The term "genesis" used here is very generally conceptualized. It refers
to the old philisophical tradition which used this term in opposition to unchangeable
"being", with the meaning of an enduring "substance". This differentiation
is presented in connection with the scientific theories of Kurt HÜBNER, who
recognizes "sets of systems" in each historical epoch which present themselves
to a certain degree as self-evident and barely questioned suppositions of thought.
The author observes a one-sided esteem of genesis and, accordingly, of change, which
belongs to our times. This makes itself apparent in the current fluency of process
thinking which has already become part of common knowledge. In each epoch it is
tabu to call into question the conceptions which have been judged natural or self-evident,
and whoever breaks this tabu must count on societal sanctions.
In order to estimate the appointed place of worth which is assigned to change in
our times, one would best proceed from the epoch in which genesis was less valued
as was unchangeable being. With the aid of this contrast, one can both gain a greater
understanding of the foregone conclusions of the present, while also more effectively
calling them in question. In our search for greater understanding, we must go back
to the Middle Ages in order to find an epoch which we can present in opposition
to the current epoch. At that time, unchangeable being was held in greater estimation
than transformation or genesis. This esteem was accompanied by a similar valuation
of the whole and of the universal point of view, (as opposed to individual, or special).
This means that the Middle Ages were identifyable by a unity composed of holistic
perspective, general aspects and, the necessarily connected unchangable being.
Near the end of this epoch, there occurs a disintigration of the above mentioned
unity; as a result of this development, the opposing poles to the points of view
-- the whole, the universal, and being -- win in prominence. Developments lead to
a partitioning of the spheres of life and the individual receives greater respect.
What is especially important here is the shift of the attributed emphasis from being
to genesis. Very many causative conditions come together to make this transformation
from the Middle Ages to Modern Times. This development did not always run at a continual
rate and it has continued up into the 20th century. Today we stand at the (preliminary?)
beginning of the end of this process, which does not only have positive sides.
One decidedly negative side is present in the fact that the idea of genesis is making
itself independent as a dynamic of its own, which leads to a process thinking devoid
of content. Because of that, change is viewed as positive merely because it is change.
It can happen then that fashions are uncritically adopted without the question even
being raised of whether the new fashion is foolish or sensible, good or bad. In
order to critically judge something new in light of its inherent worth, one would
need a system of evaluation which was itself not subject to permanently renewing
transformation; if one gives transformation such a place of privilege before all
others, viewing it as the meta value in general, no binding criteria for norms defined
from their content can be established.
One can recognize that in general this is the case today; for example, there is
a line of argument which consists of merely holding up one's own position, while
informing the opposition that his concept is antiquated. Similarly, it is very often
the tactic of advertisement for the proponent of a thing merely to point out its
new characteristics; the suggestion is, of course, that whoever follows his recommendations
is "with the times". Without a doubt, the experience of time as a linear
progression plays a decisive role -- in contrast to the archaic experience of time
as cyclical. This new point of view was decisively supported by Christianity; although,
on the other hand, a close connection exists between the progressive secularization
and the over-valuation of process thinking.
In this context one spoke frankly of an "unchaining of time" which had
impressive consequences on everyday life and the "feeling of life". Should
one make genesis an absolute or observe unchanging "being" finally as
unreal, the final consequence is to become derailed from every ideological "Hold"
(as meant by JASPERS). Although shrinking the perspective of time to the "here
and now" is an imaginable escape from nihilism and scepticism, it is certainly
not without its own problems, because a restriction of the "life space"
(LEWIN) is therein connected.
By presenting a balanced view of "being" and "genesis", Gestalt-
and holistic-theoretical directions have attempted to address the trend which would
make process thinking an absolute. This occurred through the emphasis not only on
a dynamic of development, but also on constants and enduring structures. With that,
some scientist -- such as, for example, STERN or KRUEGER -- have consciously proceeded
from antiquated directions of thought which could be called "metaphysical"
and have chosen not to stand from the beginning in opposition to discarded notions
of substance. On the other hand, the current discussion about the concepts "structure",
"substance" and, finally, metaphysics has been brought back to life. Shall
the "set of systems" of our times, with its high esteem of genesis, lead
us to a change which then reveals the paradox of the unquestioned basic assumption
of genesis -- and which, as a result, leads to a transformation which helps us to
better recognize again the value of the constant?
GTA Home page Deutsch |
GTA
Home page Italiano |
GTA
Home page Français