Mark,
Thanks for sharing the clip. Interesting. Yes, I am interested learning more about Aristotle.
Re Culture...if you watch the video (and know Aristotle) you know that the unique, defining feature of the species of humans as animals it is that they are "the rational animal." And, as the lecturer (accidently) walks into, it is as if socialization "pours" the rationality into a human person. Basically, the point is that human persons are justifiers and they suck up, digest and metabolize the justification systems into which they are born. So, Culture and the dimension of human person as rational justifying beings align in many ways.
But, you are right, I need to learn more Aristotle. So please send more of those kinds of clips.
As is true for all of us, no matter how much we learn and know, there is an endless amount that we do not know, and that will remain the case until the end.
Best,
Gregg
-----Original Message-----
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Mark Stahlman
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2018 10:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Toward a Metaphysical Empirical Psychology
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%20
> Problem> (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.wikip
> edia.org_wiki_Porphyrian-5Ftree&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9
> RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Bp20G
> X3BkjCXwHg46HXgogytWjV-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.psycho
> logytoday.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
############################
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
|
