Gregg:
Very interesting (but not Aristotle) . . . !!
Yes, "Porphyry's Tree" (which he never actually diagrammed) is indeed
a reflection on aspects of Aristotle's Categories -- however, overall,
the Categories was for the purpose of logical propositions (thus its
part in his Organon or "logical" works, not his metaphysics) and not
for what you are doing (i.e. metaphysical empiricism.)
What you are playing with is the "genus," "species," "differentia"
series (as indicated in center of your diagram.) Perhaps this YouTube
will help you on all that --
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DB3Avpz-2DmXU0&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Bp20GX3BkjCXwHg46HXgogytWjV-2V5NRa00v-cesjA&s=TYOQZuzS6MydKeLEMVWD2iKAABgbV53223J50iKSAt0&e=
I don't know who drew the "tree" that you took from Wikipedia (i.e.
neither Porphyry or Aristotle) but, alas, it doesn't quite work for
your purposes. In particular, obviously, "Culture" is not on the Wiki
chart -- so things do not "line up."
While a "Human" is indeed a "differentia of the genus animal," human
doesn't appear on your own own diagram (and it's not the same as
"Mind".) "Culture" does but it isn't the same as "Human" (in terms of
biological classification, which is what is going on in this
particular "tree") and it isn't a "differentia of Mind" (which isn't
an Aristotelean category at all.)
From what I can tell, Aristotle isn't someone who is "intuitive" for
modern thinkers. Indeed, few seem to have bothered to understand what
he was doing. That's why we are putting the effort into our classes
(and more.)
We'd be glad to help you with this, if you'd like . . . <g>
Mark
Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> Thanks for this contribution. I appreciate the need to deeply
> consider Aristotle’s metaphysics, and I applaud the Center for the
> Study of Digital Life<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.digitallife.center_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Bp20GX3BkjCXwHg46HXgogytWjV-2V5NRa00v-cesjA&s=o86nKdmNVmmZruT5vmvbCSRS1RGrVeMJDWmTendiY-c&e=>’s work in this
> area. I was planning on offering a second post on “consolidation”
> that articulated the ToK version of reality on the concept of Life.
> I am going to do an abbreviated version of that here, and then will
> spend some time working on the nature of matter, mind, and
> consciousness in a subsequent post. My journey is such that I
> believe that the best way to understand the mind/matter issue is to
> recognize the problem of
> psychology<Getting%20Clear%20about%20the%20Problem%20of%20Psychology>. This
> is somewhat ironic. Obviously, at one level, psychology is a human
> institution and very recent invention relative to the long standing
> philosophical problems associated with mind and matter. However,
> what a century and a half of hacking at the problem of “mind and
> behavior” empirically has yielded is a much better view of what it
> is that we are actually talking
> about<The%20Enlightenment%20Gap%20and%20Psychology’s%20Metaphysical%20Problem> (turns out we were are talking about many different things that needed a new angle to be perceived as a coordinated
> whole).
>
> First, though, a quick point about Life. Life, in the language of
> the ToK, is an emergent dimension of complexity. A dimension of
> complexity is a different and new concept, one that is central to
> the ToK metaphysical system. It is absolutely crucial that folks are
> clear that the ToK System maps the behavior of the universe and our
> place in it as both levels (part, whole, group,
> field/environment/system) and dimensions of complexity (Matter,
> Life, Mind, Culture). The complexity/chaos science folks at Santa Fe
> are missing this crucial insight, and that throws their metaphysics
> off. If folks would like more information on the levels and
> dimensions picture (versus single axis of complexity), Joe M. and I
> have an under review paper that maps behavior and spells this out
> via the Periodic Table of
> Behavior<A%20Periodic%20Table%20of%20Behavior%20for%20Psychology>
> (brief blog on it is linked).
>
> Second, the thing that makes Life so different is that living
> cells process the world based on forms/information and coordinates
> behavior via the communication of information to maintain
> complex/negentropic growth/reproductive states.
>
> Third, to understand life, we need to understand (a) cell physiology
> and behavior; (b) genetic/epigenetic information storage and
> communication, and (c) intergenerational selection and change (i.e.,
> evolution). We also need to understand the “spark” of life (i.e.,
> its origins). Folks like John Torday, and many others have been
> exploring the physics to cell physiology emergence problem for some
> time.
>
> Cellular life exists for almost 3 billion years on Earth before
> making the jump to multi-celled life (a wonderfully interesting
> point and problem itself). First in the form of plants, the earliest
> being about a billion years
> ago<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Evolutionary-5Fhistory-5Fof-5Fplants&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Bp20GX3BkjCXwHg46HXgogytWjV-2V5NRa00v-cesjA&s=a4_UkklrXnOzpL9ZZlFNW--jXrwZh2jMN7y4AmlwF9A&e=>.
> Then “shortly” thereafter (~600 mil yrs
> ago)<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Timeline-5Fof-5Fthe-5Fevolutionary-5Fhistory-5Fof-5Flife&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Bp20GX3BkjCXwHg46HXgogytWjV-2V5NRa00v-cesjA&s=XC7t9tVwFkHzaYwADZAyKnzxDd0osf2RI5KTsSwHJGo&e=> in the form of animals. Life exhibits the foundational puzzle pieces for Mind, which is why it is central to understand to get the picture correct. I like to follow the “plant behavior”<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.plantbehavior.org_about-2Dus_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Bp20GX3BkjCXwHg46HXgogytWjV-2V5NRa00v-cesjA&s=whe9TeVW00hK1ES_hgdVGluergW5HrqEQmXoBkGZfoY&e=> folks to be clear about
> this.
>
> In short, to set the stage for a clear understanding of Mind (the
> 3rd dimension of behavioral complexity), and then more specifically
> on to what people refer to as “the mind” and consciousness and the
> mind v. matter philosophical problem and human versus animal
> consciousness and so forth, we need a clear picture of the behavior
> of the material dimension of complexity (the focus of my first
> post), then the behavior of the living dimension of complexity
> (cells into plants).
>
> Switching back to your points, let me say that, as far as I can
> tell, this lines up rather directly with Aristotle. In the attached
> diagram, I correspond Aristotle’s metaphysics imaged via the Tree of
> Porphyry<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Porphyrian-5Ftree&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Bp20GX3BkjCXwHg46HXgogytWjV-2V5NRa00v-cesjA&s=Edg-OQtunZBW4F_HnOpipiNXnkPG-qVkCb5xSJNZ2F8&e=>. I am not
> sure exactly the extent to which this representation is true to
> Aristotle (I am no scholar of Aristotle), but it generally is
> depicted as being representative and certainly lines up strikingly
> well with the ToK (attached).
>
> Let me stop here and see that if we are in agreement with (a) the
> dimensions of complexity argument; and (b) that we have well
> characterized the material/physical and living/organic dimensions of
> behavioral complexity; and (c) have a generally agreed upon line up
> between the ToK and Aristotle’s metaphysical map. If so, then can be
> set up to tackle the next dimension of complexity, the mental-animal
> dimension of behavioral complexity. This is where we will find the
> concepts of animal behavior, animal cognition, and experiential
> consciousness. Behavioral Investment
> Theory<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201112_understanding-2Dbehavioral-2Dinvestment-2Dtheory&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Bp20GX3BkjCXwHg46HXgogytWjV-2V5NRa00v-cesjA&s=EfJM6xYoh-4kZRSXB-HrZoHYyJSW4kZSsxj8Qks6WjQ&e=> provides the metatheoretical framework for the animal/mind, brain/nervous system, and (overt) behavior sciences….BUT not the human language/reason-giving/email exchanging/cultural justification dimension that those on this list are currently engaged in as we ponder the meaning of all
> this.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion
> <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of JA Martineau
> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 2:51 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Toward a Metaphysical Empirical Psychology
>
> Hello ToKers,
>
> As Mark has mentioned, at the Center, we have been teaching an
> experimental online course this summer, with about 30 academics and
> professionals among our colleagues from around the world, The Life
> and Death Seminar (LADS), subtitled The Art of Being Ruled by Robots.
>
> The primary text for the 12 weeks has been Aristotle's On the Soul
> and Memory and Recollection translated by Joe Sachs of St. John's
> College in Annapolis. This has been countered with Complexity/Chaos.
> I have been teaching Aristotle while Mark has focused on all that
> has purposefully been anti-Aristotlean up to our time. I have
> presented Aristotle in the context of his times: Scribal over taking
> Oral (literacy), his looking beyond Athens and his taking a
> biological/medical/psychological approach to the study of animals
> and humans, as the first Social Scientist of the West. Aristotle
> bases his study on Grammar (what is it and what causes it), rather
> than Dialectic. This is to say, what is the "thinghood" or cause of
> living things. In short, we can't understand humans if we don't
> understand what they are and what forms them (so studying dead
> things and focusing on abstractions from reality won't help us much,
> thus his break with Plato, among others).
>
> Now that Gregg has opened the ToK list to what is typically viewed
> as "black boxes" in Cause and the "Mind" (though I wonder if Psyche
> is more accurate), perhaps I can contribute.
>
> If we begin with what Mind and Psyche mean, we might be surprised.
>
> The OED entry for psyche begins with the ancient Greek notions of
> Psykhe: breath, to breathe; hence, life; the animating principle in
> man and other living beings, the source of all vital activities,
> rational or irrational, the soul or spirit, in distinction from its
> material vehicle, the body; sometimes considered as capable of
> persisting in a disembodied state after separation from the body at
> death.
>
> [If I did not know any better, I'd say that the OED editor for this
> entry thought Aristotle's definition was correct 2300+ years later]
>
> OED goes on: The soul, or spirit, as distinguished from the body;
> the mind. [I will return to Mind below]
>
> Btw, the entry for psy is: psy-war, see psychological warfare. The
> entry for Psychol is: The conscious and unconscious mind and
> emotions, esp. as influencing and affecting the whole person. See CG
> Jung.
>
> For those that recall their Roman mythology, Psyche and Cupid appear
> in the 2nd-century poem Metamorphoses by Platonicus. Psyche is Soul
> while Cupid is Eros or Desire (the movement that comes from our
> senses).
>
> The OED entry for the mind is quite extensive and the first entry is
> faculty of memory: the state of being remembered; remembrance,
> recollection, remind, the record of, happy memory, commemorating,
> memorial,
>
> The next section II is thought; purpose, intention; one's view.
> judgment or opinion; desire or wish; and to form and adhere to a
> decision, without shilly-shallying(!); Inclination, tendency, or way
> of thinking and feeling in regard to moral and social qualities;
> moral disposition; to entertain sentiments.
>
> Section III is Mental being or faculty: the seat of a person's
> consciousness, thoughts, volition, and feelings; the system of
> cognitive and emotional phenomenon and powers that constitutes the
> subjective being of the person; the incorporeal subject of the
> psychical faculties, the spiritual part of the human; the soul as
> distinguished from the body; one's waking consciousness.
>
> Recalling the oral Greek mythology, Mnemosyne was the goddess of
> Memory...remember what it means to be a Greek! Mnemosyne presided
> over a pool in Hades (river of memory) as a counter to the River
> Lethe from which souls drank to forget their prior lives.
>
> So what we have is a lot of the Soul perceiving, remembering,
> recollecting, and thinking - as Aristotle tells us, all based upon
> our senses "being acted upon" - and pointing towards action and
> speech.
>
> For Aristotle, the beginning of Social Science [think causes of
> humans and "The City"], is the Soul and how it is Formed.
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:12 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thanks for the reactions and interesting reflections.
>
> Let me focus a bit on point 6. I view Newtonian physics as the
> consolidated birth of modern Enlightenment science. And I see it as
> incorporating and validating two of Aristotle's causes, material and
> efficient, as in Newton's mechanics as being a map of the universe
> as matter in motion (i.e., efficient cause). The language game of
> material and efficient causes are effective for explaining the
> Material dimension of complexity (although, as you note, a purely
> mechanical efficient cause conception is replaced by uncertainty and
> probabilities in quantum mechanics), and formal and final causes
> were generally neglected or rejected in classical physics.
>
> Formal and final causes are much more applicable in the life into
> mind into social sciences, although they have not been generally
> accepted/appreciated because of the physical eliminative
> reductionist determinism that many adopted. I see the science of
> information as having the potential to be a science of the formal
> cause. And, as more and more biologists are arguing, I see
> information processing/computation/communication as being the key
> defining feature that gives living organisms their
> self-referential/self-organizing forms. After all, what is being
> processed other than patterns and forms?
>
> Of course, in its broad contours, information processing was a way
> to bridge matter and mental causation, which is why the cognitive
> revolution (the mind/brain as an information processing system) had
> such a dramatic impact. I also see the connection between
> information processing of forms and metaphysics. When I speak of the
> ToK System as a metaphysical system, it refers to the
> informational-representational map of the forms in the universe.
>
> As this collection developed by "the information philosopher"
> suggests, this is a very complicated subject with lots of angles on
> it. I have not seen the idea that information science is a science
> of the formal cause fully developed yet (although if you read the
> overview in the link provided, you will see some hints at it), and I
> have not fully developed it in my own head, but that is where my
> intuition points me.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On
> Behalf Of Mark Stahlman
> Sent: Thursday, August 9, 2018 10:12 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Toward a Metaphysical Empirical Psychology
>
> Gregg:
>
> Very well done (and congrats on getting it published) . . . !!
>
> Some further thoughts, focusing on causality (and Aristotle) --
>
> 1) What causes *paradigms* (aka "worldviews") to happen? (Hint: new
> technologies as "social forms.")
>
> 2) Metaphysics requires *formal* cause -- as Aristotle told us in
> his "Metaphysics" (i.e. 350BC). So its "disappearance" is linked to
> a shift in our understanding of causality (continuing right up to
> today.) Why did that happen (i.e. what was the formal cause of the
> loss of formal cause)?
>
> 3) What you call "Christian" metaphysics (i.e. pre-Enlightenment)
> was mostly Catholic (in Europe), so Protestantism (which largely
> side-stepped metaphysics, instead focusing on "salvation," since the
> 2nd Coming was widely anticipated) needs to be accounted for, with
> its emphasis on *final* cause. Furthermore, Catholic metaphysics
> (particularly in terms of your continuum) was largely based on
> Aristotle.
>
> 4) Max Weber told us that the "world has become disenchanted" in his
> 1917 "Science as a Vocation" lecture, following on Nietzsche's 1880s
> "God is dead." This was *not* the view of the Enlightenment --
> where most of the people remained explicitly Christian -- and this
> "atheist"
> change coincided with *modern* psychology (remembering that there
> has always been psychology, typically embedded in medicine). Which
> technology formally caused that to happen?
>
> 5) Freud is an interesting figure. He was trained by Franz
> Brentano, who was a Dominican priest and who taught him Aquinas (and
> Aristotle.)
> Why did Freud turn his back on his own training? "Christian
> metaphysics" isn't the same as the *theology* you describe -- which
> is why "faith" and "reason" have always been separated, most
> recently in a 1998 Papal Encyclical titled "Fide et Ratio."
>
> 6) How did Claude Shannon's work provide "a new perspective on
> causation"? Yes, I know that the earlier "Newtonian" approach has
> been called "reductionist" and the new one "holistic" but which
> *cause* does that invoke? Efficient/kinetic cause was destroyed by
> early-20th century science but all they came up with to replace it
> was "probability." Complexity science retrieves *material* cause
> (thus the "Big Bang" and all the talk about matter), so is that what
> you mean by a "new perspective"?
>
> 7) Aristotle details your "basic psychology" in his "On the Soul" --
> which has been the topic of a class we're teaching this summer at
> the Center. My guess is that the future "language game" will have
> to come to grips with "mind" (an empirical term) vs. "soul" (a
> metaphysical one that long predated Christianity &c.) The Greek
> term for the English term "soul" is *psyche* (from which we get
> "pscyhology.")
>
> 8) Specifically human behavior takes us to Aristotle's "Ethics,"
> "Politics" &c. As we've been discovering, today's ignorance about
> what Aristotle actually said (and why he said it) is overwhelming.
> Cherry-picking (with what seems to be noses -firmly-held) is about
> as good as it gets. Why would that be?
>
> 9) There can be no "improvement of human well-being" without a
> *paradigm* change. The acceptance of your ToK also depends on that
> shift. The symptoms you describe apply to the old one. But, alas,
> we are already in a new one. Yes, that's good news for us all.
>
> Mark
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> 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
############################
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
|
