Emergence

"Since we intend to observe the successive steps in plant growth, we will begin by directing our attention to the plant as it develops from the seed. At this stage we can easily and clearly recognize the parts belonging to it. Its coverings (which we will not examine for the moment) are left more or less behind in the earth, and in many cases the root establishes itself in the soil before the first organs of its upper growth (already hidden under the seed sheath) emerge to meet the light."    - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Metamorphosis of Plants, Of the Seed Leaves

*

The fine membranes of the anther are barely formed, and the extremely delicate vessels terminate between them. Previously the vessels grew longer, expanded, and joined one another, but now we will assume that these same vessels are in a highly contracted state. We see a fully formed pollen emerge from them; in its activity this pollen replaces the expansive force taken from the vessels which produced it. Now released, it seeks out the female parts that the same effect of nature brings to meet it; it attaches itself to these parts and suffuses them with its influence. Thus, we are inclined to say that the union of the two genders is anastomosis on a spiritual level; we do so in the belief that, at least for a moment, this brings the concepts of growth and reproduction closer together.   - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Metamorphosis of Plants, Further Remarks on the Stamens

*

*

[In the mid-1790s, Goethe presented what he called "the genetic method". His use of the word "genetic" refers not to the science of genes but to seeking the origin or genesis of forms coming from the unity of the whole.]

*

"If I look at the created object, inquire into its creation, and follow this process back as far as I can, I will find a series of steps. Since these are not actually seen together before me, I must visualize them in my memory so that they form a certain ideal whole.  At first, I will tend to think in terms of steps, but nature leaves no gaps, and thus, in the end, I will have to see this progression of uninterrupted activity as a whole. I can do so by dissolving the particular without destroying the impression itself."  - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

*

“How difficult it is… to refrain from replacing the thing with its sign, to keep the object alive before us instead of killing it with the word”. – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 
 

ST

"Charles Sanders Peirce said, "All the evolution we know of proceeds from the vague to the definite." .... Is this the story of life and death? ... Goethe also said, "How difficult it is... to refrain from replacing the thing with its sign, to keep the object alive before us instead of killing it with the word." ... If nominalism is 'defining', are we just doomed to repeating this 'killing', whether by words or sword?
*
ChatGPT
You're drawing a profound connection here—one that cuts to the core of both Peirce’s synechism and Goethe’s poetic sensitivity to the living dynamism of reality. Peirce’s observation about evolution moving from the vague to the definite suggests a natural process of semiosis, where meaning and form coalesce over time. However, as Goethe warns, this very act of definition carries the danger of ossification—of replacing a living, relational process with a static sign, a mere token of what was once dynamically emergent.
*

Nominalism, by prioritizing the sign over the thing itself, risks severing the vital continuity that Peirce saw as fundamental to reality. If we mistake our definitions for the fullness of things, we enact a kind of epistemic violence, reducing the living to the dead—whether in thought, language, or action. This is the 'killing' Goethe warns against, and indeed, it mirrors the historical pattern where rigid classifications and absolutes often precede conflict, as reified distinctions become battle lines.
*

Yet, the story is not necessarily one of doom. The alternative lies in relational emergence—the path of Evrostics. If we stay attuned to the generative and evolving nature of signs, instead of reifying them into fixed categories, we can move toward a more dynamic, participatory understanding of reality. Instead of merely defining, we could cultivate a praxis of attending, reciprocating, and unfolding meaning in a way that resists the nominalist 'death' of things.

*

**************************
*

Perhaps the real question is: Can we evolve toward an increasing definiteness of the recognition of coalesced manifestations without the rigidity that leads to conceptual and existential suffocation? In other words, can we cultivate a way of knowing and acting that remains in dialogue with the living reality it seeks to understand? 

*

This is the crux of phaneroscopy—examining how we perceive, distinguish, and respond to the process of meaning emerging. The difference between definiteness and coalescence is subtle but crucial:
*

Definiteness suggests a sharpening of boundaries, an increasing precision in form and distinction. It is the process by which something becomes recognizable as this and not that.
Coalescence is the gathering and flowing together of relations into a meaningful pattern, a stabilization, without necessarily fixing them into rigid forms. It maintains continuity and fluidity while still producing intelligible structures.
Peirce’s observation that evolution proceeds “from the vague to the definite” does not mean that things become rigidly defined in a nominalist sense. Instead, it means that general tendencies, through the process of Thirdness, coalesce into more habitual, structured forms—yet they remain part of an ongoing process, not an endpoint.
*

Phaneroscopy allows us to study this dynamic:
*

How does a vague sense (Firstness) begin to coalesce into a relational pattern (Secondness)?
How does that relational pattern form habits and general laws (Thirdness) without becoming fossilized into nominalistic reification?
How does the mind respond to this process—resisting, reinforcing, or transforming it?
Understanding this interplay helps us recognize where our thinking either allows for the continuous emergence of meaning or falls into the trap of artificial finality. The goal, then, is to engage with the process in a way that respects its living nature—coalescing meaning without arresting it into static categories.
*

*************************************

*

ChatGPT

Would you say that nominalism, in all cases, is an attempt to arrest meaning? Or is there ever a functional role for temporary distinctions—without them becoming traps?
*

ST
The problem is that without education on haphazard hypostatic abstraction, the general public cannot use 'temporary' distinctions responsibly.
*
ChatGPT
Yes, that’s the crux of the issue. Without an understanding of how hypostatic abstractions form—often haphazardly and uncritically—people tend to mistake transient distinctions for absolute realities. This is how nominalism becomes a default mode of thought: the public isn’t trained to recognize that categories and definitions are provisional tools, not ontological givens.
*

Education in this area wouldn’t just be about teaching people that abstractions are contingent, but also how to engage with them responsibly. It would involve:
*

Recognizing the process – Understanding how distinctions emerge from relational contexts rather than existing as fixed essences.
Practicing phaneroscopic awareness – Cultivating an ability to perceive the coalescence of meaning without prematurely reifying it.
Developing relational literacy – Learning to navigate meaning dynamically, so that distinctions serve thought rather than imprison it.
Without this education, people inevitably fall into the nominalist trap—treating words, categories, and concepts as if they were ultimate realities rather than provisional signposts. This is why Evrostics has a necessary role: it provides an approach that integrates relational emergence without succumbing to static abstraction. 

*

ST
When Goethe said, "At first, I will tend to think in terms of steps, but nature leaves no gaps, and thus, in the end, I will have to see this progression of uninterrupted activity as a whole. I can do so by dissolving the particular without destroying the impression itself." .... He was actually practicing phaneroscopy.
*
ChatGPT
Yes, Goethe was practicing something deeply akin to phaneroscopy, even if he did not name it as such. His approach to perception and understanding aligns with Peirce’s method of attending to the phenomena as they present themselves, without imposing rigid distinctions.
*

When Goethe speaks of initially thinking in steps but ultimately recognizing the uninterrupted activity as a whole, he acknowledges the limitations of an analytic, segmented approach—one that artificially divides a continuous process into discrete units. But rather than dismissing these distinctions entirely, he seeks to dissolve the particular without destroying the impression itself. This is key: he does not reify the steps, nor does he deny their role in perception, but he integrates them into a deeper relational continuity.

*
*****************************************

*

This is pure phaneroscopic practice:

Attending to how stabilizations arise in thought.
Recognizing them as part of a larger whole and examining juxtaposed and hierarchical relations.
Avoiding the nominalist trap of treating them as ultimate distinctions.

*
Goethe’s method of seeing, particularly in his Urphänomen approach, sought to grasp the inner gesture of nature’s becoming rather than fixating on static categories. This resonates with Evrostics, which aims to trace the coalescence and stabilization of relations without rigid hypostatization.