Monthly Archives: May 2010


One of the unsolved riddles in science is the origin of biological information. I believe that vitalism and a universal grammar may help explain that riddle, and I will now explain how this is possible. A transcendent emotion carries a potentiality that implies intelligence, assuming for the sake of argument that an intelligent designer is connected to the innate vitality that comes with the expression of emotionality. Otherwise, I would not attempt to disentangle emotion and intelligence. So I could agree that intelligence is ubiquitous in the universe, enough to intelligently design life in a test tube by copying parts of existing life. I grant to folks that pretend to be intelligent, and beyond emotion, their definition of “intelligent.” Here intelligence is sometimes given as a one-sided expression of deduction and induction that is only thought to be self-contained. However, the fallacy of excluded middle is discovered, and if intelligence is given by deduction and induction (which I will grant) it must be that emotion is found sourcing the middle-term that had been conveniently ignored. By implication, this describes my usage of “intelligence” and “emotion.” Returning to the issue of universal grammar, note that much of the effort in communication is in stripping away intense word games that get in the way of understanding, thereby returning to the undifferentiated unity where understanding is immediate because there is only One (as I hypothesize in my book). A word game is a play on mere definitions, e.g., changing red to blue and blue to red and saying nothing. At the deepest level it must be that the grammar permits resolution of felt tension once the unifying archetype is recognized. I take the unifying archetype to be signified by an intuitionist resolution of Kant`s third antinomy; i.e., where freewill and universal causation are resolved. Using words this can only be described with threeness, as I describe in my book. For example, the sender, its receiver, and the synthesis of sender and receiver. In religious terms this archetype is given by the Christian and Hindu Trinities, or the Tao of ancient China, or the Greek Logos. There are variations on the theme of threeness, but this is understandable because we want to unite a vast plurality with a singular. The singular supports inductive or stereotypical thinking and generality, the plural indicates deductive thinking and particularity. Communication progresses as far as full disclosure to permit Edmund Husserl`s “reactivation,” then there is silences until tension is felt again. Full disclosure carries ontic meaning that becomes self-evident. The universal grammar is a generality that pertains to felt emotions that are able to self-cultivate: by implication, this provides my meaning of vitality. It is not meant to diminish the additive nature of knowledge that comes from plurality where there is less generality and more particularity. Nevertheless, feelings carry something deeper than the dishonesty that may at times be projected in conversations. Intelligent design (including biological information) is now indicated by the synthesis of reductive cause-and-effect with its teleological or holistic support. All cause-and-effect is driven by this necessity of a higher impetus given as the final cause and has penetrated the space-time fabric, but not all cause-and-effect is employed with right desires. Bad desires can hijack necessary causal chains that are already seized upon, but bad desires cannot invent transcendent causation that has not yet been earned. Information is now generated by the Logos.