691
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
M. C. Tobias, J. G. Morrison, On the Nature of Ecological Paradox,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64526-7_76
Chapter 76
Imagining Transitions
76.1 Pivoting Between Paradox and Existential Biology
We fill in every blank on the map with quantified, biological data: densities of life,
delineations and discriminations, altricial and precocial birth; nesting behavior
among avifauna—nidifugous versus nidicolous, the latter referring to those that stay
on a while in their nests; deductions, premises, objects of definition, assumptions,
propositions—all swirling around our idea of life.
The rise of “paraconsistent logics” and an inconsistency-tolerance has exacerbated clarity by embracing endless implications.
Since the time of Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel, for example, interpolations of data from varying behavior, and the underlying phylogenetic assumptions
and continually evolving genetic storyline, have turned the often conflicting languages of biology on their head. Writes Roy Sorensen, “Paraconsistent logics are
designed to safely confine the explosion”.
1
Just as in 1631 the publication of a Bible
in London was shown to have omitted a single word in the Seventh Commandment,
“not.” King Charles 1 simply had all copies of the edition sought out and destroyed.
2
An immediate remedy for a specifically closed problem of “Thou Shalt Not” versus
“Thou Shalt.” For Sorensen, there is the possibility that “some hitherto unconceived
field” may yet usher the kind of geography and metaphysics, or some other intellectual topology, wherein certain paradoxes, currently having exploded, are subject
to intellectual containment,
3
to an effect as closed and shut as that Bible saga, a
single word upon which the future of the world theoretically pivots. It might just be
an ethic as fundamental to the Bible as Thou Shalt Not Kill. That is the foremost
1 See A Brief History of the Paradox – Philosophy And The Labyrinths Of The Mind, by Roy
Sorensen, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003, p.114. See also, 1. See H. A. Wolfson, Philo,
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1947, Vols 1–2.
2 ibid., p.165.
3 ibid. pp. 370–371.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
M. C. Tobias, J. G. Morrison, On the Nature of Ecological Paradox,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64526-7_76
Chapter 76
Imagining Transitions
76.1 Pivoting Between Paradox and Existential Biology
We fill in every blank on the map with quantified, biological data: densities of life,
delineations and discriminations, altricial and precocial birth; nesting behavior
among avifauna—nidifugous versus nidicolous, the latter referring to those that stay
on a while in their nests; deductions, premises, objects of definition, assumptions,
propositions—all swirling around our idea of life.
The rise of “paraconsistent logics” and an inconsistency-tolerance has exacerbated clarity by embracing endless implications.
Since the time of Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel, for example, interpolations of data from varying behavior, and the underlying phylogenetic assumptions
and continually evolving genetic storyline, have turned the often conflicting languages of biology on their head. Writes Roy Sorensen, “Paraconsistent logics are
designed to safely confine the explosion”.
1
Just as in 1631 the publication of a Bible
in London was shown to have omitted a single word in the Seventh Commandment,
“not.” King Charles 1 simply had all copies of the edition sought out and destroyed.
2
An immediate remedy for a specifically closed problem of “Thou Shalt Not” versus
“Thou Shalt.” For Sorensen, there is the possibility that “some hitherto unconceived
field” may yet usher the kind of geography and metaphysics, or some other intellectual topology, wherein certain paradoxes, currently having exploded, are subject
to intellectual containment,
3
to an effect as closed and shut as that Bible saga, a
single word upon which the future of the world theoretically pivots. It might just be
an ethic as fundamental to the Bible as Thou Shalt Not Kill. That is the foremost
1 See A Brief History of the Paradox – Philosophy And The Labyrinths Of The Mind, by Roy
Sorensen, Oxford University Press, New York, 2003, p.114. See also, 1. See H. A. Wolfson, Philo,
Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1947, Vols 1–2.
2 ibid., p.165.
3 ibid. pp. 370–371.