always game
Great, glad to hear it.
Talking of transformations, what follows is my response to that intriguing piece you posted, asserting that The egg came first. Aka indulging myself, if you will.
First, for the conundrum to make any sense at all <g> everyone needs to acknowledge that there is one egg in question, that the two eggs posited by these scientists is a fantasy. There most definitely are not two different eggs, the non-chicken one and the chicken one. This notion of two eggs, is simply not real. It is imputed, designated and reified on the basis of discrete measurements at two different points in time. Two measurements, voila two eggs, one when it wasn’t a chicken, and one when it was. Flawed trick, QED. In reality there is one egg only, it starts as a non-chicken egg and ends as a chicken egg. This is what happens. It is the scientific consensus, is it not, a bifurcation I am in fact willing to accept.
I wonder if the scientists could so confidently, and with such certitude, that it has religious overtones, divine for us at exactly what point the non-chicken egg became the chicken egg, and /or at what point, the non-chicken became the chicken. That would be an interesting problem. Significant insights might inform a host of related issues. I for one would be interested in such findings, and how they were discerned. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for significance, with a capital S to occur on this one. Oh yes we will discover wonders and solve age old problems, voila, QED, but where’s the beef in this particular issue. Can’t be found. Actually I do grant that we have achieved and will continue to do and discover some outrageously fantastic things. The narrative needs to fit better though. Things are changing, but back to the point of transformation at hand.
By necessity, in virtue of it’s singular nature, the chicken/egg, or non-chicken/egg or non egg or or whatever you want to call it, is ultimately dependently originated. This entity and it’s aspects are at the same time, one, and parts, of the same development. Since a single entity is involved in this transformational process it’s parts can only have co-arisen via an inter-dependent mechanism.
Like I said a while back, it is a false problem. One did not come before the other, the one simply begets the two. That would be a Taoist view. The question itself seems common sense enough, but it dissolves under analysis. At the least, that’s my view and I’m sticking to it.
In the west we used to scratch our heads about such things such as chickens and eggs and which came first and vice versa, on account of poor philosophy, perhaps engendered by poor faculties of observation and no science. We would call such kinds of things miracles, but now we know better, or think we do. Despite it’s drawbacks, it’s an endearing problem, this new spin, nothing new, an entertainment, see Disney. I enjoyed the exercise, made me think it through, so thank you for your post. Will this settle it. I doubt it <g> |
