Interaction distinctions

Three sorts of interactions:

1.) The motor moves the axles and the axles move the wheels.

2.) The river moves the waterwheel and the wheel moves the millstone.

3.) The driver moves the wheel and the power-steering moves the tires.

(1) is considered as a closed system where one part moves another; in (2) the mill is considered as an open system where the whole is moved by some source of free energy; and (3) is (2) which is also moved by intention. If the universe is assumed to be a closed system all agent causality reduces to (1). Ultimately, all we have is one part moving another.

But the examples themselves belie this sort of reduction and in fact establish that the reduction occurs in precisely the opposite order. The first mover in the mechanical system (1) is only the last part of a system that opens to some source of free energy (2) and these mechanisms purposefully exploit sources of free energy source as opposed to being a mere effect of them (plants aren’t emanations of sunlight any more than a farmer is an emanation of his potato crop. Both exploit a source of free energy even if they use it to constitute their existence). And this last is (3)

The spatially-based push-pull mode of agent causality spoken of in (1) reduces to the intentional causality of (3) through the given and exploited motions of (2). Whenever a system is an organic whole and not a mere system by fiat, the order of causality starts with intention and only in the last stage enters the domain of the push-pull, spatially-based forms of interaction, which stand to it as it’s secondary or instrumental causes.

The point is not to start with a mechanism and then follow the trail of causality back to the point were intentionotrons emanate from the intentionosphere and push the first part of the mechanism. By the time there is any mechanism or spatial interaction at all the intention has already done its work.  In one sense this makes spatial interaction total, since intentional causality will always be prior to it in a non-interactive way and so is at an infinite distance from the mechanical. The spatial as such is instrumental to the plan or logos of a system. By analogy, the spatial can be seen as encoding the logos that gives rise to it, in the way that a music box encodes the composition or the concrete, transferred gene encodes the information it contains.

%d bloggers like this: