On the contradiction in the idea of a single True Tree of Life, and cladistic “consistency”
The fundamental problem with the idea of a single “True Tree of Life” is that it is contradictory between one and many. We simply can’t determine whether it is one or many.
This contradiction is, however, seductive in that it can be seemingly “naturally” (and thus axiomatically consistent) confused backwards under the influence of the idea of a single “True Tree of Life” by unification of many into one, like the approach called cladistics does.
However, if this confusion of the contradiction by unification indeed is consistent, then the fact that there are several contradictory possible classifications of any group of entities means that there are also several contradictory possible different “True Trees of Life”. The ”natural” consistency of the confusion of the contradiction by unification thus actually excludes the idea of a single “True Tree of Life” it rests on, instead meaning that there are several “True Trees of Life”. The fundamental reason for this (maybe surprising) phenomenon is that not both contradiction and unification of contradiction consistently can be singular at the same time, since both includes several (units). Contradiction simply can’t equal unification of contradiction, because a unit can’t contain a contradiction, and a contradiction can’t compose a unit. Instead, contradiction and unification of contradiction are orthogonal, ie, diametrically opposed, and diametrical opposition are several per definition.
It means that comprehending a dichotomously propagating process (like Darwin’s illustration of evolution as the origin of “species”) backwards as a unification excludes the possibility that the process can be singular, instead meaning that it must be several (ie, that it must consist of several nested processes). Something has to be several, either the ”species” or the process they participate in, to avoid inconsistent singularity.
So, if confusion of the contradiction between many and one in the idea of a single “True Tree of Life” by unification backwards indeed is a “natural” (and thus axiomatically consistent) unification of many with one, then ”natural” consistency must equal inconsistency and ”natural” inconsistency must equal consistency.
This conclusion explains the communication problems between cladists (ie, believers in a single True Tree of Life) and non-cladists. The two simply have orthogonal (ie, diametrically opposed) views on consistency and inconsistency: what one comprehends as consistent does the other comprehend as inconsistent, and vice versa. Cladists comprehend a proposition that several objects of a certain kind (eg, horses) equal a single object of the same kind (ie, a horse), ie, several horses = one horse, as consistent, but a proposition that a single object of a certain kind (eg, a horse) equals a single object of the same kind (eg, a horse), ie, one horse = one horse, as inconsistent, whereas non-cladists comprehend these propositions vice versa.
For a non-cladist like me, it is difficult to understand exactly how cladists mean that several horses can equal a single horse, but I do understand: (1) that this equalization is inconsistent, and (2) that inconsistency means contradiction, and (3) that this contradiction means that every hypothetical Tree of Life actually is contradictory (ie, inconsistent, which cladists thus comprehend as consistent).
(A cladist would probably ask me: how do you know that it is a horse? My answer is that I don’t know it is a horse, I just classify and categorize it as a horse. The fact that there isn’t any unambiguous True Tree of Life, as you believe, means that there aren’t any unambiguous classes either).
Another contribution to understanding of conceptualization http://menvall.wordpress.com/
Read more at Menvall’s Blog: change on different levels
Source:
