Forgot to add: All of the above will sound like the Simpsonian coyote while you are tripping on acid and having your head beaten on with a hammer while in a delirious dream in the Tzotzil language with a 109* fever (The Simpsons: Space Coyote and Homer's Insanity... <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3CyMWS7YXA>), but there is a methodological step -- not a strictly epistemological one -- that consists of starting by removing current misconceptions. Aristotle does this preliminary paving by examining and pointing out the inherent contradictions in earlier attempts to explain natural things and their behavior, that is, the ideas of the various so-called "pre-Socratics." I don't believe that the pre-Socratics like Heraclitus were doing natural philosophy, but leave that aside for now. Basically, this purgative and preparatory step is to say, "what you thought you knew doesn't make sense, here're are the reasons." Once your mind is scrubbed clean, it is open to saying, OK, what you say is very weird, but there seems to be no alternative."
The pre-Socratic views, forget them in detail, but recall this -- basically include all conventional modern ideas about the nature of being and the nature of becoming; yep, what Dawkins and Hawkins believe is essentially what Anaximander or Anaxoras were saying 500 or 1000 years before Christ. I'm not saying their science is wrong -- that's to be examined on the merits; but I am saying that their underlying presuppositions, that are philosophical and not scientific (I know about the scientific method), haven't been examined, they're simply assumed and asserted. I've studied this phenomenon since Galileo and Descartes thought they refuted Aristotle -- they didn't; didn't even address the main issue, is what it comes down to; can't quote bibliographical info but it's in Galileo's Discourse on 2 New Sciences and in that work of Descartes where he talks about the wax (Descartes was a smug and superficial git). Again, don't get me wrong, I learned algebra (really learned, understood, instead of memorized the equations) from Descartes' La Geometrie where he introduces the coordinate system -- essentially, you learn algebra, which is application of number to magnitude, thru some such mental instrument as this 3-D coordinate system); point being, they knew something and I learned a bit of it. But they didn't know philosophy -- recall the off-cuff remark by one late medieval or early Renaissance scholastic, Cardinal Cajetanus, after reading Descartes, "Nobody is going to take this stuff seriously." True paraphrase if not exact quote, and the tone is exact. Whoof! Must get back to a resume. But this is more fun than a resume. Over and out. On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 4:09 PM Patrick Moore <bertin...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's in Book II of Aristotle's Physics where he analyzes nature. Natural > reality, as opposed to say metaphysical reality (spirits, or angels, say, > which in all traditional cultures, Aztec to Hindu to Zulu, are not > individual things but concrete universal essences whose reality is a state > of direct knowledge; Vedanta is particularly clear on this; or as someone > said very well, "Spirit is knowlege in act; Wm Blake: "What is the Holy > Spirit but an Intellectual Fountain?") or, on the other side of the > "realness of reality," mathematical things, triangle, three which are > realities (of a sort; three is something distinct and real, it is not > nothing) abstracted from their material substratums by the mind --- after > that very excessively long running jump: in contradistinction to these, > natural reality is the world of change, or to use the technical term, > "coming to be." He analyzes becoming in nature by analogy with becoming in > art (art = the fully acquired "standardized" mental know-how and > concomitant psychological and physiological habits or by which a maker can > *routinely* and not by chance imagine what he wants to make and put that > image into the matter in question, be it cake or a sonnet. Aristotle and > Aquinas do not distinguish between the "fine" and the "applied" arts > insofar as they are arts. > > He analyzes coming to be in the arts using the instrument of analyzing how > we talk about this, because common speech contains our most fundamental and > basic insights, the most prior knowledge that can't be refuted by any > posterior knowledge simply because posterior knowledge is based on the > prior knowlege; those concepts most certain though very vague and inchoate > -- "thing" or a being, for example; the methodological instrument is to > clarify what we mean when we say, for example, "This comes to be from that" > or "he made that out of this." From such analysis of the arts, it becomes > apparent that you have 4 things that are reasons you give for the question, > "Why does this thing have this or that property?" Why does the chair have 4 > legs? First, because it's for sitting, and 4 legs and a seat and a back > allow you to sit; the end or goal -- again, last to be achieved but first > absolutely because you have to have an idea of what you are doing before > you do it. Second the form, in this case the shapes and arrangements: > because the device in question, chair, is something that has 4 legs to keep > it off the ground and a seat for your ass and a back for your back; that's > what a chair is. Third the matter; wood or steel or low density > polyethylene. The chair has 4 legs because LDP can't support your bulk with > just 1 leg or by a compressed air column or by parapsychological mind rays. > Finally the agent or series of agents: that or those who put the shapes and > arrangements in to the material, from designer and product engineer to the > machine and the poor schmuck who pulls the handles. In the crafts, of > course, this is one person responsible for the intellectual and the manual > process as a whole. > > Apply this to things that are not made by art or those that don't come > about by chance: natural things. We also say, "the rose turned red from > green bud," or the boy grew up; the color change took place in the rose, > the change in height took place in the boy. But in natural things you have > the coming to be of wholly and essentially new things, not just > rearrangements of existing things; when I saw my daughter's birth, it was > PD clear that she wasn't just a rearrangement of something that had already > existed from all time; she was brand new! She is something in her own > right, not merely a new arrangement of something else; she has her own > identity. So, this comes from that, which implies a substratum -- because > she really did come to be; she didn't exist before, just sort of out of > sight; but this substratum ca't be one that is "anything" in itself, > otherwise Catie would be merely an arrangement of that something. This is > pure potentiality, but this doesn't mean just "nothing," it means an > obscure original whose entire reality is a weird ontological relationship > to a "kind" or "form," "eidos" in classical Greek -- my dissertation, in > fact. It is eidos that makes the thing be and makes it be this rather than > that. A cat is something, it's a thing, it's not just a randomness; we mean > something by "cat," and no one can tell us otherwise; I know what a cat is, > at least generally, and that's the point; it's a real kind of thing. So > when a girl or a cat comes into the world, there is an ungraspable -- > except by analogy with the material of the arts, and by reference to an > eidos -- that makes this instance of the eidos possible here and now, for > the instance comes and goes but the eidos remains -- "cat" exists even when > all my cats die. Eidos gives being and it gives kind or meaning; being and > meaning are givens, they can't be pulled out of a prior existential or > epistemological hat; what hat would that be? Nothing comes from nothing, > and a meaning is, well it can't be reduced to something prior to meaning. > > Werner Heisenberg was so put to it to understand quantum reality that he > finally got back to this idea of "a sort of being that is not completely > being nor completely non-being, that is, Aristotle's idea of matter as > potentiality." > > Aristotle's ethics and psychology is based on this physical foundation; > and Aquinas's theology is based on all the above, which is why you don't > just jump in and read the *Summa Theologica, *even if this theological > compendium in all in all its 4-tome bulk is a beginners' textbook; your > beginners need prior beginnings. > > Typed quickly off top of head, but perhaps makes sense. Problem is that > Aristotle's texts are not real books, but class notes by students or > lecture notes; most translations are done by linguists who have no clue > about the subject matter, so that at least the standard McKeon Basic Works > of 50 years ago was literally unintelligible in places -- translation > requires more than knowing classical Greek; relied on very good tutors. > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 3:17 PM 'John Hawrylak' via RBW Owners Bunch < > rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >> Pat >> >> Wow, the St Tom quote is great. I think I see how it applies to RBW, but >> am mixed up on the 4 causes. Any clarification??? >> >> John Hawrylak >> Woodstown NJ >> >> On Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 2:53:59 PM UTC-4, Patrick Moore wrote: >>> >>> Which by another obscure train of ideas leads me to another dictum, that >>> of St. Thomas Aquinas: "The end of the artist [= maker] is the good of the >>> artifact [= product]," where "end" is a technical term and refers to that >>> of the 4 causes which is last in generation but first absolutely in the >>> generation of things. >>> >>> Just thought you should know. >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 12:49 PM Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Skimming the posts on this thread, I was reminded of an early Grantian >>>> dictum that appealed to me a great deal (I ended up quoting it in a MBA >>>> program marketing paper): "We aren't market driven, we're product driven" >>>> -- this after having read ad nauseam about "perception of value" and that >>>> sort of shit. While I find many of Grant's products excessively whimsical, >>>> or at least idiosyncratic in a direction that is not my road, I do favor >>>> him for, basically, managing by or for the product, which means not >>>> compromising about a design you think best, even if your idea of best is a >>>> very minority idea. >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Patrick Moore >>>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Patrick Moore >>> Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "RBW Owners Bunch" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/12e481b1-7b65-4770-8d21-0693c1e38a7bo%40googlegroups.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/12e481b1-7b65-4770-8d21-0693c1e38a7bo%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > > > -- > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Patrick Moore > Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum > > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Moore Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgvDCmsxnyCwdsRJrvgyyLWxOY%3DAZdbkxwxpukFgPFEdRA%40mail.gmail.com.
