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?
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.
Thanks. I don’t regret the book actually, and I think it covers a good deal of ground economically. I even think it was a good discipline to have to write for broad readership.
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:
Just accept authorship will you, finally? Every time I pass a book vendor and see a Penguin edition of Sons and Lovers attributed to that foul pirate Lawrence I furiously slash its cover with the head of my cane
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.
This is just your favorite marketing guy again who is struggling to find a way to ethically remain in the profession. I find 99% of writing or research in my field absolutely devoid of thought. I find this interview interesting particularly as it relates to marketing as a science. It seems as if the mechanistic picture is enmeshed in everything. Not sure if there is a question here or if it’s just a statement of frustration of not knowing where to turn
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?
Raymond Ruyer. Neofinalism is the most prominent of his ideas in this context. I think three of his books are now available in English; of course, if you happen to read French, there's a great deal in print again.
Did you read his book on Cybernetics for your consciousness work? After 70 year, I’m curious how his take on machine information and communication still stacks up today.
I have been prepared for some time to order --- with due impulsiveness, of course --- your philosophy of mind book. This time, though, it was Dr. Ball's How Life Works.
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?
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.
Thanks. I don’t regret the book actually, and I think it covers a good deal of ground economically. I even think it was a good discipline to have to write for broad readership.
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
Maybe: Living Stones decorating the Body of the Logos - Wisdom?
Something drew the Magi to Bethlehem.
God chose to be Creator. Cosmic Life is not a necessity but only a contingency. This is not western but eastern thought.
Dr. Hart, Sons and Lovers? Do you have a book I haven’t heard of?
I hope that question is in jest. It’s hard to tell.
Oof, sorry it’s not, and I own most of your books. I must have missed something somewhere.
Sons and Lovers is a novel by D.H. Lawrence.
Just accept authorship will you, finally? Every time I pass a book vendor and see a Penguin edition of Sons and Lovers attributed to that foul pirate Lawrence I furiously slash its cover with the head of my cane
I suppose it’s time I owned up to that, as well as to Ulysses and The Man Without Qualities.
Ahh, my bad. Thank you.
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?
Well, to my mind I’ve never interviewed anyone. I record some conversations. But no, no economists.
This is just your favorite marketing guy again who is struggling to find a way to ethically remain in the profession. I find 99% of writing or research in my field absolutely devoid of thought. I find this interview interesting particularly as it relates to marketing as a science. It seems as if the mechanistic picture is enmeshed in everything. Not sure if there is a question here or if it’s just a statement of frustration of not knowing where to turn
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
He's cautious about making grand claims, but open-minded too. I admire his hesitation.
An underappreciated trait in my view.
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?
Raymond Ruyer. Neofinalism is the most prominent of his ideas in this context. I think three of his books are now available in English; of course, if you happen to read French, there's a great deal in print again.
Merci 🤙🏼
By the way, a philosopher, not a scientist, though one with formidable scientific knowledge.
Did you read his book on Cybernetics for your consciousness work? After 70 year, I’m curious how his take on machine information and communication still stacks up today.
I’ve read it but not for my book. His take on cybernetic systems was prophetic in many respects.
Have you hugged your logoii today?
(How to interface, what would be the best idiom?)
This has already resulted in an impulsive book purchase.
The Mystery of the Green Star? Sons and Lovers?
I have been prepared for some time to order --- with due impulsiveness, of course --- your philosophy of mind book. This time, though, it was Dr. Ball's How Life Works.
Because of course you already own a copy of Green Star.
Does the Phil of Mind book actually exist? Has it been an elaborate tease? And could you call it Do you Mind?
I think I have mentioned about thirty thousand times that it will appear in Yale’s fall catalogue. Thirty thousand and one now.
Sounds like you should set better boundaries instead of answering the same question thirty thousand and one times. But I do appreciate your answering.
Goodnight DBH
No “sleep tight” as well?
I'll remember for next time.