This post is an effort to move toward a metaphysics that works for me, as I discussed here. I haven’t made a lot of progress, though I have generated a number of questions, and clarified for myself a few more things I don’t believe, that don’t satisfy me. Or maybe that’s progress of a kind. Anyway, here I start with a few things I do believe and take for granted–and end with some questions.
We emerged from the universe. That is, we have evolved from/along with the physical universe. We were not created from outside the universe and somehow inserted into it.
To take a less grand and shorter term view, we evolved here on earth, from the conditions and materials existent here on the earth.
We are a social species—as are many others. We grow to normal human adulthood only in the context of a functioning human social system.
Any social species has to have mechanisms and means by which they establish and maintain social cohesion—that is, by means of which they are able to function as a society. One of our more obvious means of doing this is emotional attachment to others (love, empathy, compassion, etc.). There are other ways of achieving society; ants and termites, for example, seem to do it largely through pheromones. (Of course, we don’t know what subjective feelings, if any, may be associated with the operation of the pheromones. For all we know, ants experience love, subjectively, just as our own experiences of love are related to the operations of hormones, oxytocin prominently among them.)
There are other mechanisms of social cohesion that also seem to be native to our species. For instance, power: the desire for power ties a person into the social system. (Interesting—I hadn’t really thought about that before.) The logic of power as a mechanism of social cohesion is worth exploring, but I’ll save it for a later day. Right now I want to think about love/empathy/compassion etc. (attachment).
The evolution of attachment as our means of social cohesion raises metaphysical questions for me. Is love somehow inherent in the universe, as many of our religions and philosophies claim? Or is it something we have “invented”? (I put “invented” in quotes because it’s clearly not an intentional invention, but something that evolved within our species (though not solely in us.))
Along with others, I somehow feel the former—not necessarily that the universe “loves”, but that love is profound and important and deep, in a fully metaphysical sense. But does love exist apart from life here on earth? Or apart from physical life/organisms in general? Is it in fact a property inherent in “the Real”? Or perhaps an inevitable logical consequence or emergent property of the evolution of living things, given enough time? Or is it neither—just an arbitrary happenstance of our particular evolutionary track? And if the last is true—how then could love be profound/important/deep? As I, regardless, believe it is?
Addofio 
Another important means is communication. (Maybe communication is the mechanism but good communication is the means?) It’s amazing to think about all of the systems that need to be functioning properly, from merely a technical standpoint, on the part of the communicator and the communicatee “for best results”.
LikeLike
“There are other mechanisms of social cohesion that also seem to be native to our species. For instance, power: the desire for power ties a person into the social system.”
Thinking about that quote: I tend to see “power” operating in other species as well. Dogs, for instance are pack animals with a social order–the alpha male is the one with the most power. Even chickens have a “pecking order.”
And I agree with Mrs. Nicklebee, too. Communication is huge. Once the naked ape begins to speak the unit of evolution is not a life but a word. Society has evolved.
Good post. Well said.
LikeLike
I agree with both of you that there are many mechanisms of social cohesion. In fact, to really dig into it woulde far exceed my capabilities, I fear.
LikeLike
The practice of treating subjective intuitions as a guide to ultimate reality has fallen on hard times. And I’m aware that the overlap between the intuition of one person and the intuition of another person is limited.
But I deny, on principle, that the scientific method is the only means of knowing anything. Consider the relationship between intellect and emotions as an analogy.
I make decisions based on reason, not emotional impulses. But when I have a strong emotional reaction, I take it seriously. It stops me in my tracks: I want to know where it comes from, what significance it may have, and how I should integrate it into the decision-making process.
In the same way, the scientific method has proven itself as our best way to make sense of the physical world. But our intuitions are not to be cast off as worthless therefore: maybe they are pointers to things beyond the reach of science, even if intuitions (like emotions) are an imperfect guide.
LikeLike
Stephen, in general I agree with you; certainly science isn’t the only way of knowing, nor is it appropriate to all situations. But I’m not sure why you made this point in response to my post. Is it because I was starting from the assumption that we originated as a species from the process of evolution?
LikeLike
I probably shouldn’t have imported scientific method into the discussion. I was following my own line of reasoning there, without making the connections clear.
I was responding to this part of your post:
Is love somehow inherent in the universe, as many of our religions and philosophies claim? … Along with others, I somehow feel [that it is]—not necessarily that the universe “loves”, but that love is profound and important and deep, in a fully metaphysical sense.
The catalyst was your use of the word “feel”. I took that to refer to a subjective intuition that love is woven into the fabric of the universe in such a way as to make it profoundly important.
And then I thought, but some people would reject that intuition as unprovable: subjective and therefore without merit. Hence the comment.
In a nutshell, I think you are right to trust your feeling in this matter.
LikeLike
Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I’m sure some people would argue that it is unprovable–but so is any metaphysics, isn’t it? Isn’t that partly what makes it metaphysics? The question is, is it reasonable, in the sense of not flying in the face of know reality or basic logical premises, and does it (the metaphysics) work for the individual holding it? Furthermore, the latter concern is probably the more important, for any given individual.
At least those are the important questions for me, and the whole point of this series of posts from my point of view is to see if I can come up with a metaphysics that does work for me, given that so far I haven’t found one anywhere else that quite does it. I appreciate participation from others–even disagreement (anythng to stimulate my thinking in new ways)–but I’m not worried about something being “provable”, since as far as proof is concerned, I’m an agnostic.
LikeLike