Gregg:

That's an interesting observation . . . !!

Formal *causes* cause "forms."  So, whatever has a "form" must have a  
"formal cause" which "formed" it (i.e. caused it to have "form.")   
"Informing" and "conforming" &c are just versions of the same word --  
prefix applied to root.  Understanding "form" (or, in Greek,  
"morphos") is needed to make sense of any of the derivative terms.

Aristotle's "Metaphysics" is based on the hylozoic fusion of "matter"  
(potential) and "form" (actual.)  Without "form," it seems to me, that  
"matter" is formless (and, as a result. of no interest to humans other  
than as something that potentially has form.)  Is an "atom" (which, of  
course, is a human concept, not a physical reality) without "form"?   
Is an String Theory equation (again, just another human concept)  
without "form"?

As soon as we start studying "matter" we supply it with "forms."   
"Substance" (also a concept, not a physical reality), also has form,  
so it also has its "formal cause" (i.e. that-which-gave-it-form.)  In  
other words, we humans can't understand "matter" *without* "forms."   
Okay, people who take a lot of LSD would likely disagree . . . !!

"Material science" is a description, not actual physical reality.  It  
is a human activity studying "matter" (making it something  
conceptualized by humans.)  String-theory, quantum physics &c, are  
*all* human "forms" which have been imposed on reality so that we  
humans can better understand it.  These "forms" require humans to  
exist.  If no one came up with the "form," then it wouldn't be "real."

As a result, *all* four of Aristotle's "causes" are required for  
humans to understand anything -- including "substance."  On the other  
hand, if we were monkeys, then none of the causes would be needed at  
all . . . <g>

Btw, this is why Eric McLuhan opened his "On Formal Cause" essay (EME,  
2005,  reprinted in "Media and Formal Cause," 2011) with --

"Of the four, Farm'l Cows is the fundamental one and it contains all  
the udders . . . "

Mark

P.S. It was Plato who believed that there are "Forms" without needing  
any humans.  Aristotle spent his entire life disputing that as a  
"silly story."  As a result, Plato dominates in the modern West (but  
not before "modernity") -- particularly for the past 400+ years (i.e.  
since PRINT), when Aristotle has been "buried."  We are now digging  
him up.  Yes -- this would only be possible if we were already in a  
the *new* DIGITAL paradigm.

P.P.S "Complexity Science" was originally called "Chaos Science." It  
starts with something that is "formless" (i.e. "chaos") and then  
posits a "form" for this formless-whatever-it-is based on the  
principles of "emergence."  So, in this approach, Aristotle is totally  
ignored (as usual) and another "theory" has been proposed, along with  
its "forms."  There is no need for "causes," which is why this  
approach is ELECTRIC (i.e. a product of the same psycho-technological  
environment that earlier eliminated causes.)

It was invented to design nuclear weapons at Los Alamos -- which are  
thought of as "tiny stars."  Perhaps "complexity science" is good for  
that purpose but it is useless for explaining Life/Psychology/Culture,  
as has been shown by its complete failure over the past 30+ years.  As  
a result, we think it should be buried now that we are DIGITAL (which  
we told the Santa Fe types last year and they tossed us out for our  
remarkable *heretical* impiety.)

Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hi Mark and Jeff,
>
>   Thought you might be interested to see this little clip on Jordan  
> Peterson talking about the "spirit father":   
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3Dn2h1ilrrrOg&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=veUR5TFVyhA6ciEiy1LDSaJ-IUU7i_2FA0kLLm5BGYc&s=NtzX4o4KpONMwDyRiK-8k7XkczoOKNun1XBrcEeElD4&e=.
>
>   I continue to work on the linkages between my conception of  
> emergent dimensions of causality and the concept of formal cause. To  
> the extent that they are linked, it means that there is no formal  
> cause for entities at the material dimension (i.e., atoms,  
> molecules, stars and planets), only for cells/organisms, animals and  
> people (each of which respond to different kinds of "informational  
> forms").
>
>   Does that jive with your/Aristotle's conception of formal cause?  
> Namely, that we can explain change in the material sciences via  
> substance and kinetic causation, but we need formal cause to explain  
> the behaviors of living entities.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> ############################
>
> 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