Please look at the following pictures again:
Now please imagine, there is not a spiralic, but merely a cyclic “way”. What do you see and think then? I guess you see and think that there is an action replay, an iteration, a recurrence, a reapeat, a repetition, a rerun … and so on. That’s the relation to the cyclicity - in any case (for example: physical, chemical, biological, economical, semiotical [incl. pscholgical/sociological], lingustical, philosophical, mathematical]). And now please imagine, there is not merely a cyclic, but also a spiralic “way” - then, of course, the cyclic “way” becomes a more relativised cyclic “way”, but that doesn’t matter, because it is just an impression. I think that devolopment (incl. evolution and history [=> #, => #) is certainly a spiral-cyclic “way” which merely perhaps follows the time arrow - the former and not the latter is important for my theory.
[size=90]The “house of development”:[/size]
_______________________| History |
______________| Evolution ____|
________| Development ______|
[size=90]History is merely the “roof” of the “house of development”.[/size]
[size=90]Time and the “house of development”:[/size]
_______________________| History |
______________| Evolution ____|
________| Development ______|
________________________ Time ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You probably know the meaning of “hyperonym” (“superordination”) and “hyponym” (“subordination”). My interpetation of „time“, „development“ („change“), „evolution“, and „history“ in their structural relations to each other is the following one:
- „time“ is the hyperonym of the hyponyms „development“ („change“), „evolution“, and „history“;
1,1) „development“ („change“) is a hyponym of the hyperonym „time“ and the hyperonym of the hyponyms „evolution“ and „history“;
[list]1,1,1) „evolution“ is a hyponym of the hyperonyms „time“ and „development“ and the hyperonym of the hyponym „history“;
[list] 1,1,1,1) „history“ is merely a hyponym, namely of the hyperonyms „time“, „development“, and „evolution“.[/list:u][/list:u]
That consequently means: if history ends (=> #), evolution, or development (change), or even the time do not have to end simultaneously; and if evolution ends, history ends simultaneously, but development (change) and time do not have to end simultaneously; and if development (change) ends, evolution and history end simultaneously, but time does not have to end simultaneously. So in that relation merely the time is independent. Development (change) depends only on time. Evolution depends on time and development (change). History is the most dependent, because it depends on time, development (change), and evolution.
You may compare (1) time with our universe as such, (1,1) development (change) with our planet, (1,1,1) evolution with a living being (for example an alga, or a snake, or a human being without history, and (1,1,1,1) history with a - of course - historical human being.
They all belong to 1 (time), and merely historical human beings belong to 1,1,1,1 (history).
The history of cultures (civilisations) is also a spiral-cyclic move - psychologically (I prefer the word semiotically) cognizable, because cultures have something like a soul or psyche ans their own original symbolics.