Conduct and Evolvement

'Behavior' and 'conduct' are, in themselves, approximately synonymous. But, the former, primarily via its appropriation by 'Behaviorism', has taken on the connotation of 'conditioned response', whereas the latter, reinforced by the meaning of the verb 'to conduct', tends to connotate voluntary movements. So, I will be using 'Conduct' to mean 'Individual Behavior'. Conduct is Intentional motion, where an 'Intention' is an imagistic variation on a what one has previously been doing, that precedes and guides further motions that one is to attempt. For example, my Intention to go for a walk is an imagined variation on my previous activity of reading, that will guide how I proceed. An 'Action' is an Intentional movement. In other words, Action is Individual Evolvement. Now, insofar as there are varying degrees of Individual Becoming-Diverse, there are varying degrees of Individual Evolvement. Repetition is minimal Diversification, so Intentional continuing what one has been doing, or Intentional sticking to a routine, are processes of minimal Evolvement. Greater Evolvement can be variation on a routine, multiplying one's tasks, seeking new adventure, etc. Perhaps an extreme example of putting oneself outside oneself is Acting for the sake of another, so Action for someone else's benefit is generally a type of greatly Evolved Conduct.

Personal Growth

A more common expression for 'Individual Evolvement' is 'personal growth'. That Growth is a recognized physiological principle, and that people can continue to grow in a variety of respects even after physical growth has reached a limit, are familiar to most. Nevertheless, that 'Personal Growth' might be a fundamental human Principle has hitherto eluded most theorists, for which there seem to be three main reasons. First, is the predominance of 'Self-Preservation' theories of human nature, with respect to which Growth is a merely extrinsic phenomenon. Second, is the predominance of Teleological theories of human nature, entailing some concept of unsurpassable perfection, e. g. Rational being, the Soul, the actualizable Self, etc., with respect to which Growth can be no more than a means. Third is the lack of any constructive Principle of Diversification, without which description of Growth is impossible. The Material Principle, Becoming-Diverse, in general, fills that lack, so its manifestation in the Individual, Exposition, facilitates the presentation of a theory of human nature that can more easily accommodate some familiar phenomena than the predominant traditional theories have been able to.

Individual Evolvement

The Formaterial concept of the Individual thus entails a concept of Individual Evolvement--any increase in Exposition without loss of Propriation--thereby addressing one of the chronic shortcomings in orthodox Evolutionary Theory. Hitherto, the role in Evolution of a particular member of a species has been defined in terms of 'survival of the fittest', in which 'survival' means the continued existence of the species, and 'fitness' refers to the most successful adaptability to an environment by some member. That the Evolutionary principle and the Survival principle were conceived as heteronomous, with priority accorded to the latter, by theorizers such as Spencer, is perhaps best expressed by the point that in their theories, given the survival of a species, evolution is no longer necessary. But, the relation between Survival and Evolution, i. e. continuing to live vs. growing, is analogous to that between Motion and Acceleration--the former is a special case of the latter. And, that any Evolutionary principle would aim for a mere minimum of Evolution is, at best, a questionable hypothesis. Furthermore, the notion that the behavior of particular members is guided by the principle of 'Adaptation to the Environment', is a relic of theories that construe behavior as a response to some environmental destabilization. But, such construals cannot accommodate the notion of self-destabilization, e. g. self-variation, expecially one that is a fundamental ingredient in self-growth. If they could, a species member could be conceived of as more than a means to survival, via the achievement of physical or economic strength, of the species, which is what the most prominent orthodox theories take the Evolutionary role of a particular member to be. Rather, it could be conceived of as entailing an Individual principle of Evolving, which, as will be discussed shortly in more detail, is, at the same time, an ingredient in the Evolvement, i. e. in the increase in Complexity, of its species.

Spatio-Temporality and Evolvement

Diversification is indefinite and infinite. For example, simple numerical diversification can be doubling, or tripling, or quadrupling, etc. Individual Becoming-Diverse is likewise indefinite, with infinite possibilities. The specifically Individual type of Becoming-Diverse is in terms of Externalization, so those possibilities can be expressed in terms of degrees of Spatialization, of which there are infinite possibilities, to an indefinite extent. The range of Spatialization begins, for example, with seclusion, and extends to 'casting one's fate to the wind', e. g. exposure to the elements, dissolution in intoxication, getting lost in a mob, etc. On the other hand, Individual Becoming-the-Same is Internalization, and such Making-One's-Own can be expressed as Temporization, i. e. Making-Part-of-One's-Past. Now the relation in any System of Becoming-Diverse to Becoming-the-Same is Complexity. And, any increase in Complexity is Evolvement. In other words, Individual Evolvement can be expressed in Spatio-Temporal terms.

The Present

The 'Present' seems to unify Space and Time, insofar as it commonly means both 'Here' and 'Now'. However, these meanings ignore the links to 'There' and 'Then'. Likewise, the principle 'Live in the Present!' can degenerate from 'Pay attention!' to a formula for superficiality, if the Now is severed from the Then that leads into it, or the Here is isolated from a subsequential There. Even granted such wider scope, these are still static notions that are ultimately indistinguishable from one another. In contrast, to Exposit means 'to Present', and to Propriate means 'to represent the pre-sent'. So, the Present is, more accurately, non-coincidingly Janus-faced.

Post-Kantian Spatio-Temporality

The Formaterial theory of Space and Time insists upon their equipollence and heterogeneity with respect to one another. Now, when he subjects 'Outer Experience' to a species of 'Inner', Kant is according priority to Temporality. However, he eventually corrects this imbalance, when he argues that Self-Knowledge is impossible without Space. In contrast, some prominent post-Kantian systems unequivocally privilege Temporality, For Bergson, the essence of Temporality is the pure flux of 'Duration', of which his 'Space' is a de-vitalized residue. But, the unaddressed problem for Bergson is how the purely Temporal Duration can both be cumulative, and extend beyond what has accumulated, which are two heterogeneous processes, one of which, as has been shown here, is Spatial. On the one hand, Nietzsche's Zarathustra can see only Time leading out from the 'Moment, on the other, his Will to Power is an Externalization of Force. While Samuel Alexander accords equal status to Space and Time, he offers no grounds for distinguishing them from one another. For Whitehead, his Temporal 'Process' is dynamic, but given that his system offers no accommodation of Locomotility, that his version of Space, 'the Extensive Contiuum', is no more than an acausal epiphenomenon, is not surprising. Heidegger, followed in this respect by another Phenomenologist, Sartre, reduces Space to a mode of Time. In his system, what surrounds one is the 'ready-to-hand' potential 'Future'. In his terminology, the critique of 'Future' previously presented here, is that 'readiness' is not given, but has to be created, e. g. a chair has to first be placed in Spatial proximity to me before it can serve me as 'equipment' for a possible 'Future' action. Given the Ontological significance of Temporality expressed in the title, 'Being and Time', this critique of 'Future' undermines Heidegger's entire system. Finally, any extension of the 'Space-Time' homogenization of contemporary Physics from quantified to experiential Space and Time remains unjustified.

Common Notions of Time and Space

With Time and Space both dynamic processes, one traditional common notion of 'Time', as 'passage', fails to distinguish Time from Space. Probably the other most common meaning of 'Time' is the Aristotelian one, 'the measure of Motion', namely what clocks and calendars provide. Now, while these are often casually thought to present a succession of milestones, such milestones are actually privileged punctuations of cyclical movements, e. g. the rotation of clock hands, that are cumulative as well, e. g. as the second hand returns to 12, the minute hand moves forward. This pattern of accumulating return is analogous to the Formaterial Temporal pattern of the terminating and retention of motions in the moment of Reflection. On the other hand, two common usages of 'Space' together almost precisely express its essence. 'Outer Space', referring to what is beyond the Earth, and 'Give me my space', a request for room to move, together capture the notion of an Outsideness that is rooted in Locomotility. The easy hypostasization of these, i. e. Space as circumambience, only emphasizes how derivative the further constructions of Geometrical Space are. The three common 'dimensions' of 'Space', width, height, and depth, are products of a useful but ultimately arbitrary subdivision of already hypostasized 'Space', based on a rectangularization that seems to abstract from the side-to-side, foot-to-head, and front-to-back characteristics of the hypostasized human 'Body'. Directionality is the product of further subdivision. Now, hypostasization, in general, entails the bringing to a close of a motion, which is what occurs in Temporisation. In other words, Geometrical 'Space' is a Spatio-Temporal hybrid.