9. Ninth Lecture: Dialectics and Evolutionary Truth
I wrote this lecture years before the outbreak of full-scale military conflicts in Europe and elsewhere. However, I later incorporated examples from these events as powerful illustrations of the mechanics described in the lecture—a connection many students have also observed. Through the lens of the negation of the negation and Hegelian dialectics, we can often discern that the potential for specific actions (or counteractions) is embedded within the very beginnings of particular chains of events.
The same principle applies to leadership. What is frequently interpreted as a personal agenda or the whim of an individual is, more accurately, a manifestation of the broader, fundamental essence of a nation. In this sense, the alignment of a nation under monarchical or authoritarian rule is not merely a result of top-down pressure. Rather, it reflects the opposite: the will and character of the nation are expressed through the individual leader.
In this lecture, we shall adopt the Hegelian dialectical approach to explore Evolutionary Truth. Our goal is to reinterpret scientifically established evolutionary facts, enabling us to view reality from a fresh perspective. Understanding this foundational conceptual approach to uncovering the essence of existence equips us to make sense of the subsequent topics.
To begin, let us define the approach employed in this work. Conceptually, we can position Hegel between Kant and Fichte — not as contradicting their philosophical projects but as integrating and advancing them. The Kantian Copernican turn introduced a transformative idea: that we actively conceptualize reality rather than passively perceive it. This shift allows us to reconsider the relationship between the absolute (The Universal, The Ideal, The Whole, The Truth, The Real, The Objective, The General, The Sublime, The Essence, The Spirit) and the specific (The Particular, The Individual, The Concrete, The Subjective, The Example) in a novel way. From here, we shall explore how Hegelian "reflexive determination" combines transcendental and absolute idealism, reaching True Infinity within the subject, as opposed to being lost in the endless regress of Spurious Infinity.
Kant's endeavor to conceptualize the absolute through transcendental idealism reveals the limitations of the human mind in grasping it fully. His categorical imperative implicitly acknowledges the impossibility of conceptualizing the absolute as something beyond human cognition. Kant's approach represents a movement from the universal toward the subjective, where the individual must approximate their understanding of the absolute. However, this movement ultimately leads to what Hegel terms Spurious Infinity — an endless striving that never reaches resolution.
Kant’s "transcendental idealism" underscores the active role of mental structures in shaping our understanding of the world and our perceptions. According to this framework, our knowledge is confined by the categories and intuitions that structure human cognition, rendering the absolute unknowable through reason. Schelling's "objective idealism" parallels Kant’s approach in this regard, as both ultimately confront the same limitation: reason, when attempting to grasp the absolute, succumbs to Spurious Infinity in Hegelian terms.
On the other hand, we can envision Fichte’s approach as moving figuratively in the opposite direction — from the ground up. Through theses, antitheses, and syntheses, he conceptualized the subject making linear progress toward the absolute. Fichte believed that, through this process, one could eventually comprehend the ultimate nature of reality. Each synthesis represented a step closer to the absolute, achieved through the continuous dialectical tension between the subject and the world. Fichte’s "Subjective Idealism" emphasized the central role of the subject in shaping our understanding of reality. He rejected the notion that the world is independent of our consciousness or that the conditions of the mind impose limits on our understanding. For Fichte, consciousness itself is the source of all reality, enabling reason to make genuine progress toward grasping the absolute.
Hegel, however, synthesized both approaches, seeing them as phenomena inherent to the thing itself. He reframed Kant’s limitation of pure reason not as a barrier to the absolute but as the very essence through which the absolute reveals itself. At the same time, he adopted Fichte’s dialectical mechanics but transformed its linear progression — which Hegel argued leads to Spurious Infinity, as the subject can never fully reach the absolute as an endpoint — into the concept of the absolute recoil. In this view, the universal is self-determining and self-reflexive. Consequently, linear progression becomes unnecessary, as the essence of the absolute is already present within the subject. As Hegel famously asserted: the subject is the substance.
Thus, Hegel’s dialectical process rejects the notion of linear progression through time. Instead, time itself becomes a property of the logical process within True Infinity. The subject is always already the absolute. Hegel’s "Absolute Idealism" asserts that the world is not independent of our consciousness, but, unlike Kant’s perspective, the conditions of the mind do not limit our understanding. Instead, the dialectical process of thought shapes both our understanding of the world and the world itself. Reality evolves in tandem with the development of consciousness, allowing us to conceptualize the absolute within the particular through reason.
Throughout this lecture series, we will apply Hegel’s concept of capturing the absolute within the particular and utilize his principle of the negation of the negation.
Next, let us turn to evolutionary biology. Megalania (Varanus priscus) was a colossal species of monitor lizard that lived in Australia during the Pleistocene epoch, which spanned approximately 2.58 million to 11,700 years ago. As a top predator in its ecosystem, Megalania was one of the largest lizards to have ever existed, with some individuals reaching lengths of up to 7 meters (23 feet). This represents just one example of the formidable challenges our ancestors faced in their struggle for survival. At its core, evolution is the unrelenting process of discovering how not to perish as a species. Its essence echoes the hero myth — a narrative of confronting and overcoming the greatest trials.
Dragons in human mythology are often depicted as large, serpentine or reptilian creatures with sharp teeth and the ability to breathe fire. Interestingly, some scientists theorize that Megalania may have had venomous saliva, akin to that of modern-day monitor lizards. As a species, we cannot precisely trace how each generation passed survival knowledge to the next. Yet, it is an undeniable truth that we exist today because our ancestors endured and triumphed over the existential threats they faced.
Even today, depictions of dragons evoke a visceral response. Some suggest this reaction arises as a symbol activated within our psyche, while others argue it reflects an inherited facet of biological wisdom. Carl Jung associated dragons with the archetype of the Shadow, representing the darker, unconscious aspects of the human psyche. These themes are often symbolized by figures or motifs linked to darkness, danger, or mystery. In Jungian terms, the dragon represents power, strength, and unrestrained anger—the latent forces within our own Shadow. If we fail to confront and integrate these aspects, they may overpower us.
Hegel’s concept of "the night of the world" resonates with this theme. He describes a state of consciousness in which we are isolated from the world and others, unaware of our true individuality or the nature of reality. Transformation from this state requires self-awareness. Long before psychology emerged as a scientific discipline, Hegel proposed that humanity’s inner darkness could be transcended through self-understanding and synthesis, achieved via the dialectical process. Similarly, biblical references, such as the dragon in the book of Isaiah, symbolize the chaos and evil that resides both in the world and within us. These forces must be overcome to avoid succumbing to temptation and unleashing the destructive elements of our nature.
At this point, one might ask: what connects all these ideas? How is Megalania related to myths, and how are they tied to the collective unconscious, dialectics, and human drives? A deeper, more radical question would be: what unites anthropology, archaeology, biology, history, mythology, psychoanalysis, religion, philosophy, and modern psychology? The answer lies in a profound insight: biological wisdom resides within us — not as something learned during our lifetimes but as an inheritance of Evolutionary Truth.
When we pause to contemplate the nature of the dragon, we find that it eludes specific localization. Using the Hegelian concept of the negation of the negation, an intriguing conclusion emerges: the dragon does not exist, yet there is no nonexistence of the dragon. Thus, the dragon is everywhere. As humans, this insight directs us to confront the void — the nothingness — where the dragon, along with countless other phenomena, exists within our split primordial subjectivity or, in Kantian terms, within the realm of infinite judgment.
In our everyday lives, when we ponder the dragon’s location, we can identify numerous representations: books, stories, myths, fairy tales, the Bible, dreams, movies, and countless others. Yet, we cannot pinpoint its "birthplace." The dragon’s ubiquity reflects its place within us, woven into the fabric of our inherited Evolutionary Truth — the same truth that has enabled our species to survive.
We can apply the same approach to understand various phenomena in our modern reality. For example, when considering leadership and its symbolic meaning, a simplified view might focus solely on the individual as just another person, emphasizing biographical details such as childhood, formative experiences, and personal decisions. This approach, while common for those accustomed to thinking about subjectivity in a straightforward manner, is insufficient from the perspective of Hegelian dialectics.
A Kantian approach might ask whether an absolute essence — such as a cultural or ideological ideal — has manifested itself in the figure of a leader. Alternatively, a Fichtean perspective could interpret the leader’s role as the growth of the subject toward an absolute state. While each perspective offers some insight, both are incomplete when taken alone. Using Hegelian dialectics, we can achieve a more comprehensive understanding of such phenomena by recognizing that these processes do not unfold linearly. Instead, the descent of an absolute essence into a symbolic role and the rise of the collective spirit to the level of the absolute occur simultaneously and interdependently. The leader, in this context, symbolizes the convergence of these movements rather than being merely an individual occupying a position of power.
Applying the concept of the negation of the negation further clarifies this dynamic. A leader does not simply "become" through discrete moments, such as assuming a title or gaining authority at specific points in time. Instead, their symbolic role is inherent from the start, encompassing past, present, and future expressions of their essence. Those who recognize this interdependence early are often better positioned to anticipate the unfolding of events. History teaches us that understanding the symbolic essence of a figure is critical to grasping their actions. This essence, however, is best explored through direct engagement rather than relying on superficial interpretations or second-hand constructs. When observers focus on conceptualizations developed by others, they risk missing the reality that the "mask" often represents the subject itself, embodying the essence of the collective spirit.
By embracing such a dialectical perspective, we gain a deeper, multidimensional understanding of complex phenomena, including the dynamics and symbolism underlying various situations. For instance, phrases like "return to normality" carry different meanings depending on the conceptual framework from which they are interpreted. Without recognizing the symbolic universe in which such statements arise, their full significance remains elusive.
This approach provides the foundation for analyzing events and phenomena throughout this work. In other lectures of this series, we will delve into the concept of inherited biological wisdom, exploring how it shapes our behavior and perception in everyday life.
