7.3. CURATORS of PROGRESS
SOMETHING exists obviously which pushed/directed a cell during phylogenesis, evolution to more complicated, long and dangerous way of meiosis – and which planned the PURPOSE (!) of this way – instead of quiet and reliable mitosis (already mastered at former phylogenesis steps). At that many cells were pushed simultaneously. Otherwise this push would be useless and, consequently, only fatal.
Meiosis is progressive, advantageous for a species, but it is not optimum for a cell itself. It could not swerve itself from mitosis to meiosis. It could be only result of external influence.
By the way:
this step of evolution is the moment of arising of the planned death of an organism.
At mitosis a cell is immortal (if to mean only the program of development, but not vicissitudes of life). Its life proceeds in two new cells identical to it, both of which are it itself. These new cells can be named sisters, but not daughters. The notions of motherhood and generation are still unjustified at this stage of evolution. Each of two new cells may be named a mother not less reasonable than a daughter.
A new organism arising from haploid cells at meiosis is not identical with any of two its parental sells. So the life of parental sells is over at meiosis.
The analogy with a separate cell (concerning phylogenesis tendentiousness/purposefulness) is justified not only for a butterfly caterpillar, but as well for any spexies, not excepting Homo sapiens too: does a person choose the time (the moment, the period) for his puberty from his own reasons of expediency and/or better fitness to environment? A question is rhetorical. This expediency is superpersonal.
That SOMETHING, ST (incognitum), which forced an organism (in phylogenesis, for the first time) to break the perfect and reliable stereotype of development, and to select instead of this a new adventurous way (innovative/pioneer, dangerous way with a doubtful success, and – in case of a unicell – with doubtless own death even in case of success), and which (ST) forces to select this new way up to today (in ontogenesis), – independently on what kind its (ST) concrete mechanisms wouldn't be of (they are NOT while a theme of this very analysis), – that ST
• has the mentalum nature (it is MST, not merely ST), for it is informative, it KNOWS (HOW it knows – is NOT while a theme of this very analysis) IN ADVANCE the ultimate goal of evolutionary transition, – not optimum for an individual, but optimum for a species as a whole, – that MST
• either is intuitive, i.e. it has an outlet (channels for the outlet) to mentalum ((to UDI),
• or directly belongs to mentalum; it (MST)
• does not belong to an individual: it (MST) operates (forces individual to operate) not in its (individual's) own interests; it (MST)
• belongs to a biological species as to the whole, and represents its interests, gives to them a priority/preference before interests of a separate individual.
Each physical object T is actually hyperphysical oneTHp: it has metaphysical component TÂ (except for physical one TP).
In the Being mentalum stratum ÂM not only separate individuals are presented (by their TM), but also their sets, unities in which they (TM) are united according to some their trait (sign, character; factor, feature). In particular, such a set and a unity is MST a biological species ∇:
No matter however to name this MST, this mental principle ∇M of a biological species ∇ – its personification or spirit, its idea or genius, its angel or demon – it (∇M) is a carrier of species' development tendencies, its evolution tendencies, of its super-task. While such super-task for a plant, for an animal is limited with the species survival, increase of a total biomass of its individuals –
an ant – an anthill – Formica (∇F)|
a man – a state (another community) – Homo sapiens (∇Hs).
– so for the human being it (super-task) can include self-knowledge.
– at least two facts reflected in medicine history speak that it concerns Homo sapiens too:
• at mass large people destruction, for example at epidemics such as the plague, sexual activity of survived sharply increases, and
• if males perish mainly, for example in wars, the percent of born boys sharply increases –
Further we'll designate this MST (= ∇M) as an egregor Ξ (the term is traditional, as well as terms mentalum and astralum).
Any individual ∇i of a species ∇, has its mental component ∇iM, being as a particle/component of its (∇) egregor(= ∇M) structure. Further we designate this particle ∇iM as egreger ξ.
Egregor is something greater than merely sum of its egregers, as an organism is something greater, than a sum of its organs. An egregor is primary in relation to them: there is it (Ξ) which unites and supervises them (ξ) (in that very measure in which their possessors/carriers-individuals are parts of this whole), but there are not they, which united together themselves and created it (Ξ) (though to absolutize such subordination isn't correct for feedback can be established and operate here).
Egreger is the author's term. The suffix -er-, is loaned from Esperanto; it means "a particle of something": while fajro means fire, so fajrero means a spark. The term egregorer would be more strict, but it would be some cumbrous. The traditional term of egregor is also, apparently, a reduction/simplification of more strict term aggregator.
– nevertheless it is possible to detect in it a tendency to pass to a new level, not completed transition, advancing (by L.S. Berg/Ë.Ñ. Áåðã [ 10 ]) progress.
By the way: to gather means to be united, to have an overall egregor not always. E.K. Borozdin/ Ý.Ê. Áîðîçäèí marks: Colonies of microbes can have specific configurations, but these structures have no claim for a differentiation or integration into a multicellular organism. Here we have an example when a whole kingdom of diversified essences during billions years remain on the lowest (whether really most? – À.Ì.) step of evolution... but do not pass to a new level of the organization [ 16, p. 26] –
These representations of mentalum unity personalization are correct not only with reference to biological objects. They are universal. The coryphaeus of a traditional, occult science, Georgy Ottovich Moebes represents it in the elegant form [63, pp. 3-4]:
An egregor has complex, flexible and changeable in time hierarchical structure. So, branches of a tree of hierarchical structure of a mankind egregor mutually cross, intertwine. Already largest of them (egregers of races, of states) are not isolated, and small ones (egregers of rprofession, family, separate settlement) – all the more.
If some objects are joined together, so this group lives an individual life...
It doesn't matter, that a sell considers itself free and struggling for itself against other sells, ignoring a life of its organ and organism and meaning those only environment of its small life; that the academic scientist, assimilating to this sell, is disrespectful to the Earth and Solar System, refusing to them in private life and believing, that they are the dead environment in which his useful activity proceeds; it doesn't matter, that the Earth so contemptuously looks at his life as he looks at life of his renovating sells... These individualization exist; even an artificial group of people who have incorporated in board, is individualized by that and lives a joint life, contemptuously concerning to negligible personal interests of each fellow member.
On the other hand, mental level SM of a person S can contain a number of egregers ξ i, being components of corresponding egregors Ξi (p. 17). These private egregers ξ i can overlap – harmoniously or clashingly, – can not adjoin at all (as on fig. 17).
But it is possible also to consider a separate person S as a hierarchy of his structur elements (organs, tissues, separate cells), and his mentalum SM – as an egregor in relation to mentalum components of these elements as egregers. On the other hand, and the egregor of terrestrial mankind can be considered as an egreger of the Earth's egregor etc.
This makes a behavioural distinction between a person and an animal. If an animal is capable to choice independently its own, non-standard behaviour (besides that which is peculiar to it as to a representative of its biological species), it can be regarded as a rudiment of human traits/features/abilities in it.
A person's S mentalum SM is always more, than sum of his egregers ξ, what just make him the person, capable to operate (only sometimes!) independently, irrespective of requirements of some egregor(s) Ξ. Otherwise (fig. 18) if individual's (alive object's) S mentalum SM is limited with only its egregers ξ which is completely a part of an Ξ (of its species) and is completely subordinated to it, deprived of independence, it (S) can be regarded no more, than an (alive) essence.