,A ,PHILOSOPHICAL ,NATURALISM 

#aiie 

,PEOPLE 3 

,AU?OR 3 ,MURRAY ,BOOK*9 

,TAGS 3 HUMANITY'S PLACE 9 NATURE1 9/RUM5TAL & ANALYTICAL =MS1 PHILOSOPHY ( SOCIAL ECOLOGY1 9/RUM5TAL & ANALYTICAL1 NOTION ( 9T]CONNECT$NESS1 COSMIC SPIRIT GEI/1 PH5OM5OLOGY ( SPIRIT1 DEVELOPM5T IS CUMULATIVE1 DIALECTICAL REASON1 DIALECTICAL NATURALISM4 

,TEXT 3 

,?IS >TICLE APPE>S 9 ,AN>*Y ,>*IVES ) ! P]MISSION ( ! AU?OR & IS ! 9TRODUCTION TO ,! ,PHILOSOPHY ( ,SOCIAL ,ECOLOGY3 ,ESSAYS ON ,DIALECTICAL ,NATURALISM1 #bND $4 REVIS$ 7,MONTREAL3 
,BLACK ,ROSE ,BOOKS1 #a#i#i#e74  

   
 ,A ,PHILOSOPHICAL ,NATURALISM  
 BY ,MURRAY ,BOOK*9 

  

,PHOTO BY PHOZOGRAPH]1,C,C ,B,Y ,LIC5SE ,:AT IS NATURE8  ,:AT IS HUMANITY'S PLACE 9 NATURE8  ,& :AT IS ! RELATION%IP ( SOCIETY TO ! NATURAL WORLD8 

  ,9 AN ]A ( ECOLOGICAL BREAKD[N1 ANSW]+ !SE QUE/IONS HAS BECOME ( MOM5T\S IMPORTANCE = \R EV]YDAY LIVES & = ! FUTURE ?AT WE & O!R LIFE-=MS FACE4  ,!Y >E NOT AB/RACT PHILOSOPHICAL QUE/IONS ?AT %\LD BE RELEGAT$ TO A REMOTE1 AIRY WORLD ( METAPHYSICAL SPECULATION4  ,NOR CAN WE ANSW] !M 9 AN (FH& WAY1 ) POETIC METAPHORS OR UN?9K+1 VISC]AL REACTIONS4  ,! DEF9ITIONS & E?ICAL /&>DS ) :I* WE RESPOND TO !M MAY ULTIMATELY DECIDE :E!R HUMAN SOCIETY WILL CREATIVELY FO/] NATURAL EVOLUTION1 OR :E!R WE WILL R5D] ! PLANET UN9HABITABLE = ALL COMPLEX LIFE-=MS1 9CLUD+ \RSELVES4 

   
,AT FIR/ GLANCE1 EV]YBODY 0KN[S0 :AT NATURE IS4  ,IT IS ?AT :I* IS ALL >\ND US--TREES1 ANIMALS1 ROCKS1 & ! LIKE4  ,IT IS ?AT :I* 0HUMANITY0 IS DE/ROY+ & COAT+ ) PETROLEUM4  ,BUT SU* PRIMA FACIE DEF9ITIONS FALL AP>T :5 WE EXAM9E !M ) SOME C>E4  ,IF NATURE IS 9DE$ :AT IS ALL >\ND US1 WE MAY REASONABLY ASK1 !N IS A C>EFULLY MANICUR$ SUBURBAN LAWN NOT NATURE8  ,IS ! SPLIT-LEVEL H\SE IT SURR\NDS NOT NATURE8  ,>E ITS FURNI%+S NOT NATURAL8 

   
,TODAY1 ?IS SORT ( QUE/ION IS LIKELY TO ELICIT A HEAT$ AV[AL ?AT ONLY 0WILD10 0PRIMORDIAL10 OR EV5 NONHUMAN NATURE IS AU!NTICALLY NATURAL4  ,O!R PEOPLE1 NO LESS ?\<TFUL1 WILL REPLY ?AT NATURE IS BASICALLY MATT]1 OR ! MAT]IALIZ$ /UFF ( ! UNIV]SE 9 ALL ITS =MS--:AT PHILOSOPH]S SWEEP+LY CALL ,BE+4  ,! FACT IS ?AT WIDE PHILOSOPHICAL DIFF]5CES HAVE EXI/$ = C5TURIES 9 ! ,WE/ OV] ! V]Y DEF9ITION ( ! WORD NATURE4  ,!SE DIFF]5CES REMA9 UNRESOLV$ TO ?IS DAY1 EV5 AS NATURE IS MAK+ HEADL9ES 9 5VIRONM5TAL ISSUES ?AT >E ( 5ORM\S IMPORTANCE = ! FUTURE ( NE>LY ALL LIFE-=MS4 

   
,DEF9+ NATURE BECOMES AN EV5 MORE COMPLEX TASK :5 WE 9CLUDE ! HUMAN SPECIES AS P>T ( IT4  ,IS HUMAN SOCIETY ) ITS 5SEMBLE ( TE*NOLOGIES & >TIFACTS--NOT TO SPEAK ( SU* 9EFFABLE FEATURES AS ITS CONFLICT+ SOCIAL 9T]E/S & 9/ITUTIONS--ANY LESS P>T ( NATURE ?AN NONHUMAN ANIMALS8  ,& IF HUMAN BE+S >E P>T ( NATURE1 >E !Y M]ELY ONE LIFE-=M AMONG MANY O!RS1 OR >E !Y UNIQUE 9 WAYS ?AT PLACE MAJOR RESPONSIBILITIES ON !M ) RESPECT TO ! RE/ ( ! WORLD ( LIFE1 RESPONSIBILITIES ?AT NO O!R SPECIES %>ES OR IS EV5 CAPABLE ( %>+8 

   
,:ATEV] NATURE MAY MEAN1 WE MU/ DET]M9E 9 :AT WAY HUMANITY 0FITS0 9TO IT4  ,& WE MU/ CONFRONT ! COMPLEX & *ALL5G+ QUE/ION ( ! RELATION%IP ( SOCIETY--MORE SPECIFICALLY1 ! DIFF]5T SOCIAL =MS ?AT APPE>$ 9 ! PA/1 ?AT EXI/ TODAY1 & ?AT MAY APPE> 9 ! FUTURE--TO NATURE4  ,UNLESS WE ANSW] !SE QUE/IONS ) REASONABLE CL>ITY--OR AT LEA/ FULLY DISCUSS !M--WE WILL LACK ANY E?ICAL DIRECTION 9 DEAL+ ) \R 5VIRONM5TAL PROBLEMS4  ,UNLESS WE KN[ :AT NATURE IS & :AT HUMANITY'S & SOCIETY'S PLACE 9 IT IS1 WE WILL BE LEFT ) VAGUE 9TUITIONS & VISC]AL S5TIM5TS ?AT NEI!R COH]E 9TO CLE> VIEWS NOR PROVIDE A GUIDE = EFFECTIVE ACTION4 

   
,IT IS EASY TO TRY TO ESCAPE ANSW]+ !SE TR\BL+ QUE/IONS BY IMPATI5TLY REJECT+ !M1 RESPOND+ ) PURE EMOTION1 OR SIMPLY D5IGRAT+ ANY EF=T TO REASON \T A COH]5T REPLY--9DE$1 BY ATTACK+ REASON ITSELF AS 0M$DLESOME0 7TO USE ,WILLIAM ,BLAKE'S T]M74  ,TODAY1 EV5 S5SITIVE PEOPLE 9 GR[+ NUMB]S FEEL BETRAY$ BY ! C5TURIES-LONG GLORIFICATION ( REASON1 ) ITS ICY CLAIMS TO EFFICI5CY1 OBJECTIVITY1 & FRE$OM FROM E?ICAL CON/RA9T--OR ! =M ( REASON ?AT HAS N\RI%$ P>TICUL>LY DE/RUCTIVE TE*NOLOGIES LIKE NUCLEONICS & WEAPONRY4  ,?IS NEGATIVE POPUL> REACTION IS UND]/&ABLE4  ,BUT SW]V+ AWAY FROM A SPECIFIC =M ( REASON ?AT IS L>GELY 9/RUM5TAL & COLDLY ANALYTICAL CREATES PROBLEMS ?AT >E NO LESS DI/URB+ ?AN ?OSE QUE/IONS FROM :I* WE >E SEEK+ TO ESCAPE4 

   
,9 \R AV]SION TO AN 9S5SITIVE & UNFEEL+ =M ( REASON1 WE MAY EASILY OPT = A CL\DY 9TUITIONISM & MY/ICISM AS AN ALT]NATIVE4  ,UNLIKE 9/RUM5TAL & ANALYTICAL REASON1 AFT] ALL1 A SURR5D] TO EMOTION & MY?IC BELIEFS YIELDS COOP]ATIVE FEEL+S ( 09T]CONNECT$NESS0 ) ! NATURAL WORLD & P]HAPS EV5 A C>+ ATTITUDE T[>D IT4  ,BUT PRECISELY BECAUSE 9TUITION & MY/ICAL BELIEFS >E SO CL\DY & >BITR>Y--:I* IS TO SAY1 SO UN-REASON$--!Y MAY ALSO 0CONNECT0 US ) ?+S WE REALLY %\LDN'T BE CONNECT$ ) AT ALL--NAMELY1 RACISM1 SEXISM1 & AN ABJECT SUBS]VI5CE TO *>ISMATIC LEAD]S4 

   
,9DE$1 FOLL[+ ?IS 9TUITIONAL ALT]NATIVE C\LD POT5TIALLY R5D] \R ECOLOGICAL \TLOOK V]Y DANG]\S4  ,VITAL AS ! IDEA ( 09T]CONNECT$NESS0 MAY BE TO \R VIEWS1 IT HAS HI/ORICALLY (T5 BE5 ! BASIS ( MY?S & SUP]NATURAL BELIEFS ?AT BECAME MEANS = SOCIAL CONTROL & POLITICAL MANIPULATION4  ,! FIR/ HALF ( ! TW5TIE? C5TURY IS 9 GREAT P>T ! /ORY ( BRUTAL MOVEM5TS LIKE ,NATIONAL ,SOCIALISM ?AT F$ ON A POPUL> ANTIRATIONALISM & ANTI-9TELLECTUALISM1 & A P]SONAL S5SE ( ALI5ATION1 AMONG O!R ?+S4  ,?IS MOVEM5T MOBILIZ$ & HOMOG5IZ$ MILLIONS ( PEOPLE ) AN ANTISOCIAL1 P]V]T$ 0ECOLOGI/IC0 IDEOLOGY BAS$ ON 9TUITION1 ) AN 09T]CONNECT$NESS0 ( E>?1 FOLK1 & 0BLOOD & SOIL0 ?AT WAS MILIT>I/IC & MURD]\S RA!R ?AN FREELY COMMUNIT>IAN4  ,9SULAT$ FROM ! *ALL5GE ( RATIONAL CRITIQUE BY ITS ANTI-9TELLECTUALISM & MY?IC NATIONALISM1 ! ,NATIONAL ,SOCIALI/ MOVEM5T EV5TUALLY TURN$ MU* ( ,EUROPE 9TO A CEMET]Y4  ,YET IDEOLOGICALLY1 ?IS FASCI/ TOTALIT>IANISM HAD GA9$ SU/5ANCE FROM ! 9TUITIONAL & MY/ICAL CR$O ( ! ,ROMANTIC MOVEM5T ( ! C5TURY BE=E--SOME?+ NO ONE C\LD HAVE =ESE5 AT ! TIME4 

   
,FEEL+1 S5TIM5T1 & A MORAL \TLOOK WE SURELY NE$ IF 9/RUM5TAL & ANALYTICAL REASON >E NOT TO DIVE/ US ( \R PASSION = TRU?4  ,BUT MY?S1 M9D-NUMB+ RITUALS1 & *>ISMATIC P]SONALITIES CAN ALSO ROB US ( ! CRITICAL FACULTIES ?AT ?\<T PROVIDES4  ,REC5TLY1 A ,GRE5 ORGANIZATION 9 ,CANADA FLIPPANTLY PROCLAIM$ ?AT IT SEEKS 0COOP]ATION0 AS P>T ( ITS 0NEW P>ADIGM0 RA!R ?AN 0CONFRONTATION10 :I* IT CONSID]S P>T ( ! REJECT$ 0OLD P>ADIGM40  ,9 A MORE RADICAL ]A1 CONFRONTATION WAS ! /AT$ PURPOSE ( RADICAL MOVEM5TS6  ,! MY?IC & UNCRITICAL ASPECT ( 09T]CONNECT$NESS0 ?AT REJECTS CONFRONTATION SEEMS TO HAVE R$UC$ ?IS ,CANADIAN ,GRE5 ORGANIZATION TO ! LEVEL ( \TRI<T ACCOMMODATION ) ! /ATUS QUO4  ,H]E1 ! NE$ NOT ONLY TO CONFRONT ! EVILS ( \R TIME BUT TO UNCOMPROMIS+LY OPPOSE !M HAS DISAPPE>$ 9TO A ,NEW ,AGE QUAGMIRE ( UN?9K+ 0GOOD VIBES40  ,!  0LOV+0 PA? ( COMPROMISES ALONG :I* SU* 0GOOD VIBES0 LEADS US CAN EASILY 5D 9 %E] OPPORTUNISM4 

   
,IF \R CONTEMPOR>Y REVOLT AGA9/ REASON RE/S ON ! MISGUID$ BELIEF ?AT ! ONLY ALT]NATIVE TO \R PRES5T REALITY IS MY/ICISM1 IT ALSO RE/S ON ! EQUALLY MISGUID$ BELIEF ?AT ONLY ONE K9D ( REASON EXI/S4  ,9 REACT+ AGA9/ 9/RUM5TAL & ANALYTICAL =MS ( REASON1 :I* >E USUALLY ID5TIFI$ ) REASON AS SU*1 WE MAY WELL OV]LOOK O!R =MS ( REASON ?AT >E ORGANIC & YET RETA9 CRITICAL QUALITIES2 ?AT >E DEVELOPM5TAL & YET RETA9 ANALYTICAL 9SI<TS2 ?AT >E E?ICAL & YET RETA9 CONTACT ) REALITY4  ,! 0VALUE-FREE0 RATIONALISM ?AT WE NORMALLY ID5TIFY ) ! PHYSICAL SCI5CES & TE*NOLOGY IS 9 FACT NOT ! ONLY =M ( REASON ?AT ,WE/]N PHILOSOPHY HAS DEVELOP$ OV] ! C5TURIES--,I REF] SPECIFICALLY TO ! GREAT TRADITION ( DIALECTICAL REASON ?AT ORIG9AT$ 9 ,GREECE SOME TW5TY-FIVE C5TURIES AGO & REA*$ ITS HI< PO9T1 BUT BY NO MEANS ITS COMPLETION1 9 ! LOGICAL WORKS ( ,HEGEL4 

   
,:AT DIALECTICAL ?9K]S FROM ,H]ACLITUS ONW>D HAVE HAD 9 COMMON1 9 V>Y+ DEGREES1 IS A VIEW ( REALITY AS DEVELOPM5TAL--( ,BE+ AS AN EV]-UNFOLD+ ,BECOM+4  ,EV] S9CE ,PLATO CREAT$ A DUALISM BETWE5 A SUPRANATURAL WORLD ( IDEAL =MS & A TRANSI5T WORLD ( IMP]FECT S5SIBLE COPIES1 ! P]PLEX+ QUE/ION ( ID5TITY AMID *ANGE & *ANGE AMID ID5TITY HAS HAUNT$ ,WE/]N PHILOSOPHY4  ,9/RUM5TAL & ANALYTICAL =MS ( REASON--:AT ,I WILL H]E G5]ICALLY CALL CONV5TIONAL REASON#a--RE/ ON A FUNDAM5TAL PR9CIPLE1 ! FAM\S 0PR9CIPLE ( ID5TITY10 OR ,A EQUALS ,A1 :I* MEANS ?AT ANY GIV5 PH5OM5ON CAN BE ONLY ITSELF & CANNOT BE O!R ?AN :AT IT IS1 OR :AT WE IMM$IATELY P]CEIVE IT TO BE1 AT A GIV5 MOM5T 9 TIME4  ,)\T ?IS PR9CIPLE1 LOGICAL CONSI/5CY 9 CONV5TIONAL REASON W\LD BE IMPOSSIBLE4 

   
,CONV5TIONAL REASON IS BAS$ ON AN ANALYSIS ( PH5OM5A AS PRECISELY DEF9$1 & :OSE TRU? DEP5DS UPON ! 9T]NAL CONSI/5CY & !IR PRACTICALITY4  ,IT FOCUSES ON A ?+ OR PH5OM5ON AS FIX$1 ) CLE>-CUT B\ND>IES ?AT >E IMMUTABLE = ANALYTICAL PURPOSES4  ,WE KN[ AN 5TITY1 9 ?IS WIDELY ACCEPT$ NOTION ( REASON1 :5 WE CAN ANALYZE IT 9TO ITS IRR$UCIBLE COMPON5TS & DET]M9E H[ !Y WORK AS A FUNCTION+ :OLE1 SO ?AT KN[L$GE ( ! 5TITY WILL HAVE OP]ATIONAL APPLICABILITY4  ,:5 ! B\ND>IES ?AT 0DEF9E0 A DEVELOP+ ?+ *ANGE--AS1 = 9/ANCE1 :5 S& BECOMES SOIL--!N CONV5TIONAL REASON TREATS S& AS S& & SOIL AS SOIL1 MU* AS IF !Y W]E 9DEP5D5T ( EA* O!R4  ,! ZONE ( 9T]E/ 9 ?IS K9D ( RATIONALITY IS A ?+ OR PH5OM5ON'S FIXITY1 ITS 9DEP5D5CE1 & ITS BASICALLY ME*ANICAL 9T]ACTION ) SIMIL> OR DISSIMIL> ?+S & PH5OM5A4  ,! CAUSALITY ?AT CONV5TIONAL REASON DESCRIBES1 MOREOV]1 IS A MATT] ( K9ETICS3 ONE BILLI>D BALL /RIKES ANO!R & CAUSES !M BO? TO MOVE FROM ONE POSITION TO ANO!R--?AT IS TO SAY1 BY MEANS ( EFFICI5T CAUSE4  ,! TWO BILLI>D BALLS >E NOT ALT]$ BY ! BL[ BUT >E M]ELY REPOSITION$ ON ! BILLI>DS TABLE4 

   
,BUT CONV5TIONAL REASON CANNOT ADDRESS ! PROBLEM ( *ANGE AT ALL4  ,IT VIEWS A MAMMAL1 = EXAMPLE1 AS A CREATURE M>K$ BY A HI<LY FIX$ SET ( TRAITS ?AT DI/+UI% IT FROM EV]Y?+ ?AT IS NOT MAMMALIAN4  ,TO 0KN[0 A MAMMAL IS TO EXPLORE ITS /RUCTURE1 LIT]ALLY TO ANALYZE IT BY DISMEMB]+ IT1 TO R$UCE IT TO ITS COMPON5TS1 TO ID5TIFY ITS ORGANS & !IR FUNCTIONS1 & TO ASC]TA9 ! WAY !Y OP]ATE TOGE!R TO ASSURE ! MAMMAL'S SURVIVAL & REPRODUCTION4  ,SIMIL>LY1 CONV5TIONAL REASON VIEWS A HUMAN BE+ 9 T]MS ( P>TICUL> /AGES ( ! LIFE-CYCLE3 A P]SON IS AN 9FANT AT ONE TIME1 A *ILD AT ANO!R1 AN ADOLESC5T AT /ILL ANO!R1 A Y\? & F9ALLY AN ADULT4  ,:5 WE ANALYZE AN 9FANT BY MEANS ( CONV5TIONAL REASON1 WE DO NOT EXPLORE :AT IT IS BECOM+ 9 ! PROCESS ( DEVELOP+ 9TO AN ADULT4  ,D\BTLESS1 :5 DEVELOPM5TAL PSY*OLOGI/S & ANATOMI/S /UDY AN 9DIVIDUAL LIFE-CYCLE1 FEW ( !M--H[EV] CONV5TIONAL !IR RATIONALITY MAY BE--IGNORE ! FACT ?AT EV]Y 9FANT IS 9 ! PROCESS ( BECOM+ AN ADULT & ?AT ! TWO /AGES 9 ! LIFE-CYCLE >E 9 V>I\S WAYS RELAT$ TO EA* O!R4  ,BUT ! PR9CIPLE ( ,A EQUALS ,A REMA9S A BASIC PREMISE4  ,ITS LOGICAL FRAMEWORK IS ! AU?ORITY ( CONSI/5CY1 & D$UCTIONS ALMO/ ME*ANICALLY FOLL[ FROM PREMISES4  ,CONV5TIONAL REASON ?US S]VES ! PRACTICAL FUNCTION ( DESCRIB+ A GIV5 5TITY'S ID5TITY & TELL+ US H[ ?AT 5TITY IS ORGANIZ$ TO BE ITSELF4  ,BUT IT CANNOT SY/EMATICALLY EXPLORE PROCESSES ( BECOM+1 OR H[ A LIV+ 5TITY IS PATT]N$ AS A POT5TIALITY TO PHASE FROM ONE /AGE ( ITS DEVELOPM5T 9TO ANO!R4 

   
,DIALECTICAL REASON1 UNLIKE CONV5TIONAL REASON1 ACKN[L$GES ! DEVELOPM5TAL NATURE ( REALITY BY ASS]T+ 9 ONE FA%ION OR ANO!R ?AT ,A EQUALS NOT ONLY ,A BUT ALSO NOT-,A4  ,! DIALECTICAL ?9K] :O EXAM9ES ! HUMAN LIFE-CYCLE SEES AN 9FANT AS A SELF-MA9TA9+ HUMAN ID5TITY :ILE SIMULTANE\SLY DEVELOP+ 9TO A *ILD1 FROM A *ILD 9TO AN ADOLESC5T1 FROM AN ADOLESC5T 9TO A Y\?1 & FROM A Y\? 9TO AN ADULT4  ,DIALECTICAL REASON GRASPS NOT ONLY H[ AN 5TITY IS ORGANIZ$ AT A P>TICUL> MOM5T BUT H[ IT IS ORGANIZ$ TO GO BEYOND ?AT LEVEL ( DEVELOPM5T & BECOME O!R ?AN :AT IT IS1 EV5 AS IT RETA9S ITS ID5TITY4  ,! CONTRADICTORY NATURE ( ID5TITY--NOTABLY1 ?AT ,A EQUALS BO? ,A & NOT-,A--IS AN 9TR9SIC FEATURE ( ID5TITY ITSELF4  ,! UNITY ( OPPOSITES IS1 9 FACT1 A UNITY QUA ! EM]G+ 0O!R10 :AT ,HEGEL CALL$ 0! ID5TITY ( ID5TITY & NONID5TITY40 

   
,! ?9K+ ( CONV5TIONAL REASON TODAY IS EXEMPLIFI$--& DISA/R\SLY RE9=C$--BY ! 0TRUE OR FALSE0 QUE/IONS ?AT MAKE UP MO/ /&>DIZ$ TE/S4  ,ONE MU/ D>K5 A BOX TO 9DICATE ?AT A /ATEM5T IS EI!R 0TRUE0 OR 0FALSE0--& DO SO QUICKLY1 ) M9IMAL REFLECTION4  ,!SE TE/S1 SO COMMONPLACE TODAY1 ALL[ = NO NUANC$ ?\<T OR AW>5ESS ( TRANSITIONS4  ,?AT A PH5OM5ON OR /ATEM5T MAY WELL BE BO? TRUE & FALSE--DEP5D+ ON ITS CONTEXT & ITS PLACE 9 A PROCESS ( BECOM+ O!R ?AN :AT IT IS--IS EXCLUD$ BY ! LOGICAL PREMISE ON :I* !SE TE/S >E BAS$4  ,?IS TE/+ PROC$URE MAKES = BAD M5TAL HABITS AMONG Y\NG PEOPLE1 :O >E S*OOL$ TO TAKE SU* TE/S SUCCESSFULLY1 & :OSE C>E]S & FUTURE LIFEWAYS DEP5D ON !IR SCORES4  ,BUT ! PROCESS ( ?9K+ 9 ! WAY SU* TE/S DEM& COMP>TM5TALIZES & ESS5TIALLY COMPUT]IZES O!RWISE RI* M9DS1 DEPRIV+ Y\NG PEOPLE ( !IR NATIVE ABILITY TO ?9K ORGANICALLY & TO UND]/& ! DEVELOPM5TAL NATURE ( ! REAL WORLD4 

   
,ANO!R MAJOR PRESUPPOSITION ( CONV5TIONAL REASON--ONE ?AT FOLL[S FROM ITS CONCEPTS ( ID5TITY & CAUSALITY--IS ?AT HI/ORY IS A LAY]$ S]IES ( SEP>ATE PH5OM5A1 A M]E SUCCESSION ( /RATA1 EA* 9DEP5D5T ( ! ONES ?AT PREC$$ & FOLL[$ IT4  ,!SE /RATA MAY BE CEM5T$ TOGE!R BY PHASES1 BUT !SE PHASES >E !MSELVES ANALYZ$ 9TO COMPON5TS & EXPLOR$ 9DEP5D5TLY ( EA* O!R4  ,?US1 ,MESOZOIC ROCK /RATA >E 9DEP5D5T ( ,C5OZOIC1 & EA* /RATUM EXI/S V]Y MU* ON ITS [N1 AS DO ! ONES ?AT CEM5T !M TOGE!R4  ,9 HUMAN HI/ORY1 ! M$IEVAL P]IOD IS 9DEP5D5T ( ! MOD]N1 & ! =M] IS CONNECT$ TO ! LATT] BY A S]IES ( 9DEP5D5T SEGM5TS1 EA* RELATIVELY AUTONOM\S 9 RELATION TO ! PREC$+ & SUBSEQU5T ONES4  ,FROM ! /&PO9T ( CONV5TIONAL REASON1 IT IS NOT ALWAYS CLE> H[ HI/ORICAL *ANGE OCCURR$ OR :AT MEAN+ HI/ORY HAS4  ,DESPITE PO/MOD]NISM & PRES5T-DAY HI/ORICAL RELATIVISM1 :I* EXAM9E HI/ORY US+ CONV5TIONAL REASON & !REBY RAVAGE IT1 !RE WAS A TIME 9 ! REC5T PA/ :5 MO/ HI/ORIANS1 9FLU5C$ BY !ORIES ( EVOLUTION & BY ,M>XISM1 REG>D$ HI/ORY AS A DEVELOPM5TAL PH5OM5ON & SUBSEQU5T P]IODS AS AT LEA/ DEP5D+ UPON PRIOR ONES4  ,IT IS ?IS TRADITION ?AT DIALECTICAL REASON UPHOLDS4 

   
,! 9TUITIONAL APPROA* TO HI/ORY IS NO IMPROVEM5T OV] ?AT ( CONV5TIONAL REASON--9DE$1 IT DOES ! OPPOSITE3 IT LIT]ALLY DISSOLVES HI/ORICAL DEVELOPM5T 9TO AN UNDIFF]5TIAT$ CONT9UUM & EV5 9TO A UBIQUIT\S1 ALL-EMBRAC+ 0,ONE40  ,! MY/ICAL C\NT]P>T ( ME*ANICO-MAT]IALI/IC /RATIFICATION IS ! R$UCTIONISM ?AT SAYS ?AT EV]Y?+ IS 0,ONE0 OR 09T]CONNECT$10 ?AT ALL PH5OM5A ORIG9AT$ FROM A PULSE ( PRIMAL 5]GY1 LIKE ! ,VICTORIAN PHYSICI/ :O BELIEV$ ?AT :5 HE P\ND$ HIS FI/ ON A TABLE1 ,SIRIUS TREMBL$1 H[EV] FA9TLY4  ,?AT ! UNIV]SE HAD AN ORIG91 :ATEV] IT WAS1 DOES NOT W>RANT ! NAIVE BELIEF ?AT ! UNIV]SE /ILL 0REALLY0 CONSI/S ( NO?+ BUT ITS ORIG9AT+ S\RCE1 ANY MORE ?AN AN ADULT HUMAN BE+ CAN BE EXPLA9$ 5TIRELY BY REF]5CE TO HIS OR H] P>5TS4  ,?IS WAY ( ?9K+ IS NOT F> REMOV$ FROM ! K9ETIC CAUSE-EFFECT APPROA* ( CONV5TIONAL REASON4  ,NOR DOES ! 09T]CONNECT$NESS0 ( ALL LIFE-=MS PRECLUDE ! %>P DI/9CTIONS BETWE5 PREY & PR$ATORS1 OR BETWE5 9/9CTIVELY GUID$ LIFE-=MS & POT5TIALLY RATIONAL ONES4  ,YET !SE C\NTLESS DIFF]5TIATIONS REFLECT 9NUM]ABLE 9NOVATIONS 9 EVOLUTION>Y PA?WAYS1 9DE$ DIFF]5T K9DS ( EVOLUTION--BE !Y 9ORGANIC1 ORGANIC1 OR SOCIAL4  ,9/EAD ( APPREH5D+ ?+S & PH5OM5A AS BO? DIFF]5TIAT$ & YET CUMULATIVELY RELAT$1 ! MY/ICAL ALT]NATIVE TO CONV5TIONAL REASON T5DS TO SEE !M1 TO USE ,HEGEL'S FAM\S REM>K1 AS 0A NI<T 9 :I* ALL C[S >E BLACK40 

   
,CONV5TIONAL REASON1 TO BE SURE1 HAS ITS USEFUL SIDE4  ,ITS 9T]NAL CONSI/5CY ( PROPOSITIONS1 IRRESPECTIVE ( CONT5T1 PLAYS AN 9DISP5SABLE ROLE 9 MA!MATICAL ?9K+ & MA!MATICAL SCI5CES1 9 5G9E]+1 & 9 ! NUTS-&-BOLTS ACTIVITIES ( EV]YDAY LIFE4  ,IT IS 9DISP5SABLE :5 BUILD+ A BRIDGE OR A H\SE2 = SU* PURPOSES1 !RE IS NO PO9T 9 ?9K+ ALONG EVOLUTION>Y OR DEVELOPM5TAL L9ES4  ,IF WE US$ A LOGIC BAS$ ON ANY?+ BUT ! PR9CIPLE ( ID5TITY TO BUILD A BRIDGE OR A H\SE1 A CATA/ROPHE W\LD NO D\BT OCCUR4  ,! PHYSIOLOGICAL OP]ATIONS ( \R BODIES1 NOT TO SPEAK ( ! FLI<T ( BIRDS & ! PUMPLIKE WORK+S ( A MAMMALIAN HE>T1 DEP5D 9 GREAT P>T UPON ! PR9CIPLES WE ASSOCIATE ) CONV5TIONAL REASON4  ,TO UND]/& OR DESIGN A ME*ANICAL 5TITY REQUIRES A =M ( REASON ?AT IS 9/RUM5TAL & AN ANALYSIS ( REALITY 9TO ITS COMPON5TS & !IR FUNCTION+4  ,! TRU?S ( CONV5TIONAL REASON1 BAS$ ON CONSI/5CY1 >E USEFUL 9 !SE >EAS ( LIFE4  ,9DE$1 CONV5TIONAL REASON HAS CONTRIBUT$ IMMEASURABLY TO \R KN[L$GE ( ! UNIV]SE4 

   
,= SEV]AL C5TURIES1 9 FACT1 CONV5TIONAL REASON HELD \T A PROMISE TO DISPEL ! DOGMATIC AU?ORITY ( ! *UR*1 ! >BITR>Y BEHAVIOR ( ABSOLUTE MON>*S1 & ! FRI<T5+ <O/S ( SUP]/ITION--& 9DE$1 IT DID A GREAT DEAL TO FULFILL ?IS PROMISE4  ,BUT TO A*IEVE ! CONSI/5CY ?AT CON/ITUTES ITS FUNDAM5TAL PR9CIPLE1 CONV5TIONAL REASON REMOVES E?ICS FROM ITS DISC\RSE & CONC]NS4  ,& AS AN 9/RUM5T = A*IEV+ C]TA9 5DS1 ! MORAL *>ACT] ( ?OSE 5DS1 ! VALUES1 IDEALS1 BELIEFS1 & !ORIES PEOPLE *]I%1 >E IRRELEVANT TO IT1 >BITR>Y MATT]S ( P]SONAL MOOD & TA/E4  ,) ITS MESSAGE ( ID5TITY & CONSI/5CY AS TRU?1 CONV5TIONAL REASON FAIL$ US NOT BECAUSE IT IS FALSE AS SU* BUT BECAUSE IT HAS /AK$ \T TOO BROAD A CLAIM = ITS [N VALIDITY 9 EXPLA9+ REALITY4  ,IT EV5 R$EF9ES REALITY TO FIT ITS CLAIM1 JU/ AS MANY MA!MATICAL PHYSICI/S R$EF9E REALITY AS ?AT :I* CAN BE =MULAT$ 9 MA!MATICAL T]MS4  ,IT %\LD COME AS NO SURPRISE1 !N1 ?AT 9 \R HI<LY RATIONALIZ$ 9DU/RIAL SOCIETY1 CONV5TIONAL REASON HAS COME TO SEEM REPELL5T4  ,P]VASIVE AU?ORITY1 AN IMP]SONAL TE*NOCRACY1 AN UNFEEL+ SCI5CE & 9S5SITIVE1 MONOLI?IC BUREAUCRACIES--! V]Y EXI/5CE ( ALL !SE IS IMPUT$ TO REASON AS SU*4 

   
,H]E WE F9D \RSELVES 9 SOME?+ ( A QU&>Y4  ,IT IS OBVI\S ?AT WE CANNOT DO )\T ! MU*-DESPIS$ T5ETS ( CONV5TIONAL REASON 9 \R EV]YDAY LIFE2 NOR CAN WE DO )\T MANY TE*NOLOGIES--9CLUD+ SOPHI/ICAT$ B9OCUL>S TO WAT* BIRDS & :ALES1 & CAM]AS TO PHOTOGRAPH !M4  ,?IS BE+ ! CASE1 WE CONCLUDE1 LET US TURN TO AN IRRATIONAL1 MY/ICAL1 OR RELIGI\S PRIVATE WORLD TO SUPPORT \R MORAL & SPIRITUAL BELIEFS4  ,LET US SEEK COMMUNION ) A MY/ICAL 0,ONE10 EV5 AS WE WORK = CORPORATIONS TO SURVIVE4  ,?US1 EV5 AS WE RAIL AGA9/ DUALISM & PLEAD = A GREAT] S5SE ( UNITY1 WE %>PLY DUALIZE \R [N EXI/5CE4  ,EV5 AS WE MAY SEEK AN ELEVAT$ SPIRITUALITY1 COMMUNION1 & CONNECT$NESS1 WE TURN TO RA!R MUNDANE GURUS1 *>ISMATIC P]SONALITIES1 & CULTIC FIGURES :O BEHAVE MORE LIKE 5TREPR5EURS 9 ! V5D+ ( MY/ICAL NO/RUMS ?AN F9ANCIALLY DIS9T]E/$ GUIDES 9 ATTA9+ MORAL P]FECTION4  ,EV5 AS WE D5\NCE A MAT]IALI/IC & CONSUM]I/IC M5TALITY1 WE \RSELVES BECOME AVID CONSUM]S ( CO/LY1 SUPPOS$LY SPIRITUAL OR ECOLOGICAL PRODUCTS1 0GRE50 W>ES ?AT BE> L(TY MESSAGES4  ,?US DO ! MO/ VULG> ATTRIBUTES ( :AT WE REG>D AS ! REALM ( REASON CONT9UE TO 9VADE \R LIVES 9 ! GUISE ( IRRATIONAL1 MY/ICAL1 & RELIGI\S COMMODITIES4 

   
,\R MAILBOXES >E FLOOD$ ) CATALOGS1 & \R BOOK/ORES >E FILL$ ) PAP]BACKS ?AT (F] US NEW ROADS TO MY/ICAL COMMUNION & A ,NEW ,AGE 9TO :I* WE CAN )DRAW & TURN \R BACKS TO ! H>% REALITIES ?AT CON/ANTLY ASSAIL US4  ,(T51 ?IS MY/ICAL )DRAWAL YIELDS A /ATE ( SOCIAL QUIETISM ?AT IS MORE DREAMLIKE ?AN REAL1 MORE PASSIVE ?AN ACTIVE4  ,PREOCCUPI$ MORE ) P]SONAL *ANGE ?AN ) SOCIAL *ANGE1 & CONC]N$ MORE ) ! SYMPTOMS ( \R P[]LESS1 ALI5AT$ LIVES ?AN ) !IR ROOT CAUSES1 WE SURR5D] CONTROL OV] ! SOCIAL ASPECTS ( \R LIVES1 EV5 AS !Y >E SO IMPORTANT 9 %AP+ \R PRIVATE LIVES4 

   
,BUT !RE CAN BE NO P]SONAL 0R$EMPTION0 )\T SOCIAL 0R$EMPTION10 & !RE CAN BE NO E?ICAL LIFE )\T A RATIONAL LIFE4  ,IF METAPHORS ) MY/ICAL CONNOTATIONS >E NOT TO REPLACE UND]/&+ & IF OBSCURANTISM IS NOT TO REPLACE G5U9E 9SI<T--ALL 9 REACTION TO ! LIMITATIONS ( CONV5TIONAL REASON & ITS EMPHASIS ON VALUE-FREE =MS ( ?\<T--WE MU/ EXAM9E ! ALT]NATIVE =M ( REASON ?AT ,I HAVE ALREADY 9TRODUC$4  ,?IS1 LET ME 9SI/1 IS NOT A PHILOSOPHICALLY AB/RACT ISSUE4  ,IT HAS 5ORM\S IMPLICATIONS = H[ WE BEHAVE AS E?ICAL BE+S & = \R UND]/&+ ( ! NATURE ( NATURE & \R PLACE 9 ! NATURAL WORLD4  ,MOREOV]1 IT DIRECTLY AFFECTS ! K9D ( SOCIETY1 S5SIBILITY1 & LIFEWAYS WE *OOSE TO FO/]4 

   
,LET US GRANT ?AT ! PR9CIPLES ( ID5TITY1 ( EFFICI5T CAUSALITY1 & ( /RATIFICATION DO APPLY TO A P>TICUL> COMMONS5SICAL REALITY ?AT IS R5D]$ 9TELLIGIBLE BY !IR USE4  ,BUT :5 WE GO BEYOND ?AT P>TICUL> REALITY1 WE CAN NO LONG] R$UCE ! RI* WEAL? ( DIFF]5TIATION1 FLUX1 DEVELOPM5T1 ORGANIC CAUSALITY1 & DEVELOPM5TAL REALITY TO A VAGUE 0,ONE0 OR TO AN EQUALLY VAGUE NOTION ( 09T]CONNECT$NESS40  ,A V]Y CONSID]ABLE LIT]ATURE DAT+ BACK TO ! ANCI5T ,GREEKS PROVIDES ! BASIS ( AN ORGANIC =M ( REASON & A DEVELOPM5TAL 9T]PRETATION ( REALITY4 

   
,) A FEW NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS1 ! ,PLATONIC DUALISM ( ID5TITY & *ANGE REV]B]AT$ 9 ONE WAY OR ANO!R ?R\<\T ,WE/]N PHILOSOPHY UNTIL ! N9ETE5? C5TURY1 :5 ,HEGEL'S LOGICAL WORKS L>GELY RESOLV$ ?IS P>ADOX BY SY/EMATICALLY %[+ ?AT ID5TITY1 OR SELF-P]SI/5CE1 ACTUALLY EXPRESSES ITSELF ?R\< *ANGE AS AN EV]-V>IEGAT$ UNFOLD+ ( 0UNITY 9 DIV]SITY10 TO USE HIS [N WORDS4#b  ,! GR&EUR ( ,HEGEL'S EF=T HAS NO EQUAL 9 ! HI/ORY ( ,WE/]N PHILOSOPHY4  ,LIKE ,>I/OTLE BE=E HIM1 HE HAD AN 0EM]G5T0 9T]PRETATION ( CAUSALITY1 ( H[ ! IMPLICIT BECOMES EXPLICIT ?R\< ! UNFOLD+ ( ITS LAT5T =M & POSSIBILITIES4  ,ON A VA/ SCALE OV] ! C\RSE ( TWO SIZABLE VOLUMES1 HE ASSEMBL$ NE>LY ALL ! CATEGORIES BY :I* REASON EXPLA9S REALITY1 & $UC$ ONE FROM ! O!R 9 AN 9TELLIGIBLE & MEAN+FUL CONT9UUM ?AT IS GRAD$ 9TO A RI*LY DIFF]5TIAT$1 9CREAS+LY COMPREH5SIVE1 OR 0ADEQUATE0 :OLE1 TO USE SOME ( HIS T]MS4 

   
,WE MAY REJECT :AT ,HEGEL CALL$ HIS 0ABSOLUTE IDEALISM10 ! TRANSITION FROM HIS LOGIC TO HIS PHILOSOPHY ( NATURE1 HIS TELEOLOGICAL CULM9ATION ( ! SUBJECTIVE & OBJECTIVE 9 A GODLIKE 0,ABSOLUTE10 & HIS IDEA ( A COSMIC ,SPIRIT 7,GEI/74  ,HEGEL R>EFI$ DIALECTICAL REASON 9TO A COSMOLOGICAL SY/EM ?AT V]G$ ON ! !OLOGICAL BY TRY+ TO RECONCILE IT ) IDEALISM1 ABSOLUTE KN[L$GE1 & A MY/ICAL UNFOLD+ LOGOS ?AT HE (T5 DESIGNAT$ 0,GOD40  ,UNFAMILI> ) ECOLOGY1 ,HEGEL REJECT$ NATURAL EVOLUTION AS A VIABLE !ORY 9 FAVOR ( A /ATIC HI]>*Y ( ,BE+4  ,BY ! SAME TOK51 ,FRI$RI* ,5GELS 9T]M+L$ DIALECTICAL REASON ) NATURAL 0LAWS0 ?AT MORE CLOSELY RESEMBLE ! PREMISES ( N9ETE5?-C5TURY PHYSICS ?AN A PLA/IC METAPHYSICS OR AN ORGANISMIC \TLOOK1 PRODUC+ A CRUDE DIALECTICAL MAT]IALISM4  ,9DE$1 SO 5AMOR$ WAS ,5GELS ( MATT] & MOTION AS ! IRR$UCIBLE 0ATTRIBUTES0 ( ,BE+ ?AT A K9ETICISM BAS$ ON M]E MOTION 9VAD$ HIS DIALECTIC ( ORGANIC DEVELOPM5T4 

   
,TO DISMISS DIALECTICAL REASON BECAUSE ( ! FAIL+S ( ,HEGEL'S IDEALISM & ,5GELS'S MAT]IALISM1 H[EV]1 W\LD BE TO LOSE SI<T ( ! EXTRAORD9>Y COH]5CE ?AT DIALECTICAL REASON CAN FURNI% & ITS EXTRAORD9>Y APPLICABILITY TO ECOLOGY--P>TICUL>LY TO AN ECOLOGY ROOT$ 9 EVOLUTION>Y DEVELOPM5T4  ,DESPITE ,HEGEL'S [N PREJUDICES AGA9/ ORGANIC EVOLUTION1 :AT /&S \T AMID ! METAPHYSICAL & (T5 !OLOGICAL >*AISMS 9 HIS WORK IS HIS OV]ALL D$UCTION ( LOGICAL CATEGORIES AS ! SUBJECTIVE ANATOMY ( A DEVELOPM5TAL REALITY4  ,:AT IS NE$$ IS TO FREE ?IS =M ( REASON FROM BO? ! QUASI-MY/ICAL & ! N>R[LY SCI5TI/IC WORLDVIEWS ?AT 9 ! PA/ HAVE MADE IT REMOTE FROM ! LIV+ WORLD2 TO SEP>ATE IT FROM ,HEGEL'S EMPYREAN1 BASICALLY ANT9ATURALI/IC DIALECTICAL IDEALISM & ! WOOD51 (T5 SCI5TI/IC DIALECTICAL MAT]IALISM ( OR?ODOX ,M>XI/S4  ,%ORN ( BO? ITS IDEALISM & ITS MAT]IALISM1 DIALECTICAL REASON MAY BE R5D]$ NATURALI/IC & ECOLOGICAL & CONCEIV$ AS A NATURALI/IC =M ( ?9K+4 

   
,?IS DIALECTICAL NATURALISM (F]S AN ALT]NATIVE TO AN ECOLOGY MOVEM5T ?AT RI<TLY DI/RU/S CONV5TIONAL REASON4  ,IT CAN BR+ COH]5CE TO ECOLOGICAL ?9K+1 & IT CAN DISPEL >BITR>Y & ANTI-9TELLECTUAL T5D5CIES T[>D ! S5TIM5TAL1 CL\DY1 & !I/IC AT BE/ & ! DANG]\SLY ANTIRATIONAL1 MY/ICAL1 & POT5TIALLY REACTION>Y AT WOR/4  ,AS A WAY ( REASON+ AB\T REALITY1 DIALECTICAL NATURALISM IS ORGANIC 5\< TO GIVE A MORE LIB]ATORY MEAN+ TO VAGUE WORDS LIKE 9T]CONNECT$NESS & HOLISM )\T SACRIFIC+ 9TELLECTUALITY4  ,IT CAN ANSW] ! QUE/IONS ,I POS$ AT ! BEG9N+ ( ?IS ESSAY3 :AT NATURE IS1 HUMANITY'S PLACE 9 NATURE1 ! ?RU/ ( NATURAL EVOLUTION1 & SOCIETY'S RELATION%IP ) ! NATURAL WORLD4  ,EQUALLY IMPORTANT1 DIALECTICAL NATURALISM ADDS AN EVOLUTION>Y P]SPECTIVE TO ECOLOGICAL ?9K+--DESPITE ,HEGEL'S REJECTION ( NATURAL EVOLUTION & ,5GELS'S REC\RSE TO ! ME*ANI/IC EVOLUTION>Y !ORIES ( A C5TURY AGO4  ,DIALECTICAL NATURALISM DISC]NS EVOLUTION>Y PH5OM5A FLUIDLY & PLA/ICALLY1 YET IT DOES NOT DIVE/ EVOLUTION ( RATIONAL 9T]PRETATION4  ,F9ALLY1 A DIALECTIC ?AT HAS BE5 0ECOLOGIZ$10 OR GIV5 A NATURALI/IC CORE1 & A TRULY DEVELOPM5TAL UND]/&+ ( REALITY C\LD PROVIDE ! BASIS = A LIV+ ECOLOGICAL E?ICS4 

   
,NO G5]AL ACC\NT ( DIALECTICAL REASON CAN BE A SUB/ITUTE = READ+ ,HEGEL'S WORKS ON LOGIC4  ,= ALL ITS =C$ ANALYZES & D\BTFUL TRANSITIONS 9 $UC+ ONE LOGICAL CATEGORY FROM ANO!R1 ,HEGEL'S ,SCI5CE ( ,LOGIC IS DIALECTICAL REASON 9 ITS MO/ ELABORATE & DYNAMIC =M4  ,?IS WORK1 9 MANY RESPECTS1 ABSORB$ ! CONV5TIONAL LOGIC ( ,>I/OTLE'S ,PO/]IOR ,ANALYTICS 9TO ! SAME ,GREEK ?9K]'S ,METAPHYSICS1 ) ITS BOLD VIEW ( ! NATURE ( REALITY4  ,I %ALL !RE=E NOT PRET5D ?AT A BROAD DESCRIPTION ( ! DIALECTIC CAN REPLACE ! DETAIL$ PRES5TATION ,HEGEL ADVANC$1 NOR TRY TO =CE ITS !ORETICAL UNFOLD+ 9TO ! BRIEF 0DEF9ITIONS & CONCLUSIONS0 ?AT ORD9>ILY PASS = ACC\NTS ( IDEAS4  ,AS ,HEGEL HIMSELF OBS]V$ 9 HIS ,PH5OM5OLOGY ( ,SPIRIT3 0,= ! REAL ISSUE IS NOT EXHAU/$ BY /AT+ IT AS AN AIM1 BUT BY C>RY+ IT \T2 NOR IS ! RESULT ! ACTUAL :OLE1 BUT RA!R ! RESULT TOGE!R ) ! PROCESS ?R\< :I* IT CAME AB\T4  ,! AIM BY ITSELF .<0DEF9ITIONS & CONCLUSIONS0.> IS A LIFELESS UNIV]SAL1 JU/ AS ! GUID+ T5D5CY IS A M]E DRIVE ?AT AS YET LACKS AN ACTUAL EXI/5CE2 & ! B>E RESULT IS ! CORPSE :I* HAS LEFT ! GUID+ T5D5CY BEH9D IT40#c  ,HEGEL'S DIALECTIC1 9 EFFECT1 DEFIES ! DEM& = DICTION>Y-/YLE DEF9ITION4  ,IT CAN BE UND]/OOD ONLY 9 T]MS ( ! WORK+ \T ( DIALECTICAL REASON ITSELF1 JU/ AS AN 9SI<TFUL PSY*OLOGY DEM&S ?AT WE CAN TRULY KN[ AN 9DIVIDUAL ONLY :5 WE KN[ HIS OR H] 5TIRE BIOGRAPHY1 NOT M]ELY ! NUM]ICAL RESULTS ( PSY*OLOGICAL TE/S & PHYSICAL MEASUREM5TS4 

   
,M9IMALLY1 WE MU/ ASSUME ?AT !RE IS ORD] 9 ! WORLD1 AN ASSUMPTION ?AT EV5 ORD9>Y SCI5CE MU/ MAKE IF IT IS TO EXI/4  ,M9IMALLY1 TOO1 WE MU/ ASSUME ?AT !RE >E GR[? & PROCESSES ?AT LEAD TO DIFF]5TIATION1 NOT M]ELY ! K9D ( MOTION ?AT RESULTS FROM PU%-PULL1 GRAVITATIONAL1 ELECTROMAGNETIC1 & SIMIL> =CES4  ,F9ALLY1 M9IMALLY1 WE MU/ ASSUME ?AT !RE IS SOME K9D ( DIRECTIONALITY T[>D EV]-GREAT] DIFF]5TIATION OR :OL5ESS 9S(> AS POT5TIALITY IS REALIZ$ 9 ITS FULL ACTUALITY4  ,WE NE$ NOT RETURN TO M$IEVAL TELEOLOGICAL NOTIONS ( AN UNSW]V+ PR$ET]M9ATION 9 A HI]>*Y ( ,BE+ TO ACCEPT ?IS DIRECTIONALITY2 RA!R1 WE NE$ ONLY PO9T TO ! FACT ?AT !RE IS A G5]ALLY ORD]LY DEVELOPM5T 9 ! REAL WORLD OR1 TO USE PHILOSOPHICAL T]M9OLOGY1 A 0LOGICAL0 DEVELOPM5T :5 A DEVELOPM5T SUCCE$S 9 BECOM+ :AT IT IS /RUCTUR$ TO BECOME4 

   
,9 ,HEGEL'S LOGICAL WORKS1 AS 9 ,>I/OTLE'S ,METAPHYSICS1 DIALECTICS IS MORE ?AN A REM>KABLE 0ME?OD0 = DEAL+ ) REALITY4  ,CONCEIV$ AS ! LOGICAL EXPRESSION ( A WIDE-RANG+ =M ( DEVELOPM5TAL CAUSALITY1 LOGIC1 9 ,HEGEL'S WORK1 JO9$ H&S ) ONTOLOGY4  ,DIALECTIC IS SIMULTANE\SLY A WAY ( REASON+ & AN ACC\NT ( ! OBJECTIVE WORLD1 ) AN ONTOLOGICAL CAUSALITY4  ,AS A =M ( REASON+1 ! MO/ BASIC CATEGORIES 9 DIALECTIC--EV5 SU* VAGUE CATEGORIES AS 0,BE+0 & 0,NO?+0-->E DIFF]5TIAT$ BY !IR [N 9N] LOGIC 9TO FULL]1 MORE COMPLEX CATEGORIES4  ,EA* CATEGORY1 9 TURN1 IS A POT5TIALITY ?AT BY MEANS ( $UCTIVE ?9K+1 DIRECT$ T[>D AN EXPLORATION ( ITS LAT5T & IMPLICIT POSSIBILITIES1 YIELDS LOGICAL EXPRESSION 9 ! =M ( SELF-REALIZATION1 OR :AT ,HEGEL CALL$ 0ACTUALITY0 7,WIRKLI*KEIT74 

   
,PRECISELY BECAUSE IT IS ALSO A SY/EM ( CAUSALITY1 DIALECTIC IS ONTOLOGICAL1 OBJECTIVE1 & !RE=E NATURALI/IC1 AS WELL AS A =M ( REASON4  ,9 ONTOLOGICAL T]MS1 DIALECTICAL CAUSALITY IS NOT M]ELY MOTION1 =CE1 OR *ANGES ( =M BUT ?+S & PH5OM5A 9 DEVELOPM5T4  ,9DE$1 S9CE ALL ,BE+ IS ,BECOM+1 DIALECTICAL CAUSALITY IS ! DIFF]5TIATION ( POT5TIALITY 9TO ACTUALITY1 9 ! C\RSE ( :I* EA* NEW ACTUALITY BECOMES ! POT5TIALITY = FUR!R DIFF]5TIATION & ACTUALIZATION4  ,DIALECTICS EXPLICATES H[ PROCESSES OCCUR NOT ONLY 9 ! NATURAL WORLD BUT 9 ! SOCIAL4 

   
,H[ ! IMPLICIT QUA A RELATIVELY UNDIFF]5TIAT$ =M LAT5T ) POSSIBILITY BECOMES A MORE DIFF]5TIAT$ =M ?AT IS TRUE TO ! WAY ITS POT5TIAL =M IS CON/ITUT$ IS CL>IFI$ 9 ,HEGEL'S [N WORDS4  0,! PLANT1 = EXAMPLE1 DOES NOT LOSE ITSELF 9 M]E 9DEF9ITE *ANGE10 HE WRITES4  ,IT HAS A DI/9CT DIRECTIONALITY--9 ! CASE ( CONSCI\S BE+S1 PURPOSE AS WELL4  0,FROM ! G]M MU* IS PRODUC$ :5 AT FIR/ NO?+ WAS TO BE SE51 BUT ! :OLE ( :AT IS BR\<T =?1 IF NOT DEVELOP$1 IS YET HIDD5 & IDEALLY CONTA9$ )9 ITSELF40  ,IT IS WOR? NOT+1 9 ?IS PASSAGE1 ?AT :AT MAY BE 0BR\<T =?0 IS NOT NECESS>ILY DEVELOP$3 AN ACORN1 = EXAMPLE1 MAY BECOME FOOD = A SQUIRREL OR WI!R ON A CONCRETE SIDEWALK1 RA!R ?AN DEVELOP 9TO :AT IT IS POT5TIALLY CON/ITUT$ TO BECOME--NOTABLY1 AN OAK TREE4  0,! PR9CIPLE ( ?IS PROJECTION 9TO EXI/5CE IS ?AT ! G]M CANNOT REMA9 M]ELY IMPLICIT10 ,HEGEL GOES ON TO OBS]VE1 0BUT IS IMPELL$ T[>DS DEVELOPM5T1 S9CE IT PRES5TS ! CONTRADICTION ( BE+ ONLY IMPLICIT40#d 

   
,:AT WE VAGUELY CALL ! 0IMMAN5T0 FACTORS ?AT PRODUCE A SELF-UNFOLD+ ( A DEVELOPM5T1 ! ,HEGELIAN DIALECTIC REG>DS AS ! CONTRADICTORY NATURE ( A BE+ ?AT IS UNFULFILL$ 9 ! S5SE ?AT IT IS ONLY IMPLICIT OR 9COMPLETE4  ,AS M]E POT5TIALITY1 IT HAS NOT 0COME TO ITSELF10 SO TO SPEAK4  ,A ?+ OR PH5OM5ON 9 DIALECTICAL CAUSALITY REMA9S UNSETTL$1 UN/ABLE1 9 T5SION--MU* AS A FETUS RIP5+ T[>D BIR? /RA9S TO BE BORN BECAUSE ( ! WAY IT IS CON/ITUT$--UNTIL IT DEVELOPS ITSELF 9TO :AT IT 0%\LD BE0 9 ALL ITS :OL5ESS OR FULLNESS4  ,IT CANNOT REMA9 9 5DLESS T5SION OR 0CONTRADICTION0 ) :AT IT IS ORGANIZ$ TO BECOME )\T W>P+ OR UNDO+ ITSELF4  ,IT MU/ RIP5 9TO ! FULLNESS ( ITS BE+4 

   
,MOD]N SCI5CE HAS TRI$ TO DESCRIBE NE>LY ALL PH5OM5A 9 T]MS ( EFFICI5T CAUSE OR ! K9ETIC IMPACT ( =CES ON A ?+ OR PH5OM5ON1 REACT+ AGA9/ M$IEVAL CONCEPTIONS ( CAUSALITY 9 T]MS ( F9AL CAUSE--NOTABLY1 9 T]MS ( ! EXI/5CE ( A DEITY :O IMPELS DEVELOPM5T1 IF ONLY BY VIRTUE ( 0,HIS0 [N 0P]FECTION40  ,HEGEL'S NOTION ( 0IMP]FECTION0--MORE APPROPRIATELY1 ( 09ADEQUACY0 OR ( CONTRADICTION--AS AN IMPELL+ FACTOR = DEVELOPM5T P>TLY W5T BEYOND BO? EFFICI5T & F9AL NOTIONS ( CAUSALITY4  ,I SAY 0P>TLY0 = A SPECIFIC REASON3 ! PHILOSOPHICAL >*AISMS ?AT RUN ?R\< ,HEGEL'S DIALECTIC WEAK5 HIS POSITION FROM A NATURALI/IC VIEWPO9T4  ,FROM ,PLATO'S TIME UNTIL ! BEG9N+ ( ! MOD]N WORLD1 !OLOGICAL NOTIONS ( P]FECTION1 9F9ITY1 & ET]NALITY P]MEAT$ PHILOSOPHICAL ?\<T4  ,PLATO'S 0IDEAL =MS0 W]E ! 0P]FECT0 & ! 0ET]NAL10 ( :I* ALL EXI/5TIAL ?+S W]E COPIES4  ,>I/OTLE'S ,GOD1 P>TICUL>LY AS IT WAS ,*RI/IANIZ$ BY ! M$IEVAL ,S*OLA/ICS1 WAS ! 0P]FECT0 ,ONE T[>D :I* ALL ?+S /ROVE1 GIV5 !IR F9ITE 0IMP]FECTION0 & 9H]5T LIMITATIONS4  ,9 ?IS WAY A SUPRANATURAL IDEAL DEF9$ ! 0IMP]FECTION0 ( NATURAL PH5OM5A & !REBY DYNAMIZ$ !M 9 !IR /RIV+ T[>D 0P]FECTION40  ,!RE IS AN ELEM5T ( ?IS QUASI-!OLOGICAL ?9K+ 9 ,HEGEL'S NOTION ( CONTRADICTION3 ! :OLE C\RSE ( ! DIALECTIC CULM9ATES 9 ! 0,ABSOLUTE10 :I* IS 0P]FECT0 9 ITS FULLNESS1 :OL5ESS1 & UNITY4 

   
,DIALECTICAL NATURALISM1 ON ! CONTR>Y1 CONCEIVES F9IT5ESS & CONTRADICTION AS DI/9CTLY NATURAL 9 ! S5SE ?AT ?+S & PH5OM5A >E 9COMPLETE & UNACTUALIZ$ 9 !IR DEVELOPM5T--NOT 0IMP]FECT0 9 ANY IDEALI/IC OR SUPRANATURAL S5SE4  ,UNTIL !Y >E :AT !Y HAVE BE5 CON/ITUT$ TO BECOME1 !Y EXI/ 9 A DYNAMIC T5SION4  ,A DIALECTICAL NATURALI/ VIEW ?US HAS NO?+ TO DO ) ! SUPPOSITION ?AT F9ITE ?+S OR PH5OM5A FAIL TO APPROXIMATE A ,PLATONIC IDEAL OR A ,S*OLA/IC ,GOD4  ,RA!R1 !Y >E /ILL 9 ! PROCESS ( BECOM+ OR1 MORE MUNDANELY1 DEVELOP+4  ,DIALECTICAL NATURALISM ?US DOES NOT T]M9ATE 9 A ,HEGELIAN ,ABSOLUTE AT ! 5D ( A COSMIC DEVELOPM5TAL PA?1 BUT RA!R ADVANCES ! VISION ( AN EV]-9CREAS+ :OL5ESS1 FULLNESS1 & RI*NESS ( DIFF]5TIATION & SUBJECTIVITY4 

   
,DIALECTICAL CONTRADICTION EXI/S )9 ! /RUCTURE ( A ?+ OR PH5OM5ON BY VIRTUE ( A =MAL >RANGEM5T ?AT IS 9COMPLETE1 9ADEQUATE1 IMPLICIT1 & UNFULFILL$ 9 RELATION TO :AT IT 0%\LD BE40  ,A NATURALI/IC FRAMEWORK DOES NOT LIMIT US TO EFFICI5T CAUSALITY ) A ME*ANI/IC TILT4  ,NOR NE$ WE HAVE REC\RSE TO !I/IC 0P]FECTION0 TO EXPLA9 ! ALMO/ MAGNETIC ELICIT+ ( A DEVELOPM5T4  ,DIALECTICAL CAUSALITY IS UNIQUELY ORGANIC BECAUSE IT OP]ATES )9 A DEVELOPM5T--! DEGREE ( =M ( A ?+ OR PH5OM5ON1 ! WAY 9 :I* ?AT =M IS ORGANIZ$1 ! T5SIONS OR 0CONTRADICTIONS0 TO :I* ITS =MAL 5SEMBLE GIVES RISE1 & ITS METABOLIC SELF-MA9T5ANCE & SELF-DEVELOPM5T4  ,P]HAPS ! MO/ SUITABLE WORD = ?IS K9D ( DEVELOPM5T IS GR[?--GR[? NOT BY M]E ACCRETION BUT BY A TRULY IMMAN5T PROCESS ( ORGANIC SELF-=MATION 9 A GRAD$ & 9CREAS+LY DIFF]5TIAT$ DIRECTION4 

   
,A DI/9CTIVE CONT9UUM EM]GES FROM DIALECTICAL CAUSALITY4  ,H]E1 CAUSE & EFFECT >E NOT M]ELY COEXI/+ PH5OM5A OR 0CORRELATIONS10 TO USE A COMMON POSITIVI/ T]M2 NOR >E !Y CLE>LY DI/9CT FROM EA* O!R1 SU* ?AT A CAUSE EXT]NALLY IMPACTS UPON A ?+ OR PH5OM5ON TO PRODUCE AN EFFECT ME*ANICALLY4  ,DIALECTICAL CAUSALITY IS CUMULATIVE3 ! IMPLICIT OR 09 ITSELF0 7AN SI*71 TO USE ,HEGEL'S T]M9OLOGY1 IS NOT SIMPLY REPLAC$ OR NEGAT$ BY ITS MORE DEVELOP$ EXPLICIT OR 0= ITSELF0 7FUR SI*72 RA!R1 IT IS ABSORB$ 9TO & DEVELOP$ BEYOND ! EXPLICIT 9TO A FULL]1 MORE DIFF]5TIAT$1 & MORE ADEQUATE =M--! ,HEGELIAN 09 & = ITSELF0 7AN UND FUR SI*74  ,9S(> AS ! IMPLICIT IS FULLY ACTUALIZ$ BY BECOM+ :AT IT IS CON/ITUT$ TO BE1 ! PROCESS IS TRULY RATIONAL1 ?AT IS TO SAY1 IT IS FULFILL$ BY VIRTUE ( ITS 9T]NAL LOGIC4  ,! CONT9UUM ( A DEVELOPM5T IS CUMULATIVE1 CONTA9+ ! HI/ORY ( ITS DEVELOPM5T4 

   
,REALITY IS NOT SIMPLY :AT WE EXP]I5CE3 !RE IS A S5SE 9 :I* ! RATIONAL HAS ITS [N REALITY4  ,?US1 !RE >E EXI/+ REALITIES ?AT >E IRRATIONAL & UNREALIZ$ REALITIES ?AT >E RATIONAL4  ,A SOCIETY ?AT FAILS TO ACTUALIZE ITS POT5TIALITIES = HUMAN HAPP9ESS & PROGRESS IS 0REAL0 5\< 9 ! S5SE ?AT IT EXI/S1 BUT IT IS LESS ?AN TRULY SOCIAL4  ,IT IS 9COMPLETE & DI/ORT$ 9S(> AS IT P]SI/S1 & H5CE IT IS IRRATIONAL4  ,IT IS LESS ?AN :AT IT %\LD BE SOCIALLY1 JU/ AS A G5]ALLY DEFECTIVE ANIMAL IS LESS ?AN :AT IT %\LD BE BIOLOGICALLY4  ,AL?\< IT IS 0REAL0 9 AN EXI/5TIAL S5SE1 IT IS UNFULFILL$ & H5CE 0UNREAL0 9 T]MS ( ITS POT5TIALITIES4 

   
,DIALECTICAL NATURALISM ASKS :I* IS TRULY REAL--! 9COMPLETE1 ABORT$1 IRRATIONAL 0:AT-IS10 OR ! COMPLETE1 FULLY DEVELOP$1 RATIONAL 0:AT-%\LD-BE40  ,REASON1 CA/ 9 ! =M ( DIALECTICAL CAUSALITY AS WELL AS DIALECTICAL LOGIC1 YIELDS AN UNCONV5TIONAL UND]/&+ ( REALITY4  ,A PROCESS ?AT FOLL[S ITS IMMAN5T SELF-DEVELOPM5T TO ITS LOGICAL ACTUALITY IS MORE PROP]LY 0REAL0 ?AN A GIV5 0:AT-IS0 ?AT IS ABORT$ OR DI/ORT$ & H5CE1 9 ,HEGELIAN T]MS1 0UNTRUE0 TO ITS POSSIBILITIES4  ,REASON HAS ! OBLIGATION TO EXPLORE ! POT5TIALITIES ?AT >E LAT5T 9 ANY SOCIAL DEVELOPM5T & $UCE ITS AU!NTIC ACTUALIZATION1 ITS FULFILLM5T & 0TRU?0 ?R\< A NEW & MORE RATIONAL SOCIAL DISP5SATION4 

   
,IT W\LD BE PHILOSOPHICALLY FRIVOL\S TO EMBRACE ! 0:AT-IS0 ( A ?+ OR PH5OM5ON AS CON/ITUT+ ITS 0REALITY0 )\T CONSID]+ IT 9 ! LI<T ( ! 0:AT-%\LD-BE0 ?AT W\LD LOGICALLY EM]GE FROM ITS POT5TIALITIES4  ,NOR DO WE ORD9>ILY DO SO 9 PRACTICE4  ,WE RI<TLY EVALUATE AN 9DIVIDUAL 9 T]MS ( HIS OR H] KN[N POT5TIALITIES1 & WE =M UND]/&ABLE JUDGM5TS AB\T :E!R ! 9DIVIDUAL HAS TRULY 0FULFILL$0 HIMSELF OR H]SELF4  ,9DE$1 9 PRIVACY1 9DIVIDUALS MAKE SU* SELF-EVALUATIONS REPEAT$LY1 :I* MAY HAVE IMPORTANT EFFECTS UPON !IR BEHAVIOR1 CREATIVITY1 & SELF-E/EEM4 

   
,! 0:AT-IS10 CONCEIV$ AS ! /RICTLY EXI/5TIAL1 IS A SLIPP]Y 0REALITY40  ,ACCEPT$ EMPIRICALLY )\T QUALIFICATION1 IT EXCLUDES ! PA/ BECAUSE1 /RICTLY SPEAK+1 ! PA/ NO LONG] 0IS40  ,AT ! SAME TIME1 IT YIELDS A DISCONT9UITY ) ! FUTURE ?AT--AGA91 /RICTLY SPEAK+--HAS YET TO 0EXI/40  ,:AT IS MORE1 ! 0:AT-IS10 CONCEIV$ 9 /RICTLY EMPIRICAL T]MS1 EXCLUDES SUBJECTIVITY--C]TA9LY CONCEPTUAL ?\<T--FROM ANY ROLE 9 ! WORLD BUT A SPECTATORIAL ONE1 :I* MAY OR MAY NOT BE A 0=CE0 9 BEHAVIOR4 

   
,9 ! LOGIC ( A /RICTLY EMPIRICAL PHILOSOPHY1 M9D SIMPLY REGI/]S OR COORD9ATES EXP]I5CE4  0,REALITY0 IS A GIV5 TEMPORAL MOM5T ?AT EXI/S AS AN EXP]I5C$ SEGM5T ( AN ASSUM$ CONT9UUM4  ,! 0REAL0 IS A FROZ5 0H]E & N[0 TO :I* WE M]ELY ADD AN ADV5TITI\S PA/ & PRESUME A FUTURE 9 ORD] TO EXP]I5CE REALITY 9TELLIGIBLY4  ,! K9D ( RADICAL EMPIRICISM ADVANC$ BY ,DAVID ,HUME REPLAC$ ! NOTION ( ,BE+ AS ,BECOM+ ) ! EXP]I5CE ( A GIV5 MOM5T ?AT R5D]S ?9K+ ( ! PA/ AS 0UNREAL0 AS MAK+ 9F]5CES AB\T ! FUTURE4  ,?IS K9D ( 0REALITY10 AS ,HUME HIMSELF FULLY S5S$1 IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE ) 9 EV]YDAY LIFE2 H5CE HE WAS OBLIG$ TO DEF9E CONT9UITY1 AL?\< HE DID SO 9 T]MS ( CU/OM & HABIT1 NOT 9 T]MS ( CAUSALITY4  ,CONCEIV+ IMM$IATE EMPIRICAL REALITY AS ! TOTALITY ( ! 0REAL0 ESS5TIALLY BANI%ES H9DSI<T & =ESI<T AS LITTLE MORE ?AN M]E CONV5I5CES4  ,9DE$1 A /RICTLY EMPIRICAL APPROA* DISSOLVES ! LOGICAL TISSUE ?AT 9TEGRATES ! ORGANIC1 CUMULATIVE CONT9UITY ( ! PA/ ) ! PRES5T & ?AT ( BO? ) ! FUTURE4 

   
,BY CONTRA/1 9 A NATURALI/IC DIALECTIC1 BO? PA/ & FUTURE >E P>T ( A CUMULATIVE1 LOGICAL1 & OBJECTIVE CONT9UUM ?AT 9CLUDES ! PRES5T4  ,REASON IS NOT ONLY A MEANS = ANALYZ+ & 9T]PRET+ REALITY2 IT EXT5DS ! B\ND>IES ( REALITY BEYOND ! IMM$IATELY EXP]I5C$ PRES5T4  ,PA/1 PRES5T1 & FUTURE >E A CUMULATIVELY GRAD$ PROCESS ?AT ?\<T CAN TRULY 9T]PRET & R5D] MEAN+FUL4  ,WE CAN LEGITIMATELY EXPLORE SU* A PROCESS 9 T]MS ( :E!R ITS POT5TIALITIES HAVE BE5 REALIZ$1 ABORT$1 OR W>P$4 

   
,9 A NATURALI/IC DIALECTIC1 ! WORD REALITY ?US ACQUIRES TWO DI/9CTLY DIFF]5T MEAN+S4  ,!RE IS ! IMM$IATELY PRES5T EMPIRICAL 0REALITY0--OR ,REALITAT1 TO USE ,HEGEL'S LANGUAGE--?AT NE$ NOT BE ! FULFILLM5T ( A POT5TIALITY1 & !RE IS ! DIALECTICAL 0ACTUALITY0--,WIRKLI*KEIT--?AT CON/ITUTES A COMPLETE FULFILLM5T ( A RATIONAL PROCESS4  ,EV5 ?\< ,WIRKLI*KEIT APPE>S AS A PROJECTION ( ?\<T 9TO A FUTURE ?AT HAS YET TO BE EXI/5TIALLY REALIZ$1 ! POT5TIALITY FROM :I* ?AT ,WIRKLI*KEIT DEVELOPS IS AS EXI/5TIAL AS ! WORLD WE S5SE 9 DIRECT & IMM$IATE ORD9>Y EXP]I5CE4  ,= EXAMPLE1 AN EGG PAT5TLY & EMPIRICALLY EXI/S1 EV5 ?\< ! BIRD :OSE POT5TIAL IT CONTA9S HAS YET TO DEVELOP & REA* MATURITY4  ,JU/ SO1 ! GIV5 POT5TIALITY ( ANY PROCESS EXI/S & CON/ITUTES ! BASIS = A PROCESS ?AT %\LD BE REALIZ$4  ,H5CE1 ! POT5TIALITY DOES EXI/ OBJECTIVELY1 EV5 9 EMPIRICAL T]MS4  ,WIRKLI*KEIT IS :AT DIALECTICAL NATURALISM 9F]S FROM AN OBJECTIVELY GIV5 POT5TIALITY2 IT IS PRES5T1 IF ONLY IMPLICITLY1 AS AN EXI/5TIAL FACT1 & DIALECTICAL REASON CAN ANALYZE & SUBJECT IT TO PROCESSUAL 9F]5CES4  ,EV5 9 ! SEEM+LY MO/ SUBJECTIVE PROJECTIONS ( SPECULATIVE REASON1 ,WIRKLI*KEIT1 ! 0:AT-%\LD-BE10 IS AN*OR$ 9 A CONT9UUM ?AT EM]GES FROM AN OBJECTIVE POT5TIALITY1 OR 0:AT-IS40 

   
,DIALECTICAL NATURALISM IS ?US 9TEGRALLY W$D$ TO ! OBJECTIVE WORLD--A WORLD 9 :I* ,BE+ IS ,BECOM+4  ,LET ME EMPHASIZE ?AT DIALECTICAL NATURALISM NOT ONLY GRASPS REALITY AS AN EXI/5TIALLY UNFOLD+ CONT9UUM1 BUT IT ALSO =MS AN OBJECTIVE FRAMEWORK = MAK+ E?ICAL JUDGM5TS4  ,! 0:AT-%\LD-BE0 BECOMES AN E?ICAL CRIT]ION = JUDG+ ! TRU? OR VALIDITY ( AN OBJECTIVE 0:AT-IS40  ,?US E?ICS IS NOT M]ELY A MATT] ( P]SONAL TA/E & VALUES2 IT IS FACTUALLY AN*OR$ 9 ! WORLD ITSELF AS AN OBJECTIVE /&>D ( SELF-REALIZATION4  ,:E!R A SOCIETY IS 0GOOD0 OR 0BAD10 MORAL OR IMMORAL1 = EXAMPLE1 CAN BE OBJECTIVELY DET]M9$ BY :E!R IT HAS FULFILL$ ITS POT5TIALITIES = RATIONALITY & MORALITY4  ,POT5TIALITIES ?AT >E !MSELVES ACTUALIZATIONS ( A DIALECTICAL CONT9UUM PRES5T ! *ALL5GE ( E?ICAL SELF-FULFILLM5T--NOT SIMPLY 9 ! PRIVACY ( ! M9D BUT 9 ! REALITY ( ! PROCESSUAL WORLD4  ,H]E9 LIES ! ONLY MEAN+FUL BASIS = A TRULY E?ICAL SOCIALISM OR AN>*ISM1 ONE ?AT IS MORE ?AN A BODY ( SUBJECTIVE 0PREF]5CES0 ?AT RE/ ON OP9ION & TA/E4 

   
,ONE MAY WELL QUE/ION ! VALIDITY ( DIALECTICAL REASON BY *ALL5G+ ! CONCEPT ( ,WIRKLI*KEIT & ITS CLAIMS TO BE MORE ADEQUATE ?AN ,REALITAT4  ,9DE$1 ,I AM (T5 ASK$3 0,H[ DO Y\ KN[ ?AT :AT Y\ CALL A DI/ORT$ 'UNTRUE' OR '9ADEQUATE' REALITY IS NOT ! VAUNT$ 'ACTUALITY' ?AT CON/ITUTES ! AU!NTIC REALIZATION ( A POT5TIALITY8  ,>E Y\ NOT SIMPLY MAK+ A PRIVATE MORAL JUDGM5T AB\T :AT IS 'UNTRUE' OR '9ADEQUATE' & D5Y+ ! IMPORTANCE ( IMM$IATE FACTS ?AT DO NOT SUPPORT Y\R P]SONAL NOTION ( ! 'TRUE' & ! 'ADEQUATE'80 

   
,?IS QUE/ION IS BAS$ ON ! PURELY CONV5TIONAL CONCEPTS ( VALIDITY US$ BY ANALYTICAL LOGIC4  0,IMM$IATE FACTS0--OR MORE COLLOQUIALLY1 0BRUTE FACTS0-->E NO LESS SLIPP]Y ?AN ! EMPIRICAL REALITY TO :I* CONV5TIONAL REASON CONF9ES ITSELF4  ,9 ! FIR/ PLACE1 IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO DET]M9E ! VALIDITY ( A PROCESS BY 0TE/+0 IT AGA9/ 0BRUTE FACTS0 ?AT >E !MSELVES ! EPI/EMOLOGICAL PRODUCTS ( A PHILOSOPHY BAS$ ON FIXITIES4  ,A LOGIC PREMIS$ ON ! PR9CIPLE ( ID5TITY1 ,A EQUALS ,A1 CAN H>DLY BE US$ TO TE/ ! VALIDITY ( A LOGIC PREMIS$ ON ! PR9CIPLE ,A EQUALS ,A & NOT-,A4  ,! TWO >E SIMPLY 9COMM5SURABLE4  ,= ANALYTICAL LOGIC1 ! PREMISES ( DIALECTICAL LOGIC >E NONS5SE2 = DIALECTICAL LOGIC1 ! PREMISES ( ANALYTICAL LOGIC OSSIFY FACTICITY 9TO H>D5$1 IMMUTABLE LOGICAL 0ATOMS40  ,9 DIALECTICAL REASON 0BRUTE FACTS0 >E DI/ORTIONS ( REALITY S9CE ,BE+ IS NOT AN AGGLOM]ATION ( FIX$ 5TITIES & PH5OM5A BUT IS ALWAYS 9 FLUX1 9 A /ATE ( ,BECOM+4  ,ONE ( ! PR9CIPAL PURPOSES ( DIALECTICAL REASON IS TO EXPLA9 ! NATURE ( ,BECOM+1 NOT SIMPLY TO EXPLORE A FIX$ ,BE+4 

   
,ACCORD+LY1 ! VALIDITY ( A CONCEPT D]IV$ FROM A DEVELOPM5TAL PROCESS RA!R ?AN FROM 0BRUTE FACTS0 MU/ BE 0TE/$0 ONLY BY EXAM9+ ?AT DEVELOPM5TAL PROCESS1 P>TICUL>LY ! /RUCTURE ( ! POT5TIALITY FROM :I* ! PROCESS EM]GES & ! LOGIC ?AT CAN BE 9F]R$ FROM ITS POT5TIALITIES4  ,! VALIDITY ( CONCLUSIONS ?AT >E D]IV$ FROM CONV5TIONAL REASON & EXP]I5CE CAN C]TA9LY BE TE/$ BY FIX$ 0BRUTE FACTS02 H5CE ! GREAT SUCCESS (1 SAY1 /RUCTURAL 5G9E]+4  ,BUT TO TRY TO TE/ ! VALIDITY ( ACTUALITIES ?AT D]IVE FROM A DIALECTICAL EXPLORATION ( POT5TIALITIES & !IR 9T]NAL LOGIC BY US+ 0BRUTE FACTS0 W\LD BE LIKE TRY+ TO ANALYZE ! EM]G5CE ( A FETUS 9 ! SAME WAY ?AT ONE ANALYZES ! DESIGN & CON/RUCTION ( A BRIDGE4  ,REAL DEVELOPM5TAL PROCESSES MU/ BE TE/$ BY A LOGIC ( PROCESSES1 NOT BY A LOGIC ( 0BRUTE FACTS0 ?AT IS ANALYTICAL1 BAS$ ON A DATUM OR FIX$ PH5OM5ON4 

   
,I HAVE EMPHASIZ$ ! WORD NATURALISM 9 MY ACC\NT ( DIALECTICAL REASON NOT ONLY TO DI/+UI% DIALECTIC FROM ITS IDEALI/IC & MAT]IALI/IC 9T]PRETATIONS BUT1 MORE SIGNIFICANTLY1 TO %[ H[ IT 5RI*ES \R 9T]PRETATION ( NATURE & HUMANITY'S PLACE 9 ! NATURAL WORLD4  ,TO ATTA9 !SE 5DS1 ,I FEEL OBLIG$ TO HI<LI<T ! OV]ALL COH]5CE ( DIALECTICAL REASON AS AN ABID+ VIEW ( A DEVELOPM5TAL REALITY 9 ITS MANY GRADATIONS AS A CONT9UUM4 

   
,IF DIALECTICAL NATURALISM IS TO EXPLA9 ?+S OR PH5OM5A PROP]LY1 ITS ONTOLOGY & PREMISES MU/ BE UND]/OOD AS MORE ?AN M]E MOTION & 9T]CONNECTION4  ,A CONT9UUM IS A MORE RELEVANT PREMISE = DIALECTICAL REASON ?AN EI!R MOTION OR ! 9T]DEP5D5CE ( PH5OM5A4  ,IT WAS ONE ( ! FAIL+S ( 0DIALECTICAL MAT]IALISM0 ?AT IT PREMIS$ DIALECTIC ON ! N9ETE5? C5TURY'S PHYSICS ( MATT] & MOTION1 FROM :I* DEVELOPM5T SOMEH[ MANAG$ TO EM]GE4  ,IT W\LD BE JU/ AS LIMIT$ TO REPLACE ! 5TELE*IAL PROCESSES 9VOLV$ 9 DIFF]5TIATION & ! REALIZATION ( POT5TIALITY ) 09T]CONNECT$NESS40  ,A DIALECTIC BAS$ M]ELY ON A NOTION ( 09T]CONNECT$NESS0 W\LD T5D TO BE MORE DESCRIPTIVE ?AN $UCTIVE2 IT W\LD NOT CLE>LY EXPLA9 H[ 9T]DEP5D5CIES LEAD TO A GRAD$ 5TELE*IAL DEVELOPM5T--?AT IS1 TO SELF-=MATION ?R\< ! SELF-REALIZATION ( POT5TIALITY4 

   
,TO ASS]T ?AT BISON & WOLVES 0DEP5D0 UPON EA* O!R 79 A SEEM+ 0UNION ( OPPOSITES071 OR ?AT 0?9K+ LIKE A ROCK0--A VISION BORR[$ FROM MY/ICAL ECOLOGY--WILL BR+ US 9TO GREAT] 0CONNECT$NESS0 ) ! 9ORGANIC M9]AL WORLD1 EXPLA9S LITTLE4  ,BUT IT EXPLA9S A GREAT DEAL TO /UDY H[ BISON & WOLVES W]E DIFF]5TIAT$ 9 ! C\RSE ( EVOLUTION FROM A COMMON MAMMALIAN ANCE/OR1 OR H[ ! ORGANIC WORLD EM]G$ FROM ! 9ORGANIC4  ,9 ! LATT] CASES1 WE CAN LE>N SOME?+ AB\T H[ DEVELOPM5T OCCURS1 H[ DIFF]5TIATION EM]GES FROM GIV5 POT5TIALITIES1 & :AT DIRECTION !SE DEVELOPM5TS FOLL[4  ,WE ALSO LE>N ?AT A DIALECTICAL DEVELOPM5T IS CUMULATIVE1 NAMELY ?AT EA* LEVEL ( DIFF]5TIATION RE/S ON PREVI\S ONES4  ,SOME DEVELOPM5TS 5T] DIRECTLY 9TO A GIV5 LEVEL1 O!RS >E PROXIMATE TO IT1 & /ILL O!RS >E FAIRLY REMOTE4  ,! OLD NEV] COMPLETELY DISAPPE>S BUT IS REWORK$ 9TO SOME?+ NEW4  ,?US1 AS ! FOSSIL RECORD TELLS US1 MAMMALIAN HAIR & AVIAN FEA!RS >E LAT] DIFF]5TIATIONS ( REPTILIAN SCALES1 :ILE ! JAWS ( ALL ANIMALS >E A LAT] DIFF]5TIATION ( GILLS4 

   
,! NONDIALECTICAL ?9K+ ?AT IS RIFE 9 ! ECOLOGY MOVEM5T COMMONLY PRODUCES SU* QUE/IONS AS 0,:AT IF R$WOOD TREES HAVE CONSCI\SNESS ?AT COMP>ES ) \R [N80  ,IT IS FATU\S TO *ALL5GE DIALECTICAL REASON ) PROMISCU\S 0:AT-IFS0 ?AT HAVE NO ROOTS 9 A DIALECTICAL CONT9UUM4  ,EV]Y 9TELLIGIBLE 0IF0 MU/ ITSELF BE A POT5TIALITY ?AT CAN BE ACC\NT$ = AS ! PRODUCT ( A DEVELOPM5T4  ,A HYPO!TICAL 0IF0 ?AT FLOATS 9 ISOLATION1 LACK+ ROOTS 9 A DEVELOPM5TAL CONT9UUM1 IS NONS5SICAL4  ,AS ,D5IS ,DID]OT'S DELI<TFUL *>ACT] ,JACQUES1 9 ! PIC>ESQUE DIALOGUE ,JACQUES LE ,FATALI/E1 EXCLAIM$ :5 HIS MA/] PEPP]$ HIM ) R&OM IF QUE/IONS3 0,IF1 IF1 IF 4 4 4 IF ! SEA BOIL$1 !RE W\LD BE A LOT ( COOK$ FI%60 

   
,! CONT9UUM ?AT DIALECTICAL REASON 9VE/IGATES IS A HI<LY GRAD$1 RI*LY 5TELE*IAL1 LOGICALLY $UCTIVE1 & SELF-DIRECTIVE PROCESS ( UNFOLD+ T[>D EV]-GREAT] DIFF]5TIATION1 :OL5ESS1 & ADEQUACY1 9S(> AS EA* POT5TIALITY IS FULLY ACTUALIZ$ GIV5 A SPECIFIC RANGE ( DEVELOPM5T4  ,EXT]NAL FACTORS1 9T]NAL RE>RANGEM5TS1 ACCID5TS1 EV5 GROSS IRRATIONALITIES MAY DI/ORT OR PRECLUDE A POT5TIAL DEVELOPM5T4  ,BUT 9S(> AS ORD] DOES EXI/ 9 REALITY & IS NOT SIMPLY IMPOS$ UPON IT BY M9D1 REALITY HAS A RATIONAL DIM5SION4  ,MORE COLLOQUIALLY1 !RE IS A 0LOGIC0 9 ! DEVELOPM5T ( PH5OM5A1 A G5]AL DIRECTIV5ESS ?AT ACC\NTS = ! FACT ?AT ! 9ORGANIC DID BECOME ORGANIC1 AS A RESULT ( ITS IMPLICIT CAPACITY = ORGANICITY2 & = ! FACT ?AT ! ORGANIC DID BECOME MORE DIFF]5TIAT$ & METABOLICALLY SELF-MA9TA9+ & SELF-AW>E1 AS A RESULT ( POT5TIALITIES ?AT MADE = HI<LY DEVELOP$ HORMONAL & N]V\S SY/EMS4 

   
,/EPH5 ,JAY ,G\LD MAY LUXURIATE 9 ! R&OMNESS--ACTUALLY1 ! FECUNDITY--( NATURE1 & PO//RUCTURALI/S MAY TRY TO DISSOLVE BO? NATURAL & SOCIAL EVOLUTION 9TO AN AGGREGATION ( UNRELAT$ EV5TS1 BUT DIRECTIV5ESS ( ORGANIC EVOLUTION UNREMITT+LY SURFACES 9 EV5 !SE RA!R *AOTIC COLLECTIONS ( 0BRUTE FACTS40  ,LIKE IT OR NOT1 HUMAN BE+S1 PRIMATES1 MAMMALS1 V]TEBRATES1 & SO =? BACK TO ! MO/ ELEM5T>Y PROTOZOANS >E A SEQU5TIAL PRES5CE 9 ! FOSSIL RECORD ITSELF1 EA* EM]G+ \T ( PREC$+ LIFE-=MS4  ,AS ,G\LD ASS]TS1 ! ,BURGESS ,%ALE ( ,BRITI% ,COLUMBIA ATTE/S TO A L>GE V>IETY ( FOSSILS ?AT CANNOT BE CLASSIFI$ 9TO A UNIL9E> 0*A9 ( BE+40  ,BUT F> FROM *ALL5G+ ! EXI/5CE ( DIRECTIONALITY 9 EVOLUTION T[>D GREAT] SUBJECTIVITY1 ! ,BURGESS ,%ALE PROVIDES EXTRAORD9>Y EVID5CE ( ! FECUNDITY ( NATURE4  ,NATURE'S FECUNDITY RE/S ON ! EXI/5CE ( *ANCE1 9DE$ V>IETY1 AS A PRECONDITION = COMPLEXITY 9 ORGANISMS & ECOSY/EMS 7AS MY ESSAY 0,FRE$OM & ,NECESSITY 9 ,NATURE0 H]E9 >GUES7 &1 BY VIRTUE ( ?AT FECUNDITY1 = ! EM]G5CE ( HUMANITY FROM POT5TIALITIES ?AT 9VOLVE 9CREAS+ SUBJECTIVITY4 

   
,\R ONTOLOGICAL & $UCTIVE PREMISE = DIALECTICAL NATURALISM1 H[EV]1 REMA9S ! GRAD$ CONT9UUM ,I HAVE ALREADY DESCRIB$--& ! ,BURGESS ,%ALE NOT)/&+1 HUMAN BE+S >E NOT ONLY PAT5TLY H]E1 BUT \R EVOLUTION CAN BE EXPLA9$4  ,DIALECTICAL REASON CUTS ACROSS ! GRA9 ( CONV5TIONAL WAYS ( ?9K+ AB\T ! NATURAL WORLD & MY/ICAL 9T]PRETATIONS ( IT4  ,NATURE IS NOT SIMPLY ! L&SCAPE WE SEE FROM BEH9D A PICTURE W9D[1 9 A MOM5T DISCONNECT$ FROM ?OSE ?AT PREC$$ & WILL FOLL[ IT2 NOR IS IT VI/A FROM A L(TY M\NTA9 PEAK 7AS ,I PO9T \T 9 MY ESSAY 0,?9K+ ,ECOLOGICALLY10 ALSO H]E974  ,NATURE IS C]TA9LY ALL ( !SE ?+S--BUT IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE4  ,BIOLOGICAL NATURE IS ABOVE ALL ! CUMULATIVE EVOLUTION ( EV]-DIFF]5TIAT+ & 9CREAS+LY COMPLEX LIFE-=MS ) A VIBRANT & 9T]ACTIVE 9ORGANIC WORLD4  ,FOLL[+ 9 A TRADITION ?AT GOES BACK AT LEA/ TO ,CIC]O1 WE CAN CALL ?IS RELATIVELY UNCONSCI\S NATURAL DEVELOPM5T 0FIR/ NATURE40  ,IT IS FIR/ NATURE 9 ! PRIMAL S5SE ( A FOSSIL RECORD ?AT CLE>LY LEADS TO MAMMALIAN1 PRIMATE1 & HUMAN LIFE--NOT TO M5TION ITS EXTRAORD9>Y FECUNDITY ( O!R LIFE-=MS--& IT IS FIR/ NATURE ?AT EXHIBITS A HI< DEGREE ( ORD]LY CONT9UITY 9 ! ACTUALIZATION ( POT5TIALITIES ?AT MADE = MORE COMPLEX & SELF-AW>E OR SUBJECTIVE LIFE-=MS4  ,9S(> AS ?IS CONT9UITY IS 9TELLIGIBLE1 IT HAS MEAN+ & RATIONALITY 9 T]MS ( ITS RESULTS3 ! ELABORATION ( LIFE-=MS ?AT CAN CONCEPTUALIZE1 UND]/&1 & COMMUNICATE ) EA* O!R 9 9CREAS+LY SYMBOLIC T]MS4 

   
,9 !IR MO/ DIFF]5TIAT$ & FULLY DEVELOP$ =MS1 !SE SELF-REFLEXIVE & COMMUNICATIVE CAPACITIES >E CONCEPTUAL ?\<T & LANGUAGE4  ,! HUMAN SPECIES HAS !SE CAPACITIES TO AN EXT5T ?AT IS UNPREC$5T$ 9 ANY EXI/+ LIFE-=M4  ,HUMANITY'S AW>5ESS ( ITSELF1 ITS ABILITY TO G5]ALIZE ?IS AW>5ESS TO ! LEVEL ( A HI<LY SY/EMATIC UND]/&+ ( ITS 5VIRONM5T 9 ! =M ( PHILOSOPHY1 SCI5CE1 E?ICS1 & ES!TICS1 & F9ALLY1 ITS CAPACITY TO ALT] ITSELF & ITS 5VIRONM5T SY/EMATICALLY BY MEANS ( KN[L$GE & TE*NOLOGY PLACES IT BEYOND ! REALM ( ! SUBJECTIVITY ?AT EXI/S 9 FIR/ NATURE4 

   
,BY S+L+ \T HUMANITY AS A UNIQUE LIFE-=M ?AT CAN CONSCI\SLY *ANGE ! 5TIRE REALM ( FIR/ NATURE1 ,I DO NOT CLAIM ?AT FIR/ NATURE WAS 0MADE0 TO BE 0EXPLOIT$0 BY HUMANITY1 AS ?OSE ECOLOGI/S CRITICAL ( 0AN?ROPOC5TRISM0 SOMETIMES *>GE4  ,! IDEA ( A MADE WORLD HAS ITS ORIG9 9 !OLOGY1 NOTABLY 9 ! BELIEF ?AT A SUP]NATURAL BE+ CREAT$ ! NATURAL WORLD & ?AT EVOLUTION IS 9FUS$ ) A !I/IC PR9CIPLE1 BO? 9 ! S]VICE ( HUMAN NE$S4  ,BY ! SAME TOK51 HUMANS CANNOT 0EXPLOIT0 NATURE1 [+ TO A 0COMM&+0 PLACE 9 A SUPPOS$ 0HI]>*Y0 ( NATURE4  ,WORDS LIKE COMM&+1 EXPLOITATION1 & HI]>*Y >E ACTUALLY SOCIAL T]MS ?AT DESCRIBE H[ PEOPLE RELATE TO EA* O!R2 APPLI$ TO ! NATURAL WORLD1 !Y >E M]ELY AN?ROPOMORPHIC4 

   
,F> MORE RELEVANT FROM ! /&PO9T ( DIALECTICAL NATURALISM IS ! FACT ?AT HUMANITY'S VA/ CAPACITY TO ALT] FIR/ NATURE IS ITSELF A PRODUCT ( NATURAL EVOLUTION--NOT ( A DEITY OR ! EMBODIM5T ( A COSMIC ,SPIRIT4  ,FROM AN EVOLUTION>Y VIEWPO9T1 HUMANITY HAS BE5 CON/ITUT$ TO 9T]V5E ACTIVELY1 CONSCI\SLY1 & PURPOSIVELY 9TO FIR/ NATURE ) UNP>ALLEL$ EFFECTIV5ESS & TO ALT] IT ON A PLANET>Y SCALE4  ,TO D5IGRATE ?IS CAPACITY IS TO D5Y ! ?RU/ ( NATURAL EVOLUTION ITSELF T[>D ORGANIC COMPLEXITY & SUBJECTIVITY--! POT5TIALITY ( FIR/ NATURE TO ACTUALIZE ITSELF 9 SELF-CONSCI\S 9TELLECTUALITY4  ,ONE MAY *OOSE TO >GUE ?AT ?IS ?RU/ WAS PR$ET]M9$ ) 9EXORABLE C]TA9TY AS A RESULT ( A DEITY1 OR ONE MAY CONT5D ?AT IT WAS /RICTLY =TUIT\S1 OR ONE MAY CLAIM--AS ,I W\LD--?AT !RE IS A NATURAL T5D5CY T[>D GREAT] COMPLEXITY & SUBJECTIVITY 9 FIR/ NATURE1 >IS+ FROM ! V]Y 9T]ACTIVITY ( MATT]1 9DE$ A NISUS T[>D SELF-CONSCI\SNESS4  ,BUT :AT IS DECISIVE H]E IS ! COMPELL+ FACT ?AT HUMANITY'S NATURAL CAPACITY TO CONSCI\SLY 9T]V5E 9TO & ACT UPON FIR/ NATURE HAS GIV5 RISE TO A 0SECOND NATURE10 A CULTURAL1 SOCIAL1 & POLITICAL 0NATURE0 ?AT TODAY HAS ALL BUT ABSORB$ FIR/ NATURE4 

   
,!RE IS NO P>T ( ! WORLD ?AT HAS NOT BE5 PR(\NDLY AFFECT$ BY HUMAN ACTIVITY--NEI!R ! REMOTE FA/NESSES ( ,ANT>CTICA NOR ! CANYONS ( ! OCEAN'S DEP?S4  ,EV5 WILD]NESS >EAS REQUIRE PROTECTION FROM HUMAN 9T]V5TION2 MU* ?AT IS DESIGNAT$ AS WILD]NESS TODAY HAS ALREADY BE5 PR(\NDLY AFFECT$ BY HUMAN ACTIVITY4  ,9DE$1 WILD]NESS CAN BE SAID TO EXI/ PRIM>ILY AS A RESULT ( A HUMAN DECISION TO PRES]VE IT4  ,NE>LY ALL ! NONHUMAN LIFE-=MS ?AT EXI/ TODAY >E1 LIKE IT OR NOT1 TO SOME DEGREE 9 HUMAN CU/ODY1 & :E!R !Y >E PRES]V$ 9 !IR WILD LIFEWAYS DEP5DS L>GELY ON HUMAN ATTITUDES & BEHAVIOR4 

   
,?AT SECOND NATURE IS ! \TCOME ( EVOLUTION 9 FIR/ NATURE & CAN !REBY BE DESIGNAT$ AS NATURAL DOES NOT MEAN ?AT SECOND NATURE IS NECESS>ILY CREATIVE OR EV5 FULLY CONSCI\S ( ITSELF 9 ANY EVOLUTION>Y S5SE4  ,SECOND NATURE IS SYNONYM\S ) SOCIETY & HUMAN 9T]NAL NATURE1 BO? ( :I* >E UND]GO+ EVOLUTION = BETT] OR WORSE4  ,AL?\< SOCIAL EVOLUTION IS GR\ND$ 91 9DE$ PHASES \T (1 ORGANIC EVOLUTION1 IT IS ALSO PR(\NDLY DIFF]5T FROM ORGANIC EVOLUTION4  ,CONSCI\SNESS1 WILL1 ALT]ABLE 9/ITUTIONS1 & ! OP]ATION ( ECONOMIC =CES & TE*NICS MAY BE DEPLOY$ TO 5HANCE ! ORGANIC WORLD OR C>RY IT TO ! PO9T ( DE/RUCTION4  ,SECOND NATURE AS IT EXI/S TODAY IS M>K$ BY MON/R\S ATTRIBUTES1 NOTABLY HI]>*Y1 CLASS1 ! /ATE1 PRIVATE PROP]TY1 & A COMPETITIVE M>KET ECONOMY ?AT OBLIGES ECONOMIC RIVALS TO GR[ AT ! EXP5SE ( EA* O!R OR P]I%4  ,?IS E?ICAL JUDGM5T1 ,I MAY NOTE1 HAS MEAN+ ONLY IF WE ASSUME ?AT !RE IS POT5TIALITY & SELF-DIRECTIV5ESS 9 ORGANIC EVOLUTION T[>D GREAT] SUBJECTIVITY1 CONSCI\SNESS1 SELF-REFLEXIVITY2 BY 9F]5CE1 IT IS ! RESPONSIBILITY ( ! MO/ CONSCI\S ( LIFE-=MS--HUMANITY--TO BE ! 0VOICE0 ( A MUTE NATURE & TO ACT TO 9TELLIG5TLY FO/] ORGANIC EVOLUTION4 

   
,IF ?IS T5D5CY OR NISUS 9 ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS D5I$1 !RE IS NO REASON :Y ! HUMAN SPECIES1 LIKE ANY O!R SPECIES1 %\LD NOT UTILIZE ITS CAPACITIES TO S]VE ITS [N NE$S OR ATTA9 ITS [N 0SELF-REALIZATION0 AT ! EXP5SE ( O!R LIFE-=MS ?AT IMP$E ITS 9T]E/S & DESIRES4  ,TO D5\NCE HUMANITY = 0EXPLOIT+0 ORGANIC NATURE1 0DEGRAD+0 IT1 0ABUS+0 IT1 & BEHAV+ 0AN?ROPOC5TRICALLY0 IS SIMPLY AN OBLIQUE WAY ( ACKN[L$G+ ?AT SECOND NATURE IS ! BE>] ( MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES ?AT DO NOT EXI/ 9 ! REALM ( FIR/ NATURE4  ,IT IS TO ACKN[L$GE ?AT IF ALL LIFE-=MS HAVE AN 09TR9SIC WOR?0 ?AT %\LD BE RESPECT$1 !Y HAVE IT ONLY BECAUSE HUMAN 9TELLECTUAL1 MORAL1 & ES!TIC ABILITIES HAVE ATTRIBUT$ IT TO !M--ABILITIES ?AT NO O!R LIFE-=M POSSESSES4  ,IT IS ONLY HUMAN BE+S ?AT CAN EV5 =MULATE ! CONCEPT ( 09TR9SIC WOR?0 & 5D[ IT ) E?ICAL RESPONSIBILITY4  ,! 09TR9SIC WOR?0 ( HUMAN BE+S IS ?US PAT5TLY EXCEPTIONAL1 9DE$ EXTRAORD9>Y4 

   
,IT IS ESS5TIAL TO EMPHASIZE ?AT SECOND NATURE IS1 9 FACT1 AN UNF9I%$1 9DE$ 9ADEQUATE1 DEVELOPM5T ( NATURE AS A :OLE4  ,HEGEL VIEW$ HUMAN HI/ORY AS A SLAU<T]B5*4  ,HI]>*Y1 CLASS1 ! /ATE1 & ! LIKE >E EVID5CE--&1 BY NO MEANS1 PURELY ACCID5TAL EVID5CE--( ! UNFULFILL$ POT5TIALITIES ( NATURE TO ACTUALIZE ITSELF AS A NATURE ?AT IS SELF-CONSCI\SLY CREATIVE4  ,HUMANITY AS IT N[ EXI/S IS NOT NATURE R5D]$ SELF-CONSCI\S4  ,! FUTURE ( ! BIOSPH]E DEP5DS OV]:ELM+LY ON :E!R SECOND NATURE CAN BE TRANSC5D$ 9 A NEW SY/EM ( SOCIAL & ORGANIC CONCILIATION1 ONE ?AT ,I W\LD CALL 0FREE NATURE0--A NATURE ?AT W\LD DIM9I% ! PA9 & SUFF]+ ?AT EXI/ 9 BO? FIR/ & SECOND NATURE4  ,FREE NATURE1 9 EFFECT1 W\LD BE A CONSCI\S & E?ICAL NATURE1 AN ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY ?AT ,I HAVE EXPLOR$ 9 DETAIL 9 MY BOOK ,T[>D AN ,ECOLOGICAL ,SOCIETY & 9 ! CLOS+ PORTIONS ( ,! ,ECOLOGY ( ,FRE$OM & ,REMAK+ ,SOCIETY4 

   
,! LA/ QU>T] ( ! TW5TIE? C5TURY HAS WITNESS$ AN APPALL+ REGRESSION ( RATIONALITY 9TO 9TUITIONISM1 ( NATURALISM 9TO SUP]NATURALISM1 ( REALISM 9TO MY/ICISM1 ( HUMANISM 9TO P>O*IALISM1 & ( SOCIAL !ORY 9TO PSY*OLOGY4  ,TOO (T51 METAPHORS REPLACE 9TELLIGIBLE CONCEPTS & SELF-9T]E/ REPLACES A HUMANI/IC IDEALISM4  ,9 9CREAS+ NUMB]S PEOPLE >E MORE CONC]N$ ) F9D+ ! MOTIVES ?AT PRESUMABLY UND]LIE EXPRESS$ VIEWS ?AN ) ! RATIONAL CONT5T ( ! VIEWS !MSELVES4  ,>GUM5TATION1 SO NECESS>Y = ! CL>IFICATION ( IDEAS1 HAS GIV5 WAY TO 0M$IATION10 NOTABLY ! R$UCTION ( AU!NTIC 9TELLECTUAL DIFF]5CES & CLA%+ SOCIAL 9T]E/S TO ! M9IMAL1 (T5 TRITE PO9TS ?AT ALL P>TIES SUPPOS$LY HAVE 9 COMMON4  ,ACCORD+LY1 REAL DIFF]5CES >E PAP]$ OV] ) ! L[E/ LEVEL ( DIALOGUE RA!R ?AN ELEVAT$ TO A CREATIVE SYN!SIS OR A CLE>1 OP5 DIV]G5CE4 

   
,TO FRIVOL\SLY ASS]T 0BIOC5TRISM10 09TR9SIC WOR?10 & EV5 METAPHORICALLY A 0BIOC5TRIC DEMOCRACY0 7TO USE ! DEPLORABLE V]BIAGE ( MY/ICAL ECOLOGY71 AS ?\< HUMAN BE+S' 09TR9SIC WOR?0 W]E EQUATABLE TO1 SAY1 ?AT ( A MOSQUITO--& !N ASK HUMAN BE+S TO BE> A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO ! WORLD ( LIFE--IS TO DEGRADE ! 5TIRE PROJECT ( A MEAN+FUL ECOLOGICAL E?ICS4  ,9 ?IS BOOK ,I CONT5D ?AT NATURE CAN 9DE$ ACQUIRE E?ICAL MEAN+--AN OBJECTIVELY GR\ND$ E?ICAL MEAN+4  ,RA!R ?AN AN AMORPH\S BODY ( P]SONALIZ$1 (T5 >BITR>Y VALUES1 ?IS E?ICAL MEAN+ 9VOLVES AN EXP&$ VIEW ( REALITY1 A DIALECTICAL VIEW ( NATURAL EVOLUTION1 & A DI/9CTIVE--ALBEIT BY NO MEANS HI]>*ICAL--PLACE = HUMANITY & SOCIETY 9 NATURAL EVOLUTION4  ,! SOCIAL CAN NO LONG] BE SEP>AT$ FROM ! ECOLOGICAL1 ANY MORE ?AN HUMANITY CAN BE SEP>AT$ FROM NATURE4  ,MY/ICAL ECOLOGI/S :O DUALIZE ! NATURAL & ! SOCIAL BY CONTRA/+ 0BIOC5TRISM0 ) 0AN?ROPOC5TRISM0 HAVE 9CREAS+LY DIM9I%$ ! IMPORTANCE ( SOCIAL !ORY 9 %AP+ ECOLOGICAL ?9K+4  ,POLITICAL ACTION & $UCATION HAVE GIV5 WAY TO VALUES ( P]SONAL R$EMPTION1 RITUALI/IC BEHAVIOR1 ! D5IGRATION ( HUMAN WILL1 & ! VIRTUES ( HUMAN IRRATIONALITY4  ,AT A TIME :5 ! HUMAN EGO1 IF NOT P]SONALITY ITSELF1 IS ?REAT5$ BY HOMOG5IZATION & AU?ORIT>IAN MANIPULATION1 MY/ICAL ECOLOGY HAS ADVANC$ A MESSAGE ( SELF-EFFACEM5T1 PASSIVITY1 & OB$I5CE TO ! 0LAWS ( NATURE10 :I* >E HELD TO BE SUPREME OV] ! CLAIMS ( HUMAN ACTIVITY & PRAXIS4  ,A PHILOSOPHY MU/ BE DEVELOP$ ?AT BREAKS ) ?IS DEAD5+ AV]SION TO REASON1 ACTION1 & SOCIAL CONC]N4 

   
,I HAVE CALL$ ?IS BOOK ,! ,PHILOSOPHY ( ,SOCIAL ,ECOLOGY BECAUSE ,I BELIEVE ?AT A DIALECTICAL NATURALISM =MS ! UND]P9N+ ( SOCIAL ECOLOGY'S MO/ FUNDAM5TAL MESSAGE3 ?AT \R BASIC ECOLOGICAL PROBLEMS /EM FROM SOCIAL PROBLEMS4  ,IT IS DEV\TLY TO BE HOP$ ?AT ! READ] WILL USE ?IS BOOK AS A MEANS ( 5T]+ 9TO MY WORKS ON SOCIAL ECOLOGY EQUIPP$ ) AN ORGANIC WAY ( ?9K+ \T ! PROBLEMS !Y RAISE & ! SOLUTIONS !Y (F]4  ,9 FACT1 0,?9K+ ,ECOLOGICALLY0 =MS A DIRECT TRANSITION FROM ! PHILOSOPHICAL & E?ICAL TO ! SOCIAL & VISION>Y4  ,DECADES ( REFLECTION ON ECOLOGICAL ISSUES & IDEAS HAVE TAU<T ME ?AT PHILOSOPHY1 P>TICUL>LY A DIALECTICAL NATURALISM1 DOES NOT 9HIBIT \R UND]/&+ ( SOCIAL !ORY & ECOLOGICAL PROBLEMS4  ,TO ! CONTR>Y1 IT PROVIDES US ) ! RATIONAL MEANS = 9TEGRAT+ !M 9TO A COH]5T :OLE & E/ABLI%ES A FRAMEWORK = EXT5D+ ?IS :OLE 9 MORE FECUND & 9NOVATIVE DIRECTIONS4 --,DECEMB] #c#a1 #aihi 

   
,NOTES 

   
,?IS >TICLE IS ! 9TRODUCTION TO ,! ,PHILOSOPHY ( ,SOCIAL ,ECOLOGY3  ,ESSAYS ON ,DIALECTICAL ,NATURALISM1 #bND $4 REVIS$ 7,MONTREAL3 ,BLACK ,ROSE ,BOOKS1 #a#i#i#e74 

   
#a4  ,! REASON = MY *OICE ( ! NAME CONV5TIONAL REASON IS ?AT IT 5COMPASSES TWO LOGICAL TRADITIONS ?AT >E (T5 REF]R$ TO 9T]*ANGEABLY1 AS IF !Y W]E SYNONYMS4  ,!Y >E 9 FACT DI/+UI%ABLE1 ANALYTICAL REASON BE+ ! HI<LY =MALIZ$ & AB/RACT LOGIC ?AT WAS ELABORAT$ \T ( ,>I/OTLE'S ,PO/]IOR ,ANALYTICS1 & 9/RUM5TAL REASON ! MORE CONCRETE RATIONALITY DEVELOP$ BY ! PRAGMATIC TRADITION 9 PHILOSOPHY4  ,!SE TWO TRADITIONS MELD1 (T5 UNCONSCI\SLY1 9TO ! COMMONS5SICAL REASON ?AT MO/ PEOPLE USE 9 EV]YDAY LIFE2 H5CE ! WORD CONV5TIONAL4 

   
#b4  ,I WI% TO VOICE A CAVEAT H]E4  ,I MAY BE A DIALECTICIAN1 BUT ,I AM NOT A ,HEGELIAN1 H[EV] MU* ,I HAVE B5EFIT$ FROM ,HEGEL'S WORK4  ,I DO NOT BELIEVE 9 ! EXI/5CE ( A COSMIC ,SPIRIT 7,GEI/7 ?AT F9DS ITS EMBODIM5T 9 ! EXI/5TIAL WORLD OR 9 HUMANITY4  ,>M$ ) A COSMIC ,SPIRIT ?AT ELABORATES ITSELF ?R\< HUMAN HI/ORY1 ,HEGEL T5D$ TO BLUNT ! CRITICAL ?RU/ ( HIS DIALECTIC & BR+ ! 0REAL0--! GIV5--9TO CON=MITY ) ! 0ACTUAL0--?AT IS1 ! POT5TIAL4  ,I FOLL[ \T ! IMPLICATIONS ( ,HEGEL'S DIALECTIC ALONG NATURALI/IC L9ES4  ,H5CE MY VIEW--OR MY 9T]PRETATION1 IF Y\ LIKE--?AT HIS PROJECT1 B]EFT ( A COSMIC ,SPIRIT1 PROVIDES US ) A RI* VIEW ( REALITY ?AT 9CLUDES ! RATIONAL 0:AT-%\LD-BE0 AS WELL AS ! (T5 IRRATIONAL 0:AT-IS40  ,DIALECTICAL REASON IS ?US ONTOLOGICALLY E?ICAL AS WELL AS DIALECTICALLY LOGICAL2 A GUIDE TO RATIONAL PRAXIS AS WELL AS A NATURALI/IC EXPLICATION ( ,BE+4 

   
#c4  ,G4,W4,F4 ,HEGEL1 ,PH5OM5OLOGY ( ,SPIRIT1 TRANS4 ,A4 ,V4 ,MILL] 7,OX=D3 ,CL>5DON ,PRESS1 #a#i#g#g71 PP4 #b-#c4 

   
#d4  ,G4,W4,F4 ,HEGEL1 ,LECTURES ON ! ,HI/ORY ( ,PHILOSOPHY1 VOL4 #a1 TRANS4 ,E4 ,S4 ,HALDANE & ,FRANCES ,H4 ,SIMSON 7,NEW ,YORK3 ,HUMANITIES ,PRESS1 #a#i#e#e71 P4 #b#b4 

,FROM 3 ,AN>*Y ,>*IVES4 

,*RONOLOGY 3 
,NOVEMB] #c1 #aiid 3 ,A ,PHILOSOPHICAL ,NATURALISM -- ,PUBLICATION4 
,FEBRU>Y #a1 #bag 3 ,A ,PHILOSOPHICAL ,NATURALISM -- ,ADD$4 
,DECEMB] #c1 #bba 3 ,A ,PHILOSOPHICAL ,NATURALISM -- ,UPDAT$4 

 FILE G5]AT$ FROM 3  
HTTP3_/_/REVOLTLIB4COM_/