Fundamental difference between the nature of Mechanical, Chemical and Biological Systems
Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
Serving Director of Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture and Science, NJ, USA
The unity of a mechanical system, like the solar system, made up of mechanical objects, is established externally in the form of a law, which reigns outside of and over the parts and by which the parts of the system are regulated. On the other hand, the unity of the chemical system is intrinsic to the parts, arising from their intrinsic natures. The ordered structure of a crystal is based on the nature of the constituent parts of a chemical system. Still, the parts of a chemical system retain their identity even apart from the interactive system, so that their initial and final states can be differentiated. In this sense the parts are both independent as well as dependent. For example, an acid and alkali can be isolated in different bottles and then added together to form a third substance - a neutral salt.
Those parts that can not be separated from a system without destroying it as a working system, can no longer be called parts but are participants or members of a dynamic whole. The participants are as essential to the whole as the whole is to the participants - this is the biological system or organism. Here we are removed from the stasis of fixed objects and are in the milieu of pure dynamical activity. Participants cannot be isolated from the whole in which they are participants and remain what they are. A DNA molecule can no more be what it is as a producer of protein molecules, than the protein molecules can be what they are as produced from the action of DNA, and producing the DNA. Each participant is cause and effect of every other participant, as Kant defined organism. Therefore nothing in an organism is without purpose, nor is the organism as a whole without purpose in the environment. Thus everything in the organism is both purpose [end] and means.
Dear Friends,
Namaste. The Soctratean view is that Knowledge is inseparable from the Notion of Virtue. This view is congruent with the Vedanctic view. For example in the Bhagavad - Gita (5.18), it is mentioned:
vidya-vinaya-sampanne brahmane gavi hastini
suni caiva sva-pake ca panditah sama-darsinah Translation: The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste].
We can find here in Bhagavad - Gita also, that the notion of knowledge is inseparable from the virtue known as humility. More importantly the Bhagavad-Gita considers Knowledge is also connected to the notion of Shreya , which means that which is eternally good for the self, without any trace of inauspiciousness. Knowledge must lead to true and pure auspiciousness or Good. This is also an important ingredient in the Socratic Philosophy, where the notion of Good is Ultimate idea or Form (Eidos).
In their theory of Eidos, which is translated as Theory of Ideas or Forms, Forms are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations. Plato suggests that these Forms are the only objects of study that can provide knowledge. They considered that these Ideals or Forms were real and the objects of the world were merely imitations of these ideals. These ideals constitute all the essential features of all individual objects belonging to the same class. For example what all trees have in common that makes them trees. Or what all acts of justice have in common that makes them just.
These are ideas and hence Plato’s theory of Reality is called idealism. These are the perfect, unchanging examplars of all naturally occurring existences and all good things. These include for example perfect tree, dog, horse and also perfect circle, triangle, straight line etc. Additionally when all such Eidos are considered, then by reason one can arrive at the Ultimate Eidos, which is that which all other Eidos have in common. This ultimate Form of Eidos is the “Good”.
Thus we find in the Socratean-Platonian view that Reality in highest form is the Form of the Good, and is Independently real and the material realm with all its object were dependent reality. The Form of Good is therefore Independent, immaterial and Perfect. Whereas the material realm is constituted of objects that are all imperfect imitations of the perfect realm of Forms, or Ideals, whose Ultimate Form is The Good. .
In the Bhagavad-Gita, the Supreme Lord Sri Krishna has mentioned BG (10.41):
yad yad vibhūtimat sattvaṁ śrīmad ūrjitam eva vā
tat tad evāvagaccha tvaṁ mama tejo-’ṁśa-sambhavam
Translation: Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but a spark of My splendor.
The difficulty of the modern positivist line of thought is that they are concerned with only the measurable, sensible side of the reality. But they are not encouraging reason. But there is also the negative side. Reason can see this. We have to only recognize this. There is no thought without the thinker. thus thought and thinking always go together inseparably. We have to recognize both the sides of Reality: Positive and Negative side and the movement between them. Philosophy and Science Proper can only begin here. It only requires us to recognize this.
There is a vast reality that is accessible to reason, but we ignore that and try to reduce everything to the positive, appearing side of the energy. But the Vedantic truth finds truth in the Socratic view and it is also being confirmed in modern science as they failed to explain how consciousness could arise from matter.
Thanking you,
Bhakti Vijnana Muni, PhD
...
Is the field of genetics not a product of the belief that there is a cause for the various traits found among individuals in a given species? Is evolution not a product of the belief that there is a cause for the variety of species, and the similarities seen among them, that we observe in nature? Is biology not based on a desire to understand life, to figure out what causes the vastly intricate nature of biological systems?
You conclude by defining a principle which, I presume, you see as fundamental to science:
"Science: 'if I were wrong, how would I know?'"
On the surface, this seems to imply that science is a means to systematically align one's consciousness with consistently empirically observable phenomena interpreted as truth. However your definition reveals some deeper assumptions which are fundamental to our teleological nature. The simple recognition of, or consideration of possibly being wrong, alludes to a desire for truth. If we indeed "just exist", than why this tendency towards a desire for truth? This inherent nature towards truth is called inner-teleology.
Kind regards,
Krishna Keshava Das
Serving Assistant
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute
of Spiritual Culture and Science
