14. The genetic tool for integrating matter

Before documenting the history of denial in biology, and then explaining how our ancestors managed to acquire an instinctive orientation to behaving unconditionally selflessly towards each other, it is first necessary to explain the biological processes that are taking place on Earth from a denial-free truthful basis, which, with understanding of the human condition now found, is at last both possible and safe to do.

Arthur Koestler emphasised the stalled situation of all of science, but of biology and psychology in particular, when he said that the human-condition-issue-avoiding, integrative-meaning/ God-shunning, whole-view-evading, details-only-focused, blind, reductionist, mechanistic science’s denial of the truth of negative entropy has ‘taken the life out of biology as well as psychology’, writing that ‘although the facts [of the integration of matter] were there for everyone to see, orthodox evolutionists were reluctant to accept their theoretical implications. The idea that living organisms, in contrast to machines, were primarily active, and not merely reactive; that instead of passively adapting to their environment they were…creating…new patterns of structure…such ideas were profoundly distasteful to [Social] Darwinians, behaviourists and reductionists in general [p.222 of 354] …Evolution has been compared to a journey from an unknown origin towards an unknown destination, a sailing along a vast ocean; but we can at least chart the route …and there is no denying that there is a wind which makes the sails move…the purposiveness of all vital processes…Causality and finality are complementary principles in the sciences of life; if you take out finality and purpose you have taken the life out of biology as well as psychology [p.226]’ (Janus: A Summing Up, 1978).

In 1938 the visionary Jesuit palaeontologist and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote, ‘I can see a direction and a line of progress for life, a line and a direction which are in fact so well marked that I am convinced their reality will be universally admitted by the science of tomorrow’ (The Phenomenon of Man, p.142 of 320). To bring about this time that de Chardin anticipated, when all scientists could safely acknowledge the integrative direction of Page 56 of
PDF Version life, required the finding of the dignifying understanding of the upset state of our human condition, and with that found a whole new, integrative meaning-accepting way of thinking about biology can now at last be safely introduced.

Towards the end of his momentous 1859 book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Charles Darwin anticipated that ‘In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation…Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history’ (p.458 of 476). Given Koestler’s comment that ‘if you take out finality and [integrative] purpose you have taken the life out of biology as well as psychology’, what was required to bring about Darwin’s ‘new’ en-‘light’-ening ‘foundation’ for ‘biology as well as psychology’ was acknowledgment of ‘integrative’ ‘purpose’. As Arthur Schopenhauer pointed out, ‘the discovery of truth is prevented most effectively…by prejudice, which…stands in the path of truth and is then like a contrary wind driving a ship away from land’ (Essays and Aphorisms, tr. R.J. Hollingdale, 1970, p.120 of 237). This ‘prejudice’, ‘contrary wind’ that has been ‘driving’ biologists away from insight into the nature of our world and our place in it is the practice of, as Koestler described it, ‘denying that there is a wind which makes’ matter integrate, ‘the purposiveness of all vital processes’.

So, to end the current crippled, atrophied, stalled state of biological thinking requires putting aside all the ‘prejudice’ of the denial-distorted thinking that so saturates biological dialogue and texts now and, starting from the ‘new foundation’ of the acceptance of the purpose of developing the order of matter, think simply, cleanly and freshly through the whole biological story from its beginning. We need to assume integrative meaning, examine the fundamental ingredients in our world and see where the process of the integration of matter takes us.

Firstly we need to replace the word ‘evolution’ with the word ‘development’. Evolution acknowledged that organisms do change or evolve but avoided acknowledging that there is a direction and purpose to that change of developing the order of matter.

To begin: the study of physics has revealed that our world consists of three fundamental ingredients—time, space, and energy, with energy taking the form of the 94 naturally occurring elements of matter. These ingredients are subject to the laws of physics. As has been explained, when subjected to the laws of physics, particularly the law of negative entropy, matter in space and time became ordered or integrated. It formed more stable or enduring (in time) and ever larger (in space) arrangements.

This development of order of matter involved the initial mixture of the 94 elements and their gradual formation into stable arrangements called molecules. For example, the stable arrangement of two single positively charged hydrogen atoms with one double negatively charged oxygen atom, resulted in the formation of the water molecule. In time, through the mixing of different elements, each with their own particular properties, many other stable arrangements were found or developed, leading to even more and greater order and complexity of arrangements. In time molecules became organised or integrated into very complex macro molecules involving many different elements. The problem for the development of order was that the more complex these macro molecules became the more unstable they tended to be. Highly complex macro molecules would only occasionally form and when they did, they didn’t tend to hold together for long before again breaking down into separate parts. Eventually an impasse was reached where instability set a limit on how complex macro molecules could become. When this instability limit was reached it appeared negative entropy, or ‘God’ if we were to personify the process, could not develop any more order on Earth.

However one day in the primal soup a complex macro molecule occurred with an unusual property—DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid (or, more accurately, initially Page 57 of
PDF Version its prototype RNA, ribonucleic acid). What was unusual about DNA was that it could replicate. It could split allowing the two halves to draw material from the environment to build two complete DNA molecules. The significance of this replication was that it meant DNA could defy breakdown. It could turn a relatively brief lifetime for a complex macro molecule into a relatively indefinite one. DNA’s ability to replicate meant that even though some of the replicates disintegrated into smaller parts, others would survive and go on to replicate further. With slight variations called mutations occurring from the effects of solar radiation, replicates were ‘found’ that were even more stable/ enduring (in time) and more ordered/ complex/ larger (in space). The process of natural selection of more stable and larger arrangements of matter—and the origin of an indefinite lifetime, or ‘life’ as we call it—appeared.

In this process, each replicating arrangement of matter or reproducing individual was in effect being tested both for its ability to survive and reproduce in its lifetime and, over generations of offspring, for its ability to adapt to changes in the environment in which it exists, with those that manage to survive and adapt inevitably, whenever possible, finding/ refining/ achieving/ growing/ developing even greater order of matter. The effect of this process over time therefore was that more and greater order of matter was integrated. It was the ability to survive and adapt that supplied the opportunity for more and greater order of matter to develop. Thus, using the tool of replicating DNA, negative entropy was able to integrate matter into larger wholes; it was able to develop ever more and ever greater order of matter on Earth.

DNA is actually a very complex crystal. Crystal molecules abound—common salt, sodium chloride, for instance is one—and in a suitable nutrient environment they all have the property of reproduction, of growing their structure from their structure. However, being much simpler than DNA—having far less variety of elements within their molecules—they have little or no potential for adaption and development of greater order.

Negative entropy is really only a product of possibilities. The differing properties of matter mean that some arrangements of matter break down towards heat energy, while others stay stable and still others become part of larger stable associations of matter. In time all the possible associations of matter will be automatically or, as Darwin described it, ‘naturally’ investigated until the largest stable association is naturally left or found or, as Darwin described it, ‘selected’. What happened with DNA is that it not only turned a relatively short lifetime for extremely complex molecules into a relatively indefinite one, it also made a business, as it were, of this negentropy direction, both of resisting breakdown and of developing order. The replicating DNA molecule gave rise to a process that actively resisted breakdown and actively developed ever more and greater order of matter. As has been mentioned, this negentropy surviving and building process does require energy but in Earth’s case that has been available from the sun.

If we want to know what is going on on Earth—‘what is the meaning of life?’—we only have to cut off many short lengths of wire (representing the different elements), bend them into different shapes such as hooks, loops and spirals (representing the different properties of those building blocks of our world), put them into a box (representing space), shake the box up (representing time), and then lift the lid and look inside. What we will see is that the wire pieces have formed themselves into all sorts of tangles; they have developed larger arrangements or wholes of matter. Integrative meaning is a simple and obvious truth but for all its obviousness it has been the one truth we insecure humans have had to learn to block-out or deny. Incidentally, our ability to deny such an extremely obvious truth bears witness to our psychological ability to deny apparently anything should we choose to. When the alternative is suicidal depression our mind is apparently Page 58 of
PDF Version capable of absolutely outrageous dishonesty, and this is the case as we will see in the coming section on the ‘The history of biological denial’.

The DNA unit of inheritance is called a gene, and the study of the process of change that genes undergo has been labelled ‘genetics’. This genetic tool for negative entropy’s development or refinement of the order of matter on Earth was very powerful—it was able to develop the great variety of ordered matter we call life. From DNA (or its prototype RNA), virus-like organisms developed, then from virus-like organisms developed single-celled organisms, and from single-celled organisms developed multi-cellular organisms. The next level of order to be developed or integrated by negative entropy was societies or colonies or ordered arrangements of multicellular organisms. It was at this point that negative entropy (or ‘God’) encountered another impasse.

While genetics has proved to be a marvellous tool for integrating matter it has one very significant limitation. This limitation arises from the fact that each genetically reproducing individual organism has to remain independent and thus selectable, struggling, competing and fighting selfishly for its own reproduction—because that variety or pool of reproducing individuals is the basis of the genetic developing or refining or learning process. Even though the negative entropy, integrative process is dedicated to integration and, in effect, would like to bring together or amalgamate or integrate reproducing individuals to form new larger associations or wholes of them, this can’t occur because then the natural selection process of, in effect, comparing the abilities of the various reproducing individuals to survive through time and where possible grow in size and complexity would be lost. If they are all integrated into one organism there is no variety left for natural selection to work from.

What this means is that the truly cooperative behaviour that reproducing individuals have to be able to develop if they are to effectively come together/ amalgamate/ integrate, of the capacity for them to unconditionally selflessly consider the welfare of the integrated larger amalgamation or whole above their own welfare, cannot, as a rule, develop genetically. As has been emphasised, unconditional selflessness is the cooperative, loving glue that holds wholes together and as such is so fundamental to the development and maintenance of larger wholes that it is the theme of the entire integrative process that characterises all of existence, but the problem is reproducing individuals cannot develop this unconditional selflessness towards other reproducing individuals.

In this situation where each reproducing individual can’t become a fully integrated part of an amalgamation or integration of reproducing individuals and has to carry on as a separate reproducing individual fighting selfishly for its own reproduction, the most cooperation that can develop is that of reciprocity where one individual selflessly helps another on the proviso that they are selflessly helped in return—which overall means both parties are selfishly benefiting. Reproducing individuals can develop reciprocity because it is basically still a selfish trait; it doesn’t give away an advantage to other reproducing individuals and therefore doesn’t compromise the integrity of the reproducing individual. Unconditionally selfless traits on the other hand do give away an advantage to other reproducing individuals—that being the meaning of unconditional selflessness, that you are giving without receiving—and therefore unconditionally selfless, self-sacrificing traits do compromise the integrity of the reproducing individual and therefore can’t, as a rule, develop.

The integrative limitation of the genetic refinement tool for integrating matter is that, as a rule, only traits that are selfish can be cultivated or ‘naturally selected’ genetically.

The result of this selfish individualism is that the reproducing individual members of a species end up competing relentlessly with each other for food, territory, shelter and Page 59 of
PDF Version a mate. The more social or integrated members become, the more competition develops between them, until the selfish, divisive competition reaches a point where no further integration is possible.

Importantly, even though selfishness appears to characterise so much of nature as a result of this situation, the truth is selfishness is only occurring because of the limitation of the genetic process of being unable to, as a rule, foster unconditional selflessness. In his 1850 poem In Memoriam, English poet laureate Alfred Tennyson famously wrote: ‘Who trusted God was love indeed / And love Creation’s final law / Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw / With ravine, shriek’d against his creed’. While integrative meaning and its theme of unconditional selflessness or ‘love’ is the al-true-istic ‘final law’ of ‘creation’ that the competitive and aggressive, ‘red in tooth and claw’ characteristic of so much of nature seems to be in total contradiction to, we can now understand that this characteristic of selfish competition and aggression in so much of nature doesn’t mean that selfishness is the meaning of existence, or that the biological, genetic process is dedicated to the objective of being selfish. It is simply the limitation of genetics that it can’t, as a rule, develop cooperative, unconditional selflessness and thus the harmonious coming together and holding together or integration of reproducing individual organisms.

The question to be raised then is could negative entropy, or if we like ‘God’, find a way to overcome this impasse to developing fully integrated associations or wholes of reproducing members of a species—or had the limit to the amount of order of matter that could be developed on Earth finally been reached?

In fact the reason it has been said that ‘as a rule’ unconditional selflessness can’t be developed is, as will shortly be explained, humans’ original fully integrated state was achieved in a way that allowed unconditional selflessness to be developed genetically. Negative entropy did find one way to overcome the can’t-develop-unconditional-selflessness limitation of its genetic tool for integrating reproducing individual organisms; there has been one exception to the rule.

Though negative entropy only managed to find a way to fully integrate the reproducing individuals of one species, namely our ancestors, it did find a way to develop much greater integration of matter within the reproducing individuals of many species, and it is this development that will now be explained.