| ||
|
The Subject of Requirement for the Evolutionary Process
Attempts of classical science to reveal a requirement (or a need) as a source of the subject's activity effect in the following paradox: being an objective component of its subjective reality, the requirement still does not get objectivized (does not enter the object reality), and this way it remains "suspended" between the object and the subject world.
In terms of Semantic Analysis a need, as a source of activity, is correlated with the subject of the need, not "belonging" to a specific subjective reality in which context it is being realized.
Interpretation of requirement as objective inner conditions of the subject's activity is controversial, because being an objective principle of subjective reality it should be objectivized as to become the outside object reality. Devoid of the "inner" source of his activity, the subject becomes equal to an empty form and turns into a phantom. Considering "the outer world" and the "body" as a source of his sensations (exteroceptive and proprioceptive), the source of interoceptive sensations is treated as inner, against the logic. However, it appears as "external" (objective) towards the subject of perception, because it is defined in an evolutionary manner as requirement of the evolutionary subject, and it does not "belong" to the subject of perception, in this sense.
In classical science the notion of "need" or "requirement" is actually correlated with the object. That is interpreted as a sufficient means of its satisfaction. This way the intellect reduces creativity to a mechanical act and "includes" evolution in the framework of its own finite content. An attempt of classical science to "embed" the needs treated as objects (sources of the subject's activity) "inside" the subject is absurd.
As noted above, a new subject matter of creative activity is always suddenly actualized as an insight the reason of which can not be detected by the intellect inside "the old content", even though the new content becomes accessible to the consciousness and is able to develop mechanistically as a process. To link the new content (as an effect) to the subject (as a cause), the intellect has to "split" the subject into "the subject of volition" (the reason for a new content) and "the subject of perception" (to which it is given as an effect).
In this case, however, the subject becomes undeterminable and it can not be the object of a reasoning intellect. The interminable mechanistic chain of causes and effects breaks at the subject, and then the further intellectual scientific research of a creative act becomes impossible. In the end, the reason for creativity is being interpreted as inspiration or as something incidental and outside as related to both the object and subject.
In Semantic Analysis, in spite of the fact that a need as a source of creativity can not be totally disclosed in terms of concepts, it can be researched as levels of specification of a corresponding subject of a need. We can sequentially reveal it as principles of activity and "reasons" for principles of any level via systems of the corresponding level.
The task of Semantic Analysis is not the construction of a metatheory, as a wider definition, all previous theories to serve as a background to it. On the contrary, it is to establish the principles on which basis one of their rules and axioms gives way to another. In fact, Semantic Analysis brings about a chain (hierarchy) of theories that are successively specified in the evolutionary process.
| ||
