Splintering Bone Ashes and Plamenology and Object Oriented Philosophy have all discussed the concept of emergence and whether it stands as an ontological, epistemological or ontic category. While the concept of behaviour or pattern is highly subjective (to point out the complexity of an ant colony in a human world) there is still the issue of the rearrangement of objects which occurs unexpectedly – the way the earth is redrawn by the ant colony, how rain fall is changed, how the ant-ions move their traps and so forth.
While emergence changes the setting the question seems to become whether rearangement can explain abiogenesis and the creation of the universe which, given the diminishing possibility of a truly closed system this seems more and more likely.
But then, what becomes of the line between the ontic and the ontological – that is, is the ontological composed of forces and powers from an always designated elsewhere or is the depth of the ontological not the possibility of being as being but possibility – that which gives emergence its emergence?
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment