Hi Karren, this is not the first time you have alluded to this idea that we might be to future (or perhaps even existing) entities as our cells are to us. This would certainly tally with cosmic precedent where the fundamental dynamic by which things come into being is one of assembly of existing cosmic entities in one way or another, so unless the cosmic dynamics which gave rise to us, the humans, have come to a conclusion in us, we will assemble to form future cosmic entities, if precedent is anything to go by. The dynamics of assembly can be broken down into two broad groups, those that operate through reproductive mechanisms and those that don’t. Progress in the human realm is available to both groups. We may look to both when it comes to us progressing with respect to the dynamics that have given rise to us.
Each phase of the narrative that gave rise to us - the pre-atomic, the atomic, the molecular, the cellular and the multi-cellular is characterised by a different mode of assembly of existing entities and unless that dynamic has come to a conclusion in the phenomenon that is an individual human (do we have any reason to believe that this is the case??) then it is likely to continue by other modes of assembly where we are elements in the process (and we are likely to participate in the process)
Lowel, you mention the cosmic dynamic or progress to entities of increasing complexity. Again, at this point I feel like as if I have been banging on about this very simple point for some time now, but the reality seems to be that the cosmos that has given rise to us, (its most complex offering to date of which we know) has involved progress to a CONSTANTLY DECREASING NUMBER of increasingly complex entities?
Is this relevant?? It may or may not be, but it certainly gives a useful way of analysing much of what we encounter in the human realm. We can learn much from the analysis of the collective terms that we use. Do we think of the human as a collective term? No, but none the less a human is a collection of cells (at least). We know that a choir is a particular kind of collection of humans so by necessity there are less choirs than humans. Much of what we do as humans seems to involve us shifting focus on the unity that things present above the “manyness” of which they are composed. If you ever sang in a choir you will be more than familiar with this.
There are less molecules than atoms, less cells than molecules and so on. An important stage in the development of any area of study involves the emergence and clarification of collective terms within the domain. The word “element” has always been with us, but it assumed a new and significant application in the study of chemistry in the 18/19 centuries.
I may want to talk about the entities that stock the narrative that has given rise to us, the humans, starting with the big bang. Lets say at the very least I may want to talk about atoms and molecules together. Is there a collective term that I can use?? What if I want to talk about atoms molecules, cells and multi-celled organisms? If I want to talk about apples and bananas I can refer the conversation to the collective term “fruit”. But Is there a collective term that I can use if I want to refer the sequence of entities that has given rise to me and my kind? Why would a collective term be necessary? Perhaps because something needs to be said about them collectively. Karen, in addressing myself to the question that you pose in the opening comment on this thread I find the need for application of such a collective term. The one I use is the term “Priunit”. A priunt is any kind of entity that has lead from the big bang to us (atoms, molecules, cells multi-celled organisms)
Karren, we may extend your question as follows; is it likely that we as humans are to future entities as our cells are to us, as molecules are to cells, as atoms are to molecules, as sub-atomic particles are to atoms. (as hydrogen is to all other atoms!!)
If you have a collective term it is much easier to talk about the narrative to which the term pertains. What can be said about the narrative of priunits? Firstly, it is the narrative that has lead to the emergence of the human in the cosmos, secondly, the genetic/evolutionary is a phase in the narrative, preceded by the molecular and the atomic (before that the pre-atomic). Perhaps superseded by a phase beyond the classical evolutionary as characterised by what we encounter in the human realm. We can also say that as the narrative has unfolded the nature of the average priunit becomes increasingly complex. We can say that each priunit is composed of an assembly of priunits from a prior phase. But also, that the total number of them is decreasing. Of course, it depends on how you count. By one mode of counting we can say that the number is actually increasing. My point is that the cosmos keeps on producing colective domains with less and less entities in them (less living things than cells etc) The fundamental cosmic narrative could be seen as a journey through the concept of unity.
On the face of it, this is not obvious. For example, when we look at the realm of the living, we see a significant proliferation of life on earth. But of course, the more living things you have, the less overall priunits you have.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the narrative that has given rise to is is that we are such that we can consciously participate in its continuation from where it has left us. Much of the conversation that centres around progress in the human realm centres around the possible impact of what we might call “classical” evolution on that progress. We know of course that classical evolution has been the main player in the emergence of the human. The question is, whether or not classical evolution is the only thing to consider when examining the dynamics by which humanity progresses. If we could choose to progress by the dynamics of classical evolution alone, would we?? Are we equipped to choose one way or another? It seems to me that much of what you witness in human behavior and all that goes with it involves humanity undertaking to operate and progress beyond the dictates of the classical evolutionary dynamics that gave rise to it in the first place. Is it possible that we are making this choice in the hope of favouring the presiding narrative, that began with the big bang over its most recent/well documented phase, the classical evolutionary? We could say that much of what we encounter in the human realm involves a play between classical evolution and the narrative of priunits. This has given rise to much by way of moral and legal codes, both religious and secular. Also, the fundamental imperative towards a state of “oneness” and its relationship to an element central to many religions can not be ignored.