ToKers/TOKers:

At the risk of getting ahead of myself (i.e. before Gregg returns),  
let me start the conversation about *causality* by piggy-backing on  
our discussion about the "ToK Stack" and its relationship with  
"science."

In his Metaphysics (4th-century BC), Aristotle details four causes:  
Material, Kinetic, Final and Formal.  Yes, I know that the second of  
these has commonly called "efficient" in English (probably since the  
17th century) but, for various reasons, we are changing that to  
"kinetic" (although perhaps "mechanistic" would also fit.)

Here are the correspondences (denoted by "~", not equals or "=") that  
I would suggest --

_ToK Stack_

  CULTURE ~ Sociology/Economics/Political Science/Anthropology ~ Formal Cause

  MIND ~ Psychology ~ Final Cause

  LIFE ~ Biology ~ Kinetic Cause

  MATTER ~ Physics ~ Material Cause

  All of these causes were actively engaged and widely understood in  
the 13th/14th/15th centuries in Europe -- particularly after Aristotle  
was translated into Latin (sometimes from Greek, sometimes from  
Arabic) -- but their usage fell-off precipiticiously following the  
invention of the Printing Press and the expansion of its  
"paradigmatic" effects in the 16th/17th centuries (aka the  
"Enlightenment").

  In particular, in as much as what we think of as "science" requires  
*mechanisms* (as John has been reminding us) -- since the goal is  
engineering -- this could be thought of as the result of the Royal  
Society of London, which explicitly banned all discussion of "religion  
and metaphysics" in its 1660 by-laws -- effectively banning all  
discussion that involved "final" and "formal" causes.

Leibniz -- who attempted to establish rival groups in Berlin and St.  
Petersburg (which would likely not have had those restrictions) --  
made a promise to the London group: he would deliver to them a  
"calculating engine," which some today use to credit him with  
inventing "computers" (and a newly fabricated copy of which now sits  
in a case outside the chairman's office at IBM, where I've visited  
it).  That's *kinetic* cause.  However, as we know from his life, what  
he was really trying to accomplish was a "universal language" (to  
replace Latin) and "linquistics" (unless it is reduced to  
"mechanisms") is *formal* cause.

  Newton, Leibniz's rival and a stalwart of the London group, is  
famous for his "Laws of Motion" -- which is to say, *kinetic*  
causality.  However, as those who have studied Newton know, not only  
was he an aggressive Alchemist (which is "formal cause," pointing to  
why John uses it as an insult) and he spent much more of his time  
poring over the Bible to try to figure out the timing of the 2nd  
Coming (which is "final cause") than he did on his mathematics (which  
is why Leibniz published first on the Calculus).

  If we limit ourselves to Material and Kinetic causes, we will get as  
far as Physics (MATTER) and Biology (LIFE) but no further.  To rise to  
the "level" of Psychology (or MIND), we will have to consider what  
happens to LIFE when it becomes "self-aware" in the sense that humans  
show that power -- which means including *final* causality (i.e. what  
for humans we now call "mythology" or "how does all this end"?).  To  
be sure, there is a "psychology" that uses *material* cause (i.e.  
"complexity science"), with some *kinetic* causality thrown in, which  
is called "cognitive psychology" (i.e. the dominant mode today,  
responsible for modeling humans on computers.)  Not a drop of either  
*final* or *formal* involved there at all.

  I remember having dinner with Jim Rutt (and his wife and my  
girlfriend) last year when all this came up.  Jim is a "manager" (not  
a researcher) who is particularly good at remembering what others have  
studied, who was brought into the Santa Fe Institute to put  
Humpty-Dumpty-back-together-again after they were spinning around way  
off-in-the-weeds.  He told me that he'd never heard of these terms and  
would only allow me to discuss them if I could "reduce" them to the  
Material/Kinetic causes he already understood.

  Then, when he got frustrated about the direction the discussion was  
going on the Rally Point Alpha group he started on Facebook, he tossed  
me and my friends off the group -- which then quickly imploded and has  
now collapsed.  Gee, I wonder what "caused" that to happen . . . <g>

  Yes, I know that John has told us that MIND and CULTURE can be  
explained by *kinetic* causes alone but I suspect that few on this  
list would agree.  These "upper" levels of the "ToK Stack" need  
something more and, indeed, I would suggest that the reason why these  
"social sciences" are in such bad shape today is precisely because  
they are so "causally ignorant" (given the currently limited  
"scientific" approaches).

  To restore these upper levels -- which has become far more urgent  
now that we are living in a *new* paradigm -- an expansion of our  
understanding of causality is required.  I look forward to Gregg's  
contribution to this discussion soon . . . !!

  Mark

   

   

   

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1