Tim Jackson: There were a few key moments in our conversation where I missed opportunities to articulate constructive realism more clearly, particularly in the ethics section. Although I did note selection as a constructive rather than merely a negative or winnowing force, I overlooked emphasizing the essential metaphysical insight—that selection actively constructs the very space of possibility itself. This is critical. By stabilizing specific forms, selection continually transforms (a better term than "deforms," despite its use in physics contexts) the state of possibility itself. Pure variation alone, after all, cannot accomplish this. Selection thus becomes constructive of form, with actual formations or entities haloed by variations and possibilities. We need to fully embrace and articulate selection as inherently constructive, as a positive principle.
It's a profound and troubling issue inherited from classical metaphysics—that which is constructed is often regarded as less real or even illusory. Frankly, this notion is quite bizarre and counter-intuitive. Paradoxically, philosophy and science have historically championed such counter-intuitive positions, embedding this problematic legacy further. Practically everything we consider "real" in everyday discourse is constructed, and many constructed entities persist for significant durations. Thus, it should be entirely feasible to conceive of meanings and values as profoundly real, not merely subjective, even though they are constructed—much like every other "thing." I believe I did not express this clearly enough today, and Jonas seems particularly challenged by this perspective.
Matt Segall: I continue to hold open the possibility that a crucial operative distinction can be made between constructed societies (the enduring "things" of Whitehead’s cosmology) and the process of concrescence or individuation itself.
Every enduring entity and law is undoubtedly constructed. However, the constructive process itself must be understood as metaphysical. No matter how we slice it, concrescence always realizes a composite of fact and form—it is a synthesis of physical and conceptual poles.
Thus, I would argue that form as such is not constructed. Forms are not enduring things. They are eternalities, which like actualities do not endure, but unlike actualities can occur more than once (ie, can recur).
This does not imply that societies are somehow less real than actual entities. Rather, it underscores that their reality, in any given concrete instance, is a concrescent composition integrating both fact and form--with neither pole being wholly derivable from the other. Neither fact nor form has the status of first cause. They are reciprocally causing.
I loved this book and it’s nice to hear it being discussed. I appreciated hearing both of your perspectives, and found it interesting that Jonas may have mischaracterised Darwin in some respects. This brings to mind the challenges of interdisciplinary research and commentary generally: it’s difficult not to caricature mechanism and reductionism (which I am probably guilty of at times) when you see the problem at hand as cultural and indeed existential, the loss of meaning and value, as Matthew mentions it is for Jonas. Detailed dialogue is so important as a way of bridging the concerns of different disciplines. Thanks!
Unfortunately all of the modern conventional explanations of creation do not even begin to take into account the totality of the human body-mind complex, or put in another way are confined and thus limited by the fact they are trapped in the first three of the possible seven stages of life as described here:
A few comments added after our live dialogue:
Tim Jackson: There were a few key moments in our conversation where I missed opportunities to articulate constructive realism more clearly, particularly in the ethics section. Although I did note selection as a constructive rather than merely a negative or winnowing force, I overlooked emphasizing the essential metaphysical insight—that selection actively constructs the very space of possibility itself. This is critical. By stabilizing specific forms, selection continually transforms (a better term than "deforms," despite its use in physics contexts) the state of possibility itself. Pure variation alone, after all, cannot accomplish this. Selection thus becomes constructive of form, with actual formations or entities haloed by variations and possibilities. We need to fully embrace and articulate selection as inherently constructive, as a positive principle.
It's a profound and troubling issue inherited from classical metaphysics—that which is constructed is often regarded as less real or even illusory. Frankly, this notion is quite bizarre and counter-intuitive. Paradoxically, philosophy and science have historically championed such counter-intuitive positions, embedding this problematic legacy further. Practically everything we consider "real" in everyday discourse is constructed, and many constructed entities persist for significant durations. Thus, it should be entirely feasible to conceive of meanings and values as profoundly real, not merely subjective, even though they are constructed—much like every other "thing." I believe I did not express this clearly enough today, and Jonas seems particularly challenged by this perspective.
Matt Segall: I continue to hold open the possibility that a crucial operative distinction can be made between constructed societies (the enduring "things" of Whitehead’s cosmology) and the process of concrescence or individuation itself.
Every enduring entity and law is undoubtedly constructed. However, the constructive process itself must be understood as metaphysical. No matter how we slice it, concrescence always realizes a composite of fact and form—it is a synthesis of physical and conceptual poles.
Thus, I would argue that form as such is not constructed. Forms are not enduring things. They are eternalities, which like actualities do not endure, but unlike actualities can occur more than once (ie, can recur).
This does not imply that societies are somehow less real than actual entities. Rather, it underscores that their reality, in any given concrete instance, is a concrescent composition integrating both fact and form--with neither pole being wholly derivable from the other. Neither fact nor form has the status of first cause. They are reciprocally causing.
I loved this book and it’s nice to hear it being discussed. I appreciated hearing both of your perspectives, and found it interesting that Jonas may have mischaracterised Darwin in some respects. This brings to mind the challenges of interdisciplinary research and commentary generally: it’s difficult not to caricature mechanism and reductionism (which I am probably guilty of at times) when you see the problem at hand as cultural and indeed existential, the loss of meaning and value, as Matthew mentions it is for Jonas. Detailed dialogue is so important as a way of bridging the concerns of different disciplines. Thanks!
Please find a unique Understanding of Creation Myths:
http://beezone.com/current/creamyth.html
Unfortunately all of the modern conventional explanations of creation do not even begin to take into account the totality of the human body-mind complex, or put in another way are confined and thus limited by the fact they are trapped in the first three of the possible seven stages of life as described here:
http://www.integralworld.net/reynolds6.html
Also: http://beezone.com/current/fiveevoltionarystagesoftrueman.html