Hi Mark,
I agree with what you write below. I will continue with my argument.
What I am doing here is arguing/raising the point/question that there are actually two ways of thinking about formal cause, in a way that might bridge the four causes with the ToK more directly.
First, one meaning of formal cause corresponds to what I mean by the metaphysical system. This refers to the concepts and categories that humans use to carve up the world. Matter is a concept I apply to the world. That gives it its "form" or functions as its formal cause. The book I am working on right now, The Problem of Psychology and Its Solution, argues that psychologists LACK a system of concepts and categories that is up to the task. The (formal) forms in psychology are mush, which is why it is not nearly as advanced as chemistry in terms of its scientific status.
So, one meaning of "forms" and formal cause is that it refers to how humans conceptually carve up reality.
What I am getting at is that there is another meaning of the term, that applies to living entities in general (including monkeys). In contrast to human metaphysical systems, it emerged ~4billion years ago. It relates directly to the claim that there are qualitatively different dimensions/levels of complexity in nature as depicted by the ToK and clarified by the Periodic Table of Behavior.
In his book Origin Story, Dave Christian makes the point that what is crucial about the Life threshold is that, in contrast to atoms and stars, organisms are "informavores" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informavore). This now is a pretty common claim made by biologists these days.
A quote from Nick Lane's book, The Vital Question (on the origin and nature of Life), makes a similar point:
"For many people, life is all about information copied in DNA. The origin of Life is the origin of information (processing)." He goes on to characterize RNA and DNA as informational coding systems. Lane argues, however, that a key concept needs to be added to this, which is the flow of energy in the context of structural arrangement of particular substances. His book is about how alkaline hydrothermal vents provide that structure that set the stage for the energy flow that set the stage for cells that have a structure that stores and processes information.
What do I fundamentally mean by Life existing at a different dimension of complexity? I mean that it operates off of a different causal process, a different "plane" of cause and effect. Specifically, it operates off of information processing and communication and feedback loops. I consider this to be a novel dimension of causation, one that cannot be reduced, even in principle to the material dimension, because the language of the matter dimension does not incorporate this concept. Making the connection to formal causation direct, I might now say that that cause is inFORMational. Whereas physics can get away with action/reaction, biologists (and scientists 'above' them like psychologists and socioloigsts), need a "stimulus-organism-response" equation because the organism is responding to more than just substance and kinetic causation, but as an informational storage and computation system. Cells respond to informational forms in the environment in a way that atoms do not.
So, what I am saying is that I think there are two meanings of 'form' and its 'cause.' One is the human metaphysical conceptual meaning. That meaning connects to what Kant meant when he talked about foundational concepts and categories. And what I mean when I say psychologists lack a coherent metaphysical system for its subject matter
The other is Life as an inFORMational processing system. I think that physics and chemistry can get away with (the forms of) substance and kinetic causation. There is no inFORMational processing/communication causation at the first dimension of behavioral complexity we call matter. However, that changes at the level of Life, which in many ways can be defined as entities that are informavores. And, according to the ToK, a qualitative shift happens at the level/dimension of Mind and again at the level/dimension of Culture, precisely because new inFORMational processing and communication systems developed.
Best,
Gregg
-----Original Message-----
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Mark Stahlman
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 9:53 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: formal causes
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
############################
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
|
