Thank you for this great conversation with such a nice and enthusiastic interlocutor. I wish I loved my job that much.
I am not sure that the discussed paradigm shift will happen anytime soon, unless we are blessed with great life scientists with strong backgrounds in classical metaphysics, as they will not easily accept external help. In any case, the mystery of life will probably not be solved in laboratories, at least not in our lifetime.
Dr. Hart, at the beginning you mentioned somewhat self-deprecatingly your book The Story of Christianity, but I must say that I loved it (despite the fact that my poor country was mentioned there only as an origin point of the heresy of the Bogomils). It did tell a beautiful story and contained so many witty gems, such as this summary of the empty tomb narrative: “Allowing for the literary embellishment and for the tendency of tales to grow into telling, there is clearly a single tradition here: the women discovered the empty tomb first and then went to tell the men.” Or that one: "The cause of the Crusade, however, attracted an element that in all likelihood the pope had not expected." Ironically, in a certain sense, this book is more deserving of the title “Introduction to Christianity” than Ratzinger’s one, since the latter (as great as it is) really presupposes some knowledge of theology.
His discussion of the concept of life is certainly provocative (David Cayley, as you know, also discusses this in his biography of Illich:
'Eliot here inquires about life pertaining to God, about the life of which Christ says in John 11.25: "I am the life." Aristotle did not know about this. Aristotle knew living beings that were different from all other things because they had a "psyche." He did not know life. As an appearance in the world, only in the eighteenth century did life acquire that dominant and exclusive significance which gave it the character of its own answer, not from God, but from the world.
Lamarck and Treviranus, who founded biology as the "science of life" in a conscious turning away from the classifications of natural history (1801), were quite aware of the fundamental newness of their object. This life, which owes its origin and definitions to the world is, however, profoundly determined by western Christianity, and can only be understood as a perversion of the tradition in which the God become flesh describes himself as life, and calls everyone to this life.' (Illich).
Crocco writes about cilia and Minds' Localization here:
Having watched the interview and dug into Ball's book --- both quite rewarding --- I can't help but be frustrated with where Ball left off in his hierarchy of organization. Genes, proteins, (molecular) networks, cells, tissues, bodies...and then off to agency and medicine and such. Maybe it's my parochial bias as an ecologist, but I think the complexity of life blossoms most fully *above* the level of the individual, in the trophic, biotopic, and social relations that constitute individual lives no less (and possibly more) than suborganismal processes. Reminiscent of a certain "third meditation," no?
The fundamental contingency of molecular meaning, the rule of connotation over denotation, reminds me of Ursula Le Guin's "The Nna Mmoy Language." A must-read.
I am very much looking forward to reading the book. Thank you for this. The blueprint analogy is indeed rather poor. A blueprint builds nothing by itself as anybody who has tried to make sense of an architect's abstract thought out in the field can tell.
What strikes me is that so many scientists hesitate, or refuse, to use what Paul Davies refers to as the "T-word": teleology. Ball, when writing about agency and purposiveness at the molecular and cellular level, is clearly implying a teleology, and he says as much in the book: "Biology looks uncannily teleological. That though disturbs some biologists no end." (p.336). Unfortunately, he's one of the few scientists who takes teleology seriously. He doesn't seem willing to apply teleology to the "evolutionary process" as a whole, though, which I find disappointing.
I had a hard time making out the name of the French scientist who followed Bergson and is being rediscovered now. Royer or something? Any major ideas or key books of his that you could mention?
Thank you for this great conversation with such a nice and enthusiastic interlocutor. I wish I loved my job that much.
I am not sure that the discussed paradigm shift will happen anytime soon, unless we are blessed with great life scientists with strong backgrounds in classical metaphysics, as they will not easily accept external help. In any case, the mystery of life will probably not be solved in laboratories, at least not in our lifetime.
Dr. Hart, at the beginning you mentioned somewhat self-deprecatingly your book The Story of Christianity, but I must say that I loved it (despite the fact that my poor country was mentioned there only as an origin point of the heresy of the Bogomils). It did tell a beautiful story and contained so many witty gems, such as this summary of the empty tomb narrative: “Allowing for the literary embellishment and for the tendency of tales to grow into telling, there is clearly a single tradition here: the women discovered the empty tomb first and then went to tell the men.” Or that one: "The cause of the Crusade, however, attracted an element that in all likelihood the pope had not expected." Ironically, in a certain sense, this book is more deserving of the title “Introduction to Christianity” than Ratzinger’s one, since the latter (as great as it is) really presupposes some knowledge of theology.
Always enlightening and entertaining too!
I guess you are probably aware of Ilich's published talk:
HEALTH AS ONE'S OWN RESPONSIBILITY - NO, THANK YOU!
https://www.davidtinapple.com/illich/1990_health_responsibility.PDF
His discussion of the concept of life is certainly provocative (David Cayley, as you know, also discusses this in his biography of Illich:
'Eliot here inquires about life pertaining to God, about the life of which Christ says in John 11.25: "I am the life." Aristotle did not know about this. Aristotle knew living beings that were different from all other things because they had a "psyche." He did not know life. As an appearance in the world, only in the eighteenth century did life acquire that dominant and exclusive significance which gave it the character of its own answer, not from God, but from the world.
Lamarck and Treviranus, who founded biology as the "science of life" in a conscious turning away from the classifications of natural history (1801), were quite aware of the fundamental newness of their object. This life, which owes its origin and definitions to the world is, however, profoundly determined by western Christianity, and can only be understood as a perversion of the tradition in which the God become flesh describes himself as life, and calls everyone to this life.' (Illich).
Crocco writes about cilia and Minds' Localization here:
https://web-archive.southampton.ac.uk/cogprints.org/4662/1/localization_of_minds.pdf
Having watched the interview and dug into Ball's book --- both quite rewarding --- I can't help but be frustrated with where Ball left off in his hierarchy of organization. Genes, proteins, (molecular) networks, cells, tissues, bodies...and then off to agency and medicine and such. Maybe it's my parochial bias as an ecologist, but I think the complexity of life blossoms most fully *above* the level of the individual, in the trophic, biotopic, and social relations that constitute individual lives no less (and possibly more) than suborganismal processes. Reminiscent of a certain "third meditation," no?
Dr. Hart, Sons and Lovers? Do you have a book I haven’t heard of?
The fundamental contingency of molecular meaning, the rule of connotation over denotation, reminds me of Ursula Le Guin's "The Nna Mmoy Language." A must-read.
Have you ever interviewed any Economist?
All of these are wonderful as always
I am very much looking forward to reading the book. Thank you for this. The blueprint analogy is indeed rather poor. A blueprint builds nothing by itself as anybody who has tried to make sense of an architect's abstract thought out in the field can tell.
What strikes me is that so many scientists hesitate, or refuse, to use what Paul Davies refers to as the "T-word": teleology. Ball, when writing about agency and purposiveness at the molecular and cellular level, is clearly implying a teleology, and he says as much in the book: "Biology looks uncannily teleological. That though disturbs some biologists no end." (p.336). Unfortunately, he's one of the few scientists who takes teleology seriously. He doesn't seem willing to apply teleology to the "evolutionary process" as a whole, though, which I find disappointing.
- Ken Garcia
I had a hard time making out the name of the French scientist who followed Bergson and is being rediscovered now. Royer or something? Any major ideas or key books of his that you could mention?
Have you hugged your logoii today?
(How to interface, what would be the best idiom?)
This has already resulted in an impulsive book purchase.
Goodnight DBH