Zeroth Nature.

"The purport of the discovery of nature cannot be grasped if one understands by nature 'the totality of phenomena'. For the discovery of nature consists precisely in the splitting-up of that totality into phenomena which are natural and phenomena which are not natural: 'nature' is a term of distinction. [...] 'Custom' or 'way' is the prephilosophic equivalent of 'nature'." (Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, pp. 82-83.)

In order not to disappear in the totality of phenomena, we require customs/ways (nomoi, ethoi, dikai—"laws", "morals", "rights").

"Over against the ruinous permissiveness of anarchism Nietzsche asserts that precisely long lasting obedience to unnatural and unreasonable nomoi is 'the moral imperative of nature'. Physis ["nature"] calls for nomoi while preserving the distinction, nay, opposition of physis and nomos." (Strauss, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, pp. 182-83.)

Physis is ultimately the universe, the Whole, Nothingness... In order not to fall back into that, nomoi are necessary, laws or habits.

"According to Husserl it is absurd to ascribe to phenomena a nature: phenomena appear in an 'absolute flux', an 'eternal flux', while 'nature is eternal'." (Strauss, SPPP, page 35.)

Nature is history: the only nature that remains is the eternal flux itself.
To make myself clearer: the only absolute nature that remains is History/the eternal flux/the totality of phenomena etc. What remains of natures, plural, is relative natures, for instance those of the birds and of their ancestors, the dinosaurs. Besides the differences between the birds and the dinosaurs, there are of course differences between the various species of birds, and even within a single species.

That nature is history means there is no first nature, only second (third, fourth, etc.)—and "zeroth" (the totality/nothingness/God etc.)...

Nature = nature + art(ifice) (technê); second nature + first nature = zeroth nature. (Instead of "art(ifice)" we may also put "custom" (nomos, ethos), "nurture", etc.: nature, first nature, is basically inherited nurture/culture/convention/custom/etc.)

What I'm trying to say is that zeroth nature is the Whole or Hole (Nothing), whose parts persist solely inasmuch as they evolve natures, first natures, which in turn is only made possible by the fact that they develop second natures—more precisely, that they are second natures, emerge as recurring patterns of value-feeling:

"Peirce’s objective idealism is the paradoxical doctrine that what is most intimate and private, not observable but only introspectable [namely, feeling], in fact exists objectively: it composes the universe and all the things in it that we objectively observe. The 'law of mind' must be known by introspection but applies objectively, so that, by looking within our own minds, we grasp the fundamental law of the universe.
That law is fundamental, but not in the sense that all other laws—the laws of nature—may be deduced from it. Rather, [...] these laws have evolved by chance, from feelings 'sporting' randomly. The 'law of mind' explains only why it is that feelings, once having 'sported', spread and weld together, forming habits, i.e., law-governed matter. Which habits are formed depends on which feelings sport first and in what combinations—matters of chance." (T.L. Short, "What was Peirce's Objective Idealism?")

Comments