The following is part two of the drafting manuscript Morality Squared: on the Goethean-Feuerbach Prophesy, Nietzschean Void, and Henderson-Rossini Hypothesis:


Scrabble pieces argument (chance)
American creationist Stephen Meyer’s circa 2003 objection (Ѻ) to Darwinism; a modern variant of Cicero’s objection to Lucretius’ chance-based explanation of the formation of universe from atoms and void; namely the analogy that if unguided godless evolution means that “life” arose from blind random “chance” accidental movement of atoms to form protein molecules and blind random chance “mutations” as operating as the backbone of natural selection, than this logic is about as probable as someone tossing Scrabble pieces onto a table and getting an “ordered” word (e.g. dice) or pattern to align or form by “chance” alone; meaning NOT probable.
10. Chance | Scrabble pieces objection
In 55BC, Lucretius, in his On the Nature of Things, argued for a chance-based atomic theory conceptualized godless origin of the universe, as follows:

“My object is to dispel the fear of the gods, which arises simply from the fact that there are so many things which men do not yet understand, and therefore imagine to be effected by divine power. In respect to the origin of the world, surely the atoms did not hold council, assigning order to each, flexing their keen minds with questions of place and motion and who goes where. But shuffled and jumbled in many ways, in the course of endless time they are buffeted, driven along, chancing upon all motions, combinations. At last they fall into such an arrangement as would create this universe.”

This “weak point” in Lucretius’ argument, aka the Achilles’ heel of atomic theory, resulted to produce, in the years to following, a number of parodies: "throwing letters to the ground [and getting Ennius’ Annals]" (Cicero, 45BC); "typing monkeys [and getting a library or book]" (Borel, 1913) (Eddington, 1928); "tornado in a junkyard [and getting a Boeing 747]" (Hoyle, 1981); "trowing Scrabble letters to the ground [and getting Hamlet]" (Meyer, c.2003); "monkeys typing/computers generating [and getting a line of Shakespeare]” (Jonathan Wells, 2006); "shaking Lego pieces in a bag [and getting a helicopter]" (Think Islam, 2014); among likely others.

The long and the short of resolution-reconciliation of this objection, was first addressed in the so-called Schiller-Henderson line of reasoning; summarized as follows:

“There is no such thing as chance; and what seem to us merest accident springs from the deepest source of destiny.”
— Friedrich Schiller (c.1795), Ranker.com (Ѻ)

“Matter and energy have an original property, assuredly not by chance, which organizes the universe in space and time.”
— Lawrence Henderson (1913), The Fitness of the Environment

In other words, “affinity” (or chemical affinity), via the Goethe-Schiller (1796-1809) dialogue, which theoretically transformed into “free energy” (or Gibbs energy), via the Henderson-Gibbs (1913-1938) line of argument, is correction to the scientific folklore that evolution (Darwinism) or metamorphosis (Goetheanism) happens by blind forces, and blind random chance accidental mutation (Dawkinsianism); which notoriously leaves the caught off-guard sidelined-Christian objecting “I’m not an accident!”, “I’m not a a biological blunder!”, or “I’m not pond scum!” among others similar chords of chime.

“The universe somehow ‘works’ and all our beliefs concerning ultimate purpose are little more than biological blunders. Theists are inclined to view the universe as a grand and beautifully designed machine. Atheists, on the other hand, are disposed to see it as a chaotic mess.”
— Bo Jinn (2013), Illogical Atheism [2]

In short, forces are not "blind", they are orthogonal combinations of electric and magnetic forces, which interwork to form gravitational forces, the set of which operate to form very discernible patters, as quantified by Newton and Maxwell, and atomic and molecular patterns to not form "randomly", as was first evidenced by William Gilbert and his floating magnets experiment.

The reason that reconciliation, on this particular issue, has not yet accrued has to do with the fact that knowledge of physical chemistry and chemical thermodynamics is requisite; and even in at this point thinkers will admit to being not up to par on certain topics, e.g. Henderson admitted he was a novice of Gibbs; physical chemist George Scott (1985) admitted he was lacking in 6 or 7 PhDs, of the Socratic-Einstein mixture variety, necessary to complete the problem; and Henry Adams, after working on the problem of "evolution + physical chemistry + rise and falls of civilization", for some four decades, after arriving at the conclusion that he was NOT and "accident" but a Gibbsian “social phase” and that societies were types of phases (or equilibriums):

“I have run my head hard up against a form of mathematics that grinds my brains out. I flounder like a sculpin in the mud. It is called the ‘law of phases’, and was invented at Yale [by Gibbs]. No one shall persuade me that I am not a phase.”
— Henry Adams (1908), “Letter to Elizabeth Cameron” (Sep 29) [2]

but, therein, at the end of his research effort demurred that the complete solution would require “another Newton” (1910). The aim herein will not be to "grind our brains out", but to attempt to go beyond the Scrabble board godlessness model.

Moral and immoral (labeled)
A pre-Cicero (55BC) etymology of the terms "moral" and "immoral" as a type of ethics based on the notion that some acts or behaviors deemed socially "wrong" (or incorrect) will bring about the arrival of Mor the goddess of death; whereas other acts or behaviors deemed "right" (or correct) will bring about the arrival of Vita the goddess of life; morality terminology upgrade reform deconstructs all of this into pure deanthropomorphized physiochemically-neutural language.
11. Vita | Mor paradox
See main: Morality terminology upgrades
One of the first “apparent” issues encountered when one ventures into religion-overhauling aspects of chemical morality or physicochemical morality, of the Goethean-Feuerbach-Buchner variety, is the apparent absurdity of first (a) attempting to extrapolate “moral” principles, such as rights and wrongs of, e.g., marriage, divorce, abortion, suicide, dignified death, stealing, murder, lying, etc., from “chemicals” and “chemical reactions”, via the extrapolate up method (or great chain of being ideology), but then (b) arriving at the needed connecting point that if one is indeed arguing for a “universal” system of morality, i.e. a one nature ideology, of right and wrong, that one must also, paradoxically, in a reverse manner, extrapolate down and associate these new found moral principles to the chemicals themselves, which becomes non-sensical; the following are example quotes of this:

“We conclude that there exists a principle of the human body which comes from the great process in which so many millions of atoms of the earth become many millions of human molecules.”
— Jean Sales (1789), The Philosophy of Nature: Treatise on Human Moral Nature

Golden Rule of Ethics (Goethe) new
“If iron sulphate and caustic potash are brought together, the SO4 ions leave the iron to unite with the potassium. When in nature an adjustment of such differences of potential is about to take place, he who would approve or disapprove of the process from the moral point of view would appear to most to play a ridiculous part.”
— Otto Weininger (1903), Sex and Character

“The most familiar attempts to explain how evolution takes place are restricted to special aspects of evolution, and are often epitomized in personal names, such as Darwinism, Lamarkism, Weismannism, Mendelism. Among us there are naturalists, morphologists, physiologists, and psychologists; breeders, experimentalists, and bio-chemists. And surrounding us on all sides are the physicists, chemists, geologists, and astronomers, with whom we must reckon, for their domains and their subject matter overlap ours in countless ways. But unfortunately between all these workers there is little common understanding and much petty criticism. We shall use the terms morality, behavior, conduct, or constructive action in the same broad way. It may sound strange to speak of the morals of an atom, or of the way in which a molecule conducts itself. But in the last analysis, science can draw no fundamental distinction between the conduct of an animal, a bullet, or a freshman, although there may be more unknown factors involved in one case than in the other.”
— William Patten (1920), AAAS address “The Message of the Biologist” + The Grand Strategy of Evolution: the Social Philosophy of a Biologist

Buchner man reacts with woman quote (c.1855)
German physicist and extreme atheist Ludwig Buchner (c.1855) on how "human chemical reactions", e.g. between men and women, are but a more elaborate type "chemical reactions", such as hydrogen H2 reacting with oxygen O2; the latter of which, according to Weininger (1903), Patten (1920), Lewis (1925), if one attempts to extrapolate “morals” to, will become apparently “ridiculous”, “strange”, and “absurd”, respectively.
“It is possible that we may find some missing link to connect the animate with the inanimate? We should see a process of evolution, each molecule reproducing itself exactly, until an accidental rearrangement would set a new molecule to propagating itself. Would not this be reproduction with transmission of acquired characteristics? Suppose that this hypothetical experiment could be realized, which seems not unlikely, and suppose we could discover a whole chain of phenomena [evolution timeline], leading by imperceptible gradations form the simplest chemical molecule to the most highly developed organism [human molecule]. Would we then say that my preparation of this volume [Anatomy of Science] is only a chemical reaction [extrapolate up], or, conversely that a crystal is thinking [extrapolate down] about the concepts of science? Nothing could be more absurd, and I once more express the hope that in attacking the infallibility of categories I have not seemed to intimate that they are the less to be respected because they are not absolute. The interaction between two bodies is treated by methods of mechanics; the interaction of a billion such bodies must be treated by the statistical methods of thermodynamics. Perhaps our genius for unity will some time produce a science so broad as to include the behavior of a group of electrons and the behavior of a university faculty, but such a possibility seems now so remote that I for one would hesitate to guess whether this wonderful science would be more like mechanics or like a psychology.”
— Gilbert Lewis (1925), Anatomy of Science

“Real orgies are never so exciting as pornographic books. In a volume by Pierre Louys all the girls are young and their figures perfect; there's no hiccoughing or bad breath, no fatigue or boredom, no sudden recollections of unpaid bills or business letters unanswered, to interrupt the raptures. Art gives you the sensation, the thought, the feeling quite pure—chemically pure, I mean, [with a laugh] not morally.”
— Aldous Huxley (1928), Point Counter Point [5]

To summarize, those who would object to oxygen O2 reacting with hydrogen H2, "from the moral point of view", as Weininger puts it, would "appear to play a ridiculous part"; or "it may sound strange", as Patten so directly puts it , "to speak of the morals of an atom"; and, as Lewis laments in his own heated confusion, "nothing could be more absurd" to digress on such a confusing possible future science. We point out, to note, that Lewis' greatest protege Frederick Rossini, in his "Chemical Thermodynamics in the Real World" (1971), expanded on his mentor's absurdity stumbling blocks, with his "morality implicit" assertion that "freedom" and "security" in social systems can be explained by chemical thermodynamics.

Therefore, in order to NOT sound strange, ridiculous, or absurd, will will directly clarify things, at this point, by pointing out that the issue here is one of an unknowing incongruous attempting at venturing to apply religio-mythology based terminology, i.e. Mor (goddess of death), the root of moral, and Vita (goddess of life), the indirect root of immoral (via anti-vitality/vitalism, etc. meanings) to physical chemistry terminology, reactions, and processes.

In short, the paradox is resolved, similar other successful deanthropomorphization terminology reforms (e.g. life terminology upgrades; sociology terminology upgrades), by noting that the 55BC Cicero coining of the term “moral”, and by repercussion “immoral”, translated to the effect that "acts" and "behaviors" deemed "immoral", per a given social system, are those that work to bring about the so-called "arrival of Mor" (in mythological speak), the goddess of death, i.e. the arrival of the Grim Reaper in modern parlance, or to quicken the arrival of death in colloquial speak; accordingly, those acts and behaviors deemed "moral" are those that accentuate the stay of Vita (in mythological speak), the goddess of life, thereby bring vitality, or so-called "life-giving" properties, to the given social system. Life and death, however, as Charles Sherrington (1938) pointed out, are terms NOT recognized by physics and chemistry, which is where the apparent absurdity arises.

What chemistry and physics do recognized, however, is the "start" (reaction start) and "end" (reaction end), in the process of synthesis and analysis of molecular aggregates, chemicals, and other types of bound state atomic geometries; and accordingly quantifiable measures of system "stability" and "instability" and "naturalness" and "unnaturalness" of various processes and reactions. This is where the terminology reform will actuate. The latter terminologies will supplant, usurp, and reform the former; a work-in-progress objective.

Dunbar stability model (labeled)
A depiction of the so-called Dunbar number of morality invention; namely that past social group sizes of 150, in our historical past, gods were invented by lawgivers (Critias, 420BC) to justify laws to the populous so to maintain a stable functionable society.
12. Dunbar model | Morality
In circa 420BC, Greek philosopher Critias (c.460-403BC) declared that gods were an invention of lawgivers of ancient times:

“Critias seems to be from the ranks of the atheists when he says that the lawgivers of ancient times invented god as a kind of overseer of the right and wrong actions of men. Their purpose was to prevent anyone from wronging his neighbors secretly, as he would incur the risk of vengeance at the hands of the gods.”
— Sextus Empiricus (c.200AD) (Ѻ)

In this sense, according to this so-called Critian principle, i.e. of god invention employed to justify laws, the phenomenologically studied social system growth Dunbar number splitting pattern would seem to give a simple example.

In short, in the early 1990s, American anthropologist Robin Dunbar studied 21 different hunter-gatherer societies for which we have solid historical evidence, from the Walbiri of Australia to the Tauade of New Guinea to the Ammassalik of Greenland to the Ona of Tierra del Fuego and found that the average number of people in their villages was 148.4. Dunbar found likewise, the same pattern holding true for military organizations:

“Over the years military planners have arrived at a rule of thumb which dictates that functional fighting units cannot be substantially larger than 200.”

Dunbar elaborated on this:

“At this size, orders can be implemented and unruly behavior controlled on the basis of personal loyalties and direct man-to-man contracts. With larger groups, this becomes impossible.”

Dunbar, likewise, found that in the Hutterites, a religious self-sufficient agricultural colonies in Europe, have a strict policy that every time a colony approaches 150, they split in to two groups and start a new one. Dunbar also found this same group splitting rule-of-thumb as part of company policy in the Gore-Tex fabric company, which operates such that anytime a plant grows to past the 150 to 200-person mark, i.e. the group instability, the build another plant; which is recounted by company founder Wilbert Gore as follows:

“We found again and again that things get clumsy at hundred and fifty.”

To remedy this clumsiness, Gore stipulates that each new plant be built be larger than 50,000 spare feet and have exactly 150 parking spots. He elaborated on this:

“People used to ask me, ‘how do you do your long term planning?’ I’d say, that’s easy, we put a hundred and fifty parking spots in the lot, and when people start parking on the grass, we know it’s time to build a new parking lot.”

Malcolm Gladwell (2000) summarizes these phenomenon as follows:

“At bigger size you have to impose complicated hierarchies and rules and regulations and formal measures to try to command loyalty and cohesion. The kind of bond that Dunbar describes in small groups is essentially a kind of peer pressure: it’s knowing people well enough that what they think of you matters.”

Here, we see modern Beg analysis stage quantifiable scientific terms, e.g. cohesion, bond, pressure, etc., being used to explain the organizational control of “unruly” and “clumsy” behavior, in social and business organizations, and possibly so-called “immoral” that may arise in war times in unstable troop sizes. In the olden days, according to Critias, the lawgivers “invented gods”, for what now can be explained in scientific terms.

Floating magnets (7-12)
A diagram showing increasing numbers of smaller floating negative-polarity facing up neodymium magnets, moved into various, alternating stable and unstable, depending on floating magnet count, geometrical patterns, via a hovering larger positive-polarity facing downward magnet, see 2014 video (Ѻ) and more screenshots (Ѻ); which can be likened to increasing population growth social system model, humans, here, defined as “electron-proton configurations” (George Lundberg, 1939), i.e. negative-and-positive charge configurations of valance shell electrons and nuclear-aggregated protons, respectively; according to which the “unstable” arrangement of the 8 magnet system, seen transitioning to the two-ring more “stable” 12 magnet system, as more magnets are added, can be compared to the social system stability maximum Dunbar number count of 150 persons, beyond which “unruly” behavior, social unrest, and instability result, naturally splitting into two new social groups past a certain person count, say in the 175-225 range; thereby giving a conceptual visual look at how “morality”, scientifically, can be reduced down to proton-electron and photon dynamics, aka quantum electrodynamics, pure and applied.
13. Floating magnets | Social instability
Adjacent is a depiction of screen shots (Ѻ) of the floating magnets experiment employed here as a simplistic model for social system growth, social ordering stability, and social laws developed thereupon; the comparison here is “person = [floating] magnet”, which is a generalization of the fact that humans are charged “proton [+] / electron [-]” configurations, as sociologist George Lundberg refers to people.

The logic to be derived from this situation is that the 7-magnet pattern (seven social system) pattern is stable. When, however, an 8th magnet (person) is added to the social system the geometrical patterns become unstable, the 8th magnet (person) has extreme difficulty assimilating into the hexagonal pattern (group). When the social system grows to 10 magnets, the pattern (system) becomes more stable.

Accordingly, according to the Critias hypothesis, namely that lawgivers, of the past, invented gods as a justifiable means to control unruly patterns or behaviors or acts, here we can imagine the predynastic Egyptian lawgivers, of such a hypothetical magnetic-like social system, noting that, in their community, group sizes are eight are inherently unstable, possibly akin to how threesomes are unstable as marriage formations in America, presently, the thereby pass a law, similar to the negative confessions, as one of their so-deemed “15 Commandments” (see: Ten Commandments), that “though shalt not form an eight-person social aggregate”, at the end of which, they will write “God has decreed it!” A combination observed social instability at the state of aggregation in combination with fear of god as deemed punishment if the noted taboo social pattern is transgressed attempted thereby seals the deal, and god as exists, in the minds of the descendants of that social system thereafter; and as 75 percent of the world’s belief states derive from Anunian mythology, it is surmised that this type of argument is wherefrom belief in the existence of god resides or rather derives. Beliefs, according to the engine analogy, are the operational levers of the steam engine:

“A belief is a lever that, once pulled, moves almost everything else in a person’s life. Are you a scientist? A liberal? A racist? These are merely species of belief in action. Your beliefs define your vision of the world; they dictate your behavior; they determine your emotional responses to other human beings.”
— Sam Harris (2004), The End of Faith (pg. 12)

Systems below populations of 150, in sum, can be governed, i.e. ordered intelligently by the forces in operation in the system, by man-to-man verbal contracts and peer pressure; when, however, systems go beyond 150, justifiable "laws" have to be invented; and in the early stages of social system development, such laws are “justified” with recourse to the invention of gods or hypothetical “powers”; when, however, systems increase to the million+ person range and is industrialized and urban, such as German Empire was in 1871, with a population of 41 million (Ѻ), the physics and chemistry of “powers” will be come to be better understood, after which, given time, the original hypothesis of god, as a type of power, governing right and wrong will be jettisoned (e.g. Nietzsche declaring, in 1882, that "God is dead!"), in favor of new scientific understandings of the forces operating behind powers, and therein the forces behind so-deemed “right” and “wrong” acts, per given justified system of laws, per given social system. The system growth accruing transformations in so-deemed "right" and "wrong" stability and instability patters will still operate, just as they always have, only past the Nietzschean void point, the forces behind the powers dictating so and so conceptualized right and wrong acts will be justified by recourse to science of power, namely thermodynamics, and the scientific method applied socially, towards the better, natural, and more functional and justifiable operation of the engine of one's beliefs and the beliefs of the social system.

Realtor lady (and Reaper) Dawkins on evil
A generic friendly realtor (left), doing his or her job, as sales mediator (akin to Goethe's "Mittler the mediator"; of marriages and divorces), seen through the "senses" of the person being evicted, of the house being sold, as akin to the Grim Reaper (right)—the modern personification of the Greco-Roman god “Mor”, aka the goddess of death, the root of the terms: mortality, mortician, moral, morality, immorality, etc., a colloquial conceptualization of the arrival of “evil” in modern times; an example of how seeming or perceptual feelings (or levels) of "good" and "evil", as could be measured neurochemically (e.g. increase in cortisol [evil]; rise of serotonin [good]), are coupled (see: coupling theory) to each other.
14. Realtor Reaper | Evil coupling example
The following is a real-time example, which arose mind while writing this treatise, which may help to illuminate some of the concepts being discussed:

“That [realtor] lady is like the Grim Reaper.”
— Libb Thims (2015), mental note; arisen in mind after c.8:35AM text that she [realtor] was coming to the units of our house to show the place tonight at 7PM and tomorrow at 10:45AM; following bi-weekly visits and increasing showings of the house—which the landlord—an invariably “good” landlord; and nice family, raising a bunch of nice kids—has “chosen” to sell; meaning that Thims, as a renter, with a six month to six month lease (lease up in Sep), so to maintain flexibility and fluidity of location “choice” working and existing environment), will invariably be “forced” leave the unit for a two hour window around those times (go to the gym, work extra at job, etc.); which thereby disrupts research and writing flow; therein, each text from her—an invariably very nice lady, who is simply doing her job, as a transition negotiator—bring with it an increasing arising per text sense of "darkness", as if the Grim Reaper, the harbinger of death was coming, so was the thought arose in mind, as if these intrusive events, as a paying renter, were becoming ‘slightly’ immoral [hence the etymology Mor = Reaper]; with each increase in numbers texts, these being numbers 6 and 7, approximately, grows a sense of the question shouldn’t a paying renter have certain “rights”; which brings to mind, if this were to be a growing problem, and I wasn’t actually being forced to move; the “legality” of the situation—supposing in hypothetical land—that I was going to go to court to question the rightfulness or wrongfulness of these, becoming daily vicariously forcible evictions [not that I’m physically forced to leave; but as the upstairs renter put it, on his way to a coffee shop, i.e. “I’d rather not be around when they’re showing the place”, it’s more of an emotional forcing. Perspectively, however, when looked at in terms of coupling theory, Thims acknowledges the fact that “arrival of Mor” (i.e. immorality sense) of these intrusions is but a part of the natural coupling of Mor-to-Vita (i.e. the arrival of Vita, aka “life”, in religio-mythology speak; or endergonic-to-exergonic, as physical chemistry would describe the situation, just as the breaking of the phosphate bonds of ATP inside of the mind powers, via free energy coupling, the muscles that type these words; the realtor being akin or equivalent to the famous “Mittler” of Goethe’s Elective Affinities, the parable being seemingly applicable all types of transition states, whether marriage, war, etc., 3:54PM CST Sep 9

The following is Ravi Zacharias' 2013 take on evil as the atheist might see things, in his view, per citation of Richard Dawkins:

“Knowledge is a deadly friend. When no one sets the rules. The walls on which the prophets wrote are cracking at the seams. Where do we find an objective transcendent point of reference for good and evil? As far as I’m concerned, atheism dies the death of a thousand qualifications, even prompting Richard Dawkins to make the comment once that he actually wondered if there was such a thing as evil? Why? Because the logic of his philosophy prompts him to raise the question. Evil is just, you know, we call one thing blue, another thing yellow, we call this good, we call this bad, it is nothing more than an aesthetic difference. It’s got nothing to do with moral law. There is no moral law in atheism, which makes it incoherent. They can be ‘good’, but without any rationally compelling reasons for why. Secondly, there is no ultimate point of reference for meaning. There’s no ultimate point of reference for meaning.”
— Ravi Zacharias (2013), “The Incoherence of Atheism”

(add discussion)



Next icon (50x67)Next chapter
● Morality Squared | Part three
main (vertical)
● Morality Squared | Intro

End symbol 75● Morality Squared | End matter


{\text{Morality}}^{2}\,