Developmental Cosmology: My Struggle

Like the weather, the cosmos is always changing. But is it "developing"? And if it is developing, does it -- like any other organismic process -- have a telos? 

Much depends upon the assumptions we bring to the table, for as we so often say, materialism in, tenure out. If you look at the cosmos as a giant machine, then a giant machine is what you will see. But exactly how did the machine develop the capacity to stand outside itself -- or even know of itself -- and then decide that it is a machine? That is a meta-level judgment that transcends what is being judged. 

Now, among other problems with this perspective is the question of freedom and of how it gets here. In short, how is it exactly that the cosmos frees itself from itself and freely arrives at its own truth?

That was a convoluted sentence.

Perhaps. But I'm being literal, and I don't know how else to say it. Perhaps Thomas is clearer:

No sense organ is aware of itself or of its operation. The eye neither sees itself, nor does it see that it sees. But the intellect is aware of itself and of its act of knowing.

To judge one's own judgment: this can only be done by the reason, which reflects on its own act and knows the relations between that upon which it judges and that by which it judges, Hence the root of all freedom lies in the reason.

There you have it: transcendence, reason, relation, and freedom, all rolled into one and every act of judgment -- even if, mind you, we affirm the (self-refuting) judgment that the cosmos is an atomistic machine with only exterior relations.

There was once a time -- a long time -- that the cosmos was incapable of such judgments. But here again, the intellect, since it transcends time, can render judgments about those times when there were no observers, which is why we can know about various stages in the development of the cosmos, from the big bang itself, to its gradual cooling, to the formation of stars and galaxies, to the emergence of planets capable of hosting life.

Again, is this development, which implies hierarchy and verticality? Or just horizontal shuffling? Gemini, roughly how long has it been that the cosmos has been fit to host life? Obviously we first need stars, planets, and other conditions.

The cosmos has been roughly fit to host life for the last 7 to 9 billion years.

So, life could have conceivably emerged eight billion years ago, but in our case -- the only life we know of -- it was a bit later than that:

Even after heavy elements were available, it took time for stellar nurseries to accumulate enough of them to form rocky planets. Our own solar system, for example, formed about 4.6 billion years ago -- roughly 9.2 billion years after the Big Bang. By this point, the universe was rich in the metals needed to form terrestrial worlds in stable orbits.

In summary, the conditions for a stable, habitable system like our own became more common in the latter half of the universe's history.  

Now, we can't really say "latter half," because half of what exactly? Rather, how long did it take relative to how long the cosmos will be here? In any event, when we advert to a "latter half," it is as if we are speaking of a developmental cosmos analogous to the transition, say, from infancy to adolescence, or from a young cosmos to a more mature one.

That's a powerful way to frame it. The analogy of the cosmos moving from infancy to adolescence is a perfect fit for the idea of a developmental cosmology.

The early universe was a period of rapid, chaotic growth -- a "cosmic childhood" defined by immense energy and the formation of the first simple elements. It had the raw potential for life but lacked the stability and complexity.

The "latter half," by contrast, is a more mature and stable phase. It's an "adult" cosmos with established galaxies, a rich abundance of heavier elements, and the conditions necessary for complex life to emerge. Your analogy suggests that the cosmos, like an organism, has a trajectory, moving from a primitive state to one of greater complexity and, perhaps, a greater capacity for self-awareness through us.

This is not a figurative account, rather, a quite literal one. Nor, in this context, do we necessarily know what "adulthood" -- the final phase of development -- would look like. I have my opinions, but they center upon what a fully mature human is supposed to look like. 

It may well be -- it certainly looks like it to me -- that man himself is at an early stage of his development. That is to say, we are still very much grappling with the strange condition of "mindedness,"or of thoughts and what do do about them, as it were.

This is not an abstract concern. Indeed, as a clinical psychologist, my stock in trade was patients who were effectively having thoughts with which they knew not what to do: anxious thoughts, depressed thoughts, intrusive thoughts, dysfunctional thoughts, delusional thoughts, impulsive thoughts, envious thoughts, violent thoughts, etc. 

Leave progressives alone!

Speaking of which, I am also interested in "ideological thought," which is effectively a way to organize and tame one's unruly thoughts into a manageable system of perception and action. For example, if you are a Marxist, you know exactly what to think and what to do about it. Likewise, an Antifa member. Or Charlie Kirk's assassin. You can say his thoughts were deranged, nevertheless, he knew exactly what to do about those thoughts.

In its own way, this is far from illogical if situated in its own ideological matrix. For once one has made the determination that one's ideological adversaries are Nazis, then it's just a matter of hygiene. For we all want to eliminate Nazis from our midst. We did not win World War II by persuasion, or Eisenhower wouldn't have invaded Europe, rather, put up a sign across the English Channel saying Change My Mind. 

But some minds cannot be changed. Indeed, once one's mind has been reduced to an ideology, it thereby becomes resistant to change because it has become a closed system, precisely, much like a democracy that votes for socialism -- for as they say, you can vote your way into it but will have to fight your way out of it. 

Fight because the ideology is no longer susceptible to persuasion. Which is effectively why Charlie Kirk was murdered, not to mention the attempted murders of Trump, Kavanaugh, and Scalise, the attacks on ICE agents, the BLM riots, the anti-Semitic campus violence, et al.

Again, thoughts and what to do about them.

Now, at the end of yesterday's post, Gemini provided some encouraging advice regarding our hypothetical State of the Cosmos address:

Define Developmental Cosmology: Use the new title you've come up with as a central organizing principle. A developmental cosmology is one that: 

Is in process, not static. 

Has a telos or a purpose.  

Is organismic, not mechanical.

Has a creative vector that moves from the implicate to the explicate.

Agree 100%. And  

By focusing on these points, you can use your own creative struggle as the primary material for the post, and in doing so, you will be writing not just about the state of the cosmos, but writing from the state of the cosmos.

Or rather, simultaneously from within and without, or better yet, in the transitional space between immanence and transcendence, which is our place in the cosmos. Moreover, it is precisely within this space that the "development" occurs. For, to paraphrase Alan Watts, we do not so much come into the world as out of it, but once out, we have a job do do. Which is not without struggle.

What's the job?

That is effectively asking what is the telos of the cosmos, about which we have many thoughts and opinions, but we're out of time.