have described it. I recognize not only complexity but change. As I unite with the other–be it human or non–I am transformed. I not only become bigger or more complex, I become a new reality, one that I recognize as new and just now coming into being.

    I would describe that experience as flowing from the self as understood as focused energy. The self strives constantly to grow, not by accumulation or aggregation, but by transformation. This happens only in and through relationship, through the relating that brings about newness. The vehicle that the self uses in this enduring endeavor is the symbol. The symbol transforms where the sign only transmits.

    If Dennett’s language and narrative were simply the experience of signs that transmit, I would go along with him and proclaim that consciousness is an illusion, a fake, a construction after the fact. Not only would there no spirit,; there would be then neither consciousness nor story. All that we would experience would be a recounting of information, like the listing of ingredients on a grocery-store package.

    I do admit with Dennett that many human beings, sadly, live lives that are robotic, ego-driven, with consciousness that stays at the level of reciting contents. About them, Dennett would be correct, not because of nature but because of default.

    I think the continued opposition to Dennett’s position comes from two places: 1) From creationists who have to maintain the presence of spirit which somehow flows from outside into this material world; and 2) From human beings who experience themselves as a self, and not just an ego.

    Your post is very good. It is thought-provoking. It may be, at least for some, transformative.

    • Tony Equale says:


      I like your use of relationship and the distinction it makes between ego and self. We are each talking in different dimensions, of course. You are speaking psychologically of human individuals who are distinguished by their moral visions and choices; I am trying to speak in terms of a physical / metaphysical indicator that relates to all of material reality both singly and collectively — both the elemental components (particles) and their emergent composites. The dimensions are different but the foundational reality is the same.

      Relationship is a key fact and factor in the physical / metaphysical integration we call evolution. But like all these notions that apply across the board we find it expressed differently at each level of emergence, and yet we recognize it as fundamentally the same. De Chardin noticed it years ago and brought it to our attention. He was not embarassed at all to make the poetic suggestion that the forces that bound atoms and molecules had something essential in common with human love and the relationship to our source and matrix. If we follow the trail of those valences as they express themselves in ever new ways up the ladder of development, we sense the awesome unity of it all and the inescapable recognition that it is all matter, trying to say the same thing in a thousand different ways. We become our true selves by expressing what we truly are.

      Thank you for your insight and reminder.


  4. rjjwillis says:

    I previously responded to your take on Dennett. I would now address, as I can, you and the Creationists.

    I agree with you that the creationists differ from your position in three ways:
    1) That matter is in itself inert;
    2) That spirit must make matter come out of inertness;
    3) That spirit must come from “outside” matter, from something that is not matter.

    I think that they would also disagree with you that “every living thing similarly manifests symptoms of being ‘a self,’ certainly not with any level of reflexive consciousness, but just as certainly aware of its own distinct and appropriate individuality.” I see this disagreement coming from their insistence that reflexive consciousness distinguishes humans from all else, such that nothing else on earth has reflexive consciouness. Therefore, they would deny “self-ness” and “subjectivity” to earth-bound non-humans.

    I would reply by saying that “self” is not equated with reflexive consciousness. It rather is equated with “focused energy.” If matter is, as you argue, energy that is focused on self preservation and growth, then matter equals self. I would, therefore, argue that all matter–even so called “non-living” matter like your exampled stone–is a “self.”

    As to subjectivity, creationists claim that it happens only as one can have a reflexive consciousness of it being distinguished from and separated from an object. Thus again, for them only humans, the sole possessors on this earth of reflexive consciousness, can truly be counted as “subjects.”

    I would reply that subjectivity does not demand reflexive consciousness. Rather, subjectivity is equated with being the source and generator of energy. I would take that to be the same as the “conatus.” Thus, all matter, living and so-called non-living, are subjects, as all are the sources and generators of the energy to survive and grow.

    The creationists look at the human end-product, the “what.” Claiming it to be unexplainable by matter, they shift to the “how.” we humans occur. They thus assert that we humans have to have been created by a non-human, non-material other–whom they call God. I think that they will tend to discount what you say because , for them, you do not address the “how” of reflexive consciousness which they claim can only be explained by “spirit.”

    I end up, with you, that the “how” of the movement from non-living energy to living person remains a mystery. I can see no reason why it cannot happen, especially since it has, but I can’t explain it. The jump from consciousness to reflexive consciousness is one from “I see a tree” to “I know I see a tree.” Any self or subject should with enough complexity be able to make the leap. The next jump from “I know I see a tree” to “I know I am,” the realm of person does obviously happen. I would like to know how.

    My regards, Bob

    • tonyequale says:


      I like the idea of “focused energy.” It is an apt image for what we perceive as things. The phenomenon we are talking about is existence itself. Where does it reside? It is not something that comes to matter “from the outside.” In fact, as I see it, it is even more than an intrinsic property of matter, it is what matter is, nothing else. Matter is existence. To be, in other words, is completely exhausted in material energy; there is no remainder.

      It’s when it is put in such stark and unambiguous terms, that we begin to realize what we are dealing with … and ultimately what and who we are. ESSE. It is truly staggering.

      Furthermore, there is nothing in the nature of existence, as far as our analysis of the term and concept can tell, that would require (and therefore explain) why material particles (which are force fields) aggregate and integrate with other particle-fields and transfer their “focused energy” to the newly formed “thing.” The force that binds atoms together into molecules may be called “weak” by physicists, but on our scale of perception it is quite strong. Hydrogen and Oxygen, once they have combined to make water, require an extraordinary amount of outside energy to dissolve their bonds and return to their earlier state as atomic elements. The resultant molecule of water now enjoys the existential “selfness” (focused energy) resident in matter. From another angle, H and O have each ceased being what they were as identifiable individual things and have become a molecule of water. This is analogous to the way the euchariotic cells of my body are no longer independent cells, but have had their identity subsumed into my “selfhood.” The only “thing” here is ME and “I” am driven to survive by the accumulated existential energy of 100 trillion “could-have-been” individuals who are now only ME. When some of those cells breach their contract and try to “go independent” we call it cancer and the rebels, unless exterminated, can end up detroying everything including themselves. Cancer is an abortive, self-limiting aberration. It is a dis-integration that cannot survive. The integer is secondary; primacy of the integratus is inviolable.

      The evolutionary process of increasing aggregation, integration and complexification of components into composites that then carry the energy of existence newly individuated at the “higher” level may have an explanation, either at the top end or the bottom end, but so far as I know, we have not discovered what it is. We don’t know what impels material energy to aggregate, integrate and complexify and then canonize the integratus with “selfhood.” I call it the “communitarian” nature of material energy. It is absolutely characteristic of all things everywhere in the universe. One would think anything that “universal” would have an obvious explanation, yet we don’t have a clue.

      The absence of “explanation” for these foundational structures of our universe means one of two things … either there is an explanation still waiting to be discovered, or … and this is my conjecture … that’s just the way things are i.e., there is no further explanation because that is the “nature” of ESSE.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s