Joe:

Thanks -- well put . . . !!

As you know, Cambridge (founded 1209/1231) was originally a *medieval*  
university (where causality was an important part of the curriculum)  
-- in fact, they all were (Paris, Bologna &c).  In the 13th century,  
Western society had gotten to the point that it could support an  
increasing population of scholars and I suspect that is what we will  
have to do once again (most likely outside the current university  
structures), as the robots reconfigure our CULTURE in the *new*  
paradigm.

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Rise-2DUniversities-2DCharles-2DHomer-2DHaskins_dp_0801490154&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gFNWdRn8MK1YBCcbEkHiNR8dg1R_x-VxRdohAnZXsq8&s=ukGntnMAkbrDXx1dxDX3u8ZE5c3zwfwuol-TEHTYfAI&e=

Causality is, as best I can tell, the most fundamental topic that  
(nearly) everyone wants to avoid.  Tomorrow, Jeff Martineau -- who has  
been teaching our Summer School class on Aristotle's "On the Soul"  
(which was also a big hit in the 13th century), will pause to detail  
what Aristotle said in his "Metaphysics" and "Physics" on the topic,  
to better ground the rest of his instruction.

 From what we can tell, no one else in the world (?) has done this for  
a *very* long time (but the universities of the future, like in the  
past, will all be doing something similar) . . . <g>

Mark

Quoting Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>:

> Dear Colleagues:
>
>
> I'll offer a few comments from England, having just returned from a  
> lovely & inspiring tour of Cambridge. I don't have to tell the folks  
> on this list about the famous alumni or bore you with my personal  
> pics from that visit (and, besides, I already sent one a few months  
> ago standing with my new "friend" Jane Goodall!).
>
>
> 1.) I guess the most obvious point is that if the conundrum we're  
> collectively trying to resolve afforded a simple solution, then  
> folks a lot brighter than yours truly would have figured all of this  
> out long ago. No one has.
>
>
> 2.) The strength or relative advantage that we enjoy through this  
> group is that we have a diverse group of folks from across the  
> disciplines who have varying interests & expertise to contribute.  
> And that relates to the next key point.
>
>
> 3.) As specialists in our various domains, perhaps our greatest  
> challenge involves thinking both "outside of our disciplinary boxes"  
> and imagining more creative, integrated solutions to our central TOK  
> & ToK problems. That will always create tensions and the proverbial  
> "people speaking past one another" or perhaps at times taking  
> offense -- especially if we are deeply wedded to our own way of  
> thinking rooted in decades of experience and/or through our own  
> disciplinary frameworks. It's tough, for example, for most people  
> whom I know over 40 to really appreciate rap or hip-hop music. But  
> there's real artistic value and even genius in some of the music  
> produced today that lies so far beyond the generational & aesthetic  
> values to which us "older" folks may be accustomed. Hence it can be  
> difficult to truly "hear" or "understand" what many young artists  
> are contributing. I would just suggest that people should remember  
> that "rap artist" is NOT an oxymoron. I might add, though, that if  
> you take away the ART in such a creative endeavor, then a "rap  
> ARTist" might be reduced to being nothing more than a "rap...ist".
>
>
> 4.) I see the main objective as one of sharing our own "art" or  
> creative ideas, with the central aim of trying to forge a deeper  
> understanding of the grand cosmological questions. One of these,  
> currently being debated, involves the nature of causality. Again, if  
> it were obvious, people would have resolved the problems long ago.  
> So, where do "we" stand in this regard?
>
>
> 5.) It seems to me that John has some valuable insights about  
> biological mechanisms (especially the Self-Organized,  
> Self-Referential principle) and the connections between physics and  
> biological phenomena. Can such reasoning be extended further? I will  
> remain open-minded & continue my deep dive into John's work. That  
> said, I do have my doubts. Not about John's work (which I find  
> fascinating), but rather with the applicability of that work beyond.  
> Mark has highlighted precisely some of the concerns - and these  
> connect to the framing the Gregg has done and others appear to buy  
> into as well concerning different "levels of reality" and "kinds of  
> behavior" (see Gregg's Periodic Table of Behavior, as well as our  
> joint paper on these ideas at some point that's currently under  
> review).
>
>
> In short, the progress John and others make in figuring out the  
> joint-point between "matter" and "life" may or may not contribute to  
> resolving the problems at the other joint-points (life-to-mind, and  
> mind-to-culture) - to say nothing of what happens at the level of  
> science and technology then feeding back into the very systems we  
> are studying & creating yet another level of complexity that we have  
> to try to understand. I agree with Mark and Gregg, in that sense,  
> meaning that the emergent properties and complexities associated  
> with Mind and Culture do not seem as amenable to biological  
> reductionism or the singular mechanism that John has proposed. But,  
> at the same time, it seems to me quite valuable to still consider  
> that possibility and at least investigate theoretically (and  
> eventually, empirically) whether such reasoning can be extended  
> beyond the study of kinetic/material causation to "final" and  
> "formal" causation.
>
>
> 6.) Finally, a word of caution and humility. The main reason I left  
> the "church of pure sociology" was because I found the approach to  
> be too self-contained and limited to understanding merely one slice  
> of reality - and completely divorced from "complex systems" and  
> "nature" as a whole. I understand why: it makes your explanatory  
> framework MUCH simpler when you hold constant everything else that  
> might have happened over 13.8 billion years, as well as all other  
> aspects of behavioral complexity. Plus, Black himself, while  
> brilliant, absolutely couldn't see the value in any other  
> perspective beyond his revolutionary paradigm. That type of  
> arrogance has not won him too many friends, but I still appreciate  
> the brilliance of his thinking -- at least within the confines of  
> what he was hoping to accomplish. In short, I left to the Blackian  
> church because I have found over the years that there are many, many  
> brilliant people who have done important theoretical work and  
> groundbreaking research on so many fronts to ignore. These many  
> geniuses in the arts, in the humanities, across the social sciences,  
> and in the natural sciences certainly have inspired me to try to be  
> part of "something bigger." I confess too that I'm worried about the  
> state of universities these days. I'm looking constantly to my many,  
> many diverse colleagues to help enlighten us all and reimagine the  
> university of the 21st century. I don't take it for granted, even  
> after visiting Cambridge, that we will always have universities --  
> or even that these will be the leading spaces for intellectual or  
> creative thought in the decades ahead. But I'd like to try to help  
> us continue steering the ship in that direction. I think that if we  
> can continue to develop some shared "maps of meaning" and improve  
> our messaging, then we can weather the current storms and hopefully  
> chart new & inspired directions moving forward. I just wish,  
> seriously, that I were "smart enough" to figure all this out - but I  
> ain't. I need help!
>
>
> Peace to one and all, -Joe
>
>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Associate Academic Dean
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue
>
> London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
>
> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
> eiπ + 1 = 0
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion  
> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY  
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 1:08 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Causallity
>
> Mark, I am insulted when you use ad hominem attacks, which are so  
> out of line with this listserve. I wasn't insulting anyone or any  
> thing when I pointed out the difference between descriptive and  
> mechanistic science, which my own colleagues do not understand  
> because we in biology and medicine are so imbued with the  
> descriptive as to make it a 'belief''......suffice it to say that  
> there is no experimental evidence for evolution of species. You  
> clearly do not either understand or appreciate what it is that I am  
> trying to accomplish, yet Gregg was willing to let me into the  
> 'tent' because he saw value in a meta aspect to his efforts. You on  
> the other hand seem angered. As I had said earlier, my proposition  
> that the joint could be seen mechanistically would afford  
> opportunity to connect dots within and between the levels of the TOK  
> unattainable by convention.......how can that be a negative?
>
> And no, I don't dislike people...just the opposite. What I do  
> dislike are people who cannot accommodate the thoughts of others as  
> long as they are reasoned and not merely believed. I did not set out  
> to invert the biological order of things, it just happened as I  
> followed my data and that of others as I understood them within the  
> context of the evolutionary paradigm. As it turns out, the approach  
> I have taken simplifies much of what we just accept as dogma in  
> biology and medicine, in accord with Occam's Razor....see for  
> example the attached which expresses the idea that the heart isn't a  
> pump (see attached), for example. This 'backward' thinking about  
> physiology is what I am talking about, and btw, there is  
> experimental evidence, for example, that the heart of the primitive  
> chordate Ciona intestinalis begins in its tail as the stem cells for  
> forming the heart, i.e. the 'beating' of the heart begins with the  
> beating of the tail. So there is huge value in my Alice in  
> Wonderland take on physiology.
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Mark Stahlman  
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> John:
>
> If you go to Gregg's website and take the "tour" of his Garden, you  
> will see a "Yin/Yang" on the center-trunk which assigns these two to  
> "Empirical" and "Metaphysical."  They have been "interwoven" to  
> reflect how what you call "mechanistic science" is simply inadequate  
> to the task he has taken on (and, ultimately, organized us to help  
> him accomplish).
>
> Throughout human history, "mechanistic science" has only rarely been  
> considered adequate (and, even then, never beyond a cult-like group,  
> such as the "Vienna Circle" &c.)  Indeed, as I've suggested, it is  
> fine for *engineering* (particularly if you remember that there is  
> more to life) -- if that's your goal -- but certainly not for  
> "understanding."
>
> If "medicine" is thought of as "engineering health," then taking the  
> mechanistic approach might help but then all sorts of other problems  
> regarding "engineering emotions" and "engineering ideas" rapidly  
> enter the picture.  Where does the engineering stop?  My guess is  
> that the end of that road is not where Gregg is trying to take us.
>
> My "godfather," Norbert Wiener (who invented the terms  
> "cybernetics," along with my father, while passing around a bottle  
> of Chianti wine one Saturday night c. 1946), refused to work with  
> Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead (along with Kurt Lewin) because he  
> considered them "emotional engineers."  One of the characters I've  
> run into in my studies is Alfred Korzybski, who first described his  
> approach as "Human Engineering."  That approach would seem to be one  
> that someone with your background would try to avoid.  Yes, "Nazi"  
> comes to mind.
>
> If you are "insulted" that people on this list aren't likely to  
> follow you, you might want to think through where you are proposing  
> to take them . . . <g>
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. Yesterday I wrote a post about "paradigms" and today about  
> "causality."  In both cases you replied by not replying.  Instead of  
> addressing the issues I raised, you brought us back to *your* view  
> of the world (reminding us how wrong everyone else is about  
> everything.)  As you know, when someone Googles your name, a litany  
> of your lectures to everyone else appears -- much as you have been  
> treating people hereabouts (and particularly me, as the  
> new-kid-on-the-block.)  My guess is that's not the best way to  
> win-friends-and-influence-people.  So, perhaps that isn't your goal.
>
> P.P.S. Do you actually "like" people?  You repeatedly refer to  
> Trivers and his "self-deception" meme.  I actually know Bob and,  
> guess what, he *doesn't* like people much at all.  The term  
> "misanthrope" comes to mind.  You like "cells" but you seem to also  
> consider humanity to be a "stain" on the planet.  Treating people  
> like "fools" will probably lead to them treating you the same way  
> and I suspect that's not what Gregg has in mind.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Folly-2DFools-2DLogic-2DDeceit-2DSelf-2DDeception_dp_0465085970&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=k3xqnO2kVI6UkSiJDNTcJqM4mlbJJo1kYWQTI5PwGDY&s=mcb9dFlQjBW1il5f0wJHWfmZqV-PD_QOi-20P2UF9uo&e=
>
> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
> Dear Mark and TOKers, in Mark's previous post he said that my use of the
> term Alchemy was insulting, which was a mischaracterization of what I was
> saying. I was contrasting descriptive and mechanistic science, knowing full
> well that you have to have a body of information before you can attempt to
> figure out how and why it works. My peers in biology have either forgotten
> what our mission is, or taken the easier route of brushing the problem of
> 'knowing' under the rug, resulting in a system of medicine that is
> satisfied with masking the symptoms of disease in lieu of understanding
> their causes- that's not medicine, it's shamanism and capitalism. And as
> for my position that "MIND and CULTURE can be explained by *kinetic* causes
> alone, I suspect that few on this list would agree", as I have said before
> science is the only way to know what we don't know. And if Mark is right in
> his assessment that the TOK would disagree with my scientific understanding
> of Mind and Culture, I am insulted.
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Mark Stahlman  
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> [image: Image result for leibniz engine]
>
> 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]<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:[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:[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