468
ecological symmetry within communities
4
that is this consciousness we are each so
excited about; condemned to it as our lungs know only the oxygen upon which they
survive.
Philosopher Stephen Hales effectively argues that we can neither prove existence
or non-existence, but that induction is crucial to every philosophical, and by implication, ecologically mathematical enterprise.
5
To induce, however, is not to live.
True, enumerative induction allows for the naturalistic conflation of ecology and
consciousness, engendering the widest possible gulf of uncertainties. Arising from
uncertainty, the prepositions in every language argue for the definitive, something
solid. But this is no certain axiom. Crickets and dolphins, blue whales, and albatross
defy substantiality with protean circumlocutions. From any philosophical perspective, details of the biosphere exist free, and for all possible deliberations and analysis, not that such analysis is necessarily anything but pointless. That is, admittedly,
the cynical path.
A more optimistic one embraces the fervent hope, notwithstanding no shred of
evidence, that our love of nature has actually amounted to something. But first ask
the chicken, the jaguar, the mountain gorilla. Regardless of our inflictions and
simultaneous exultations, no one knows true philosophical balance. Dialectics are
genetically hard-wired. But since we identify basic pain and pleasure markers,
among numerous other representative senses of the environment, we have, however
inert, inept, or ingenious our response mechanisms may be, a vested interest, if not
desperate hope, that there are, in fact, meaningful connections to be enlisted and
trusted, between ourselves and the outer world.
The aspired-to balance, the ultimate fall-out of that dialectical meaning, in turn,
bio-invades our consciousness, takes up habitation to various degrees, enters mind
just as Sartre argued that nothingness pivots between our “self-contained Being”
and “consciousness” itself. These two opposites are merged in the very act of paradoxical thinking, which must rely on the attraction of associations of all kinds, not
merely opposites but biochemical gradations. Infused by those increments of life,
afresh or “unacknowledged legislators of the world” (Shelley writing of poets in his
essay “A Defence of Poetry,” 1821) science departs abruptly from metaphysics
when it poses the reality of its biological opinions. These are the products of hypotheses which, by the bias of countless disciplines and sub-disciplines, inform the statistical inferences that hover over every fact.
4 See “The neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography and Stephen Jay Gould,” by Stephen
P. Hubbell, BioOne Complete, Paleobiology, 31(sp5): 122–132 (2005), https://doi.org/10.1666/
0094-8373(2005)031[0122:TNTOBA]2.0.CO;2,
ume-31/issue-sp5/0094-8373(2005)031%5b0122:TNTOBA%5d2.0.CO;2/The-neutral-theory-ofbiodiversity-and-biogeography-and-Stephen-Jay/10.1666/0094-8373(2005)031%5b0122:TNTO
BA%5d2.0.CO;2.short, Accessed May 9, 2020.
5 Steven D. Hales, “Thinking Tools: You can Prove a Negative” (PDF). 2005, Think. 4 (10): 109–
112. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175600001287.
50 Unthinkable Nullities, Negative Proofs
ecological symmetry within communities
4
that is this consciousness we are each so
excited about; condemned to it as our lungs know only the oxygen upon which they
survive.
Philosopher Stephen Hales effectively argues that we can neither prove existence
or non-existence, but that induction is crucial to every philosophical, and by implication, ecologically mathematical enterprise.
5
To induce, however, is not to live.
True, enumerative induction allows for the naturalistic conflation of ecology and
consciousness, engendering the widest possible gulf of uncertainties. Arising from
uncertainty, the prepositions in every language argue for the definitive, something
solid. But this is no certain axiom. Crickets and dolphins, blue whales, and albatross
defy substantiality with protean circumlocutions. From any philosophical perspective, details of the biosphere exist free, and for all possible deliberations and analysis, not that such analysis is necessarily anything but pointless. That is, admittedly,
the cynical path.
A more optimistic one embraces the fervent hope, notwithstanding no shred of
evidence, that our love of nature has actually amounted to something. But first ask
the chicken, the jaguar, the mountain gorilla. Regardless of our inflictions and
simultaneous exultations, no one knows true philosophical balance. Dialectics are
genetically hard-wired. But since we identify basic pain and pleasure markers,
among numerous other representative senses of the environment, we have, however
inert, inept, or ingenious our response mechanisms may be, a vested interest, if not
desperate hope, that there are, in fact, meaningful connections to be enlisted and
trusted, between ourselves and the outer world.
The aspired-to balance, the ultimate fall-out of that dialectical meaning, in turn,
bio-invades our consciousness, takes up habitation to various degrees, enters mind
just as Sartre argued that nothingness pivots between our “self-contained Being”
and “consciousness” itself. These two opposites are merged in the very act of paradoxical thinking, which must rely on the attraction of associations of all kinds, not
merely opposites but biochemical gradations. Infused by those increments of life,
afresh or “unacknowledged legislators of the world” (Shelley writing of poets in his
essay “A Defence of Poetry,” 1821) science departs abruptly from metaphysics
when it poses the reality of its biological opinions. These are the products of hypotheses which, by the bias of countless disciplines and sub-disciplines, inform the statistical inferences that hover over every fact.
4 See “The neutral theory of biodiversity and biogeography and Stephen Jay Gould,” by Stephen
P. Hubbell, BioOne Complete, Paleobiology, 31(sp5): 122–132 (2005), https://doi.org/10.1666/
0094-8373(2005)031[0122:TNTOBA]2.0.CO;2,
ume-31/issue-sp5/0094-8373(2005)031%5b0122:TNTOBA%5d2.0.CO;2/The-neutral-theory-ofbiodiversity-and-biogeography-and-Stephen-Jay/10.1666/0094-8373(2005)031%5b0122:TNTO
BA%5d2.0.CO;2.short, Accessed May 9, 2020.
5 Steven D. Hales, “Thinking Tools: You can Prove a Negative” (PDF). 2005, Think. 4 (10): 109–
112. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175600001287.
50 Unthinkable Nullities, Negative Proofs