If, when I get into an elevator to go up, the floor of the box pushes up on my feet, I feel my knees and neck crumple just a little and I remember what I am aligning against: not the fake force of gravity pulling me down, but the real force of the earth pushing me up. The earth was always pushing me up. I was always in relation to earth. Gravity has nothing to say to me directly, it sends a message by way of the earth. Every day I am accelerating up and out with the help of earth I just have to align my bones in the same direction, straight up.
Are humans the embodiment of the koan ‘pushing on a string’?
I have been misquoting you for years to the surprise, delight and chagrin of people much more intelligent and perceptive than I am -- something like: "The more explanatory power a theory has, the more certain you can be that it is a model of a mind."
I am going to try to modify this further now that I have seen the words "finely grained texture of our imagination and participation" <3
What I was referring to about explanatory power, is that when you have a framework that fits everything, then you can bet its a construct of your mind, not a feature of reality. Like Wilber's 4 quadrants ( I use to say the AQALification of everything!). Useful, but not concretely real.
"The purpose of philosophy is to distinguish the true from the real"
Great article! Thank you. I think Micheal Levin's work pushes against metaphysical assumptions in really interesting ways. Like with his cognitive light cones.
For sure! This short excerpt is just an introduction to an entire series this year that will lead to Levin's work (and others who are doing "new sciences." Stay tuned, there is a lot more coming down the pike
I like this take on meta-metaphysics way more than the "shut up and calculate" one. I like how you anchor metaphysics as an influence on theory formation, pinpointing it's relational nature (reveling the author a la whitehead)
I've had some lines of inquiry related to this bobbing around for some time. Writing them out here in case someone have input.
How do you keep metaphysics practical? I guess a lot of the aversion towards metaphysics stem from a perception that it's disconnected from things of practical importance
Inspired by Whitehead's author-aware, "serious play" framing of metaphysics, I'm interested in trying out things like neo-animism. Yet I treat them as "less real" than ontological materialism, my "home metaphysics". Why? Is this a habit thing or is it possible to make an argument (generalizeability, coherence etc etc) for my preference? How does having a "home metaphysics" affect my ability to play with other frames of reference?
This is very good inquiry. I like this notion of "home meatphysics." The goal of metaphysics properly is not to throw out what is good about home metaphysics (there's even a lot of truth in folk metaphysics) ... but to make it less partial. Home metaphysics is useful and makes meaning (somewhat) but it is dienchanting and ruins the planet. This sense of "less real" is crucial to metaphysics, too, because we don't just want to go around telling stories that people would like to hear, and believe them to be the case.
The process philosophers ground metaphysics in experience. This means part of doing metaphysics is learning how to attend to experience (in a William James-ian or mindfulness practice way.)
Yesterday, working on a much more ambition essay I wrote:
"What makes for a good metaphysics?The main qualification of a good metaphysics are
- Clarity - precision in language, clean definitions, sharp reasoning
- Simplicity - capturing the essence of by releasing the complexity without reducing the complexity
- Error correction - correcting errors within or contradictions across disciplines"
Unfortunately, while there are many errors to correct there, the new sciences have gone beyond the home metaphysics of most philosophers. I wrote
A hundred years ago a group of American philosophers, which included Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), William James (1842-1910), Josiah Royce (1855-1916), John Dewey (1859-1952), Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), and George Santayana (1863-1952) plus the junior member, Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000 ) produced the most important metaphysical innovations of our time. The “American group” as Hartshorne called them, were grappling with making sense of the scientific advances, namely relativity and quantum theory. Along with the scientists, they were tasked with replacing the categories of a Newtonian, mechanistic, linearly causal world, with categories that made sense in a new world where time, space and motion were relative, matter had self-agency, and the boundary between physical reality and mind was becoming porous to both material processes and participant observation. Science was exposing us to a new world, and the philosophers were exploring a new understanding of reality, through the lens of experience and process, instead of mechanism and law.
“It was a golden opportunity,” Hartshorne wrote, "not only because they were situated in the advances of science, but also because each philosopher was also steeped in the classic traditions from ancient Palestine and Greece, which made them “richly sensitive to the religious and humanistic.”
One of the challenges we have today is that most process philosophers have declared war on science, rather than trying to make sense of it from a process philosophical view. Sure, there is still plenty of reductive physicalism to go around in the sciences, and it is good that scientists are not willing to adopt a “minimal physicalism” — but a minimal physicalism is not the same as a maximal psychism — a trap that too many process-oriented philosophies have set for the intelletually curious scientist. There are curious scientists working at the leading edge of scientific research, who are now facing the same theoretical boundaries that process philosophers are well equipped to breach. It seems clear to me that we are situated in another “golden opportunity.”
So if you are interested in championing animism, you should begin by finding the science that champions it! There's a lot more out there than you think! And the scientists are not often at liberty to say such things out loud.
Thanks for the extensive reply, I have some comments and questions :)
I have multiple interpretations of "Home metaphysics is useful and makes meaning (somewhat) but it is dienchanting and ruins the planet". Do you mean:
* My home metaphysics (ontological materialism) is disenchanting and ruins the planet?
* People being "stuck" in their home metaphysics is disenchanting and ruins the planet?
I don't follow "and it is good that scientists are not willing to adopt a “minimal physicalism” — but a minimal physicalism is not the same as a maximal psychism — a trap that too many process-oriented philosophies have set for the intelletually curious scientist. "
I am interested in the role of metaphysics when it comes to furthering scientific research. Particularily in physics - I have this hunch that the "shut up and calculate" approach limits the potential for jumps of intuition, leaving only incremental discoveries within the established paradigm. Giving a coherent metaphysics to ground research might serve as a spring board for insight.
On a more personal level, I'm curious about playing with other metaphysics, trying to shift the way I relate to the world by temporarily adopting another.
I don't think championing animism is on the agenda, I'd rather try to reconcile ontological materialism and a sense of wonder. I'm trying to bridge between lesswrong style rationalism and the wisdom commons - adopting animism would bring with it animosity :)
Yes, I believe that our home metaphysics (over all) is disenchanting and ruining the planet. I am serializing my paper on metaphysics. You'll be able to see my argument as they post each month. Neo-animism, as I understand it, is very close to just what you say "ontological materialism and a sense of wonder" -- but I would place the term "materialism" with "naturalism" or something fancier like "compositionally stratified vertical reality" ... (a la Carl Gillet- watch for a video with me and Gregg Henriques coming out soon around this)
Many people are calling for a minimal physicalism -- which just means placing a bar for consciousness as far down in the stack as possible (animal and plant consciousness, but not fruther down, for example). But this is often the beginning of people deciding "well heck, everything is conscoius -- maximal psychism." I like Michael Levin's distinction between cognitive agency and consciousness. Like Levin, neo-animism considers that entities, beings and things at all scales (from the atomistic to the compound and collective) are agentic. Levin takes the example of a tennis ball on a hill. It has a certain competency, he quips -- the competency to get to the bottom of the hill. That is agency. He then define "cognition" as the ability to solve a problem by different means. IN this sense the tennis ball is not cognitive.
Hope you are writing your way through your own process. You never know what wonders you will find.
If gravity is not a force.
It just ‘is’.
It is not ‘pulling’ on me.
If, when I get into an elevator to go up, the floor of the box pushes up on my feet, I feel my knees and neck crumple just a little and I remember what I am aligning against: not the fake force of gravity pulling me down, but the real force of the earth pushing me up. The earth was always pushing me up. I was always in relation to earth. Gravity has nothing to say to me directly, it sends a message by way of the earth. Every day I am accelerating up and out with the help of earth I just have to align my bones in the same direction, straight up.
Are humans the embodiment of the koan ‘pushing on a string’?
We don't even understand gravity.
Sheesh!
S C I E N C E I S N ' T W H A T I T U S E D T O B E
I have been misquoting you for years to the surprise, delight and chagrin of people much more intelligent and perceptive than I am -- something like: "The more explanatory power a theory has, the more certain you can be that it is a model of a mind."
I am going to try to modify this further now that I have seen the words "finely grained texture of our imagination and participation" <3
Both are true!
What I was referring to about explanatory power, is that when you have a framework that fits everything, then you can bet its a construct of your mind, not a feature of reality. Like Wilber's 4 quadrants ( I use to say the AQALification of everything!). Useful, but not concretely real.
"The purpose of philosophy is to distinguish the true from the real"
Great article! Thank you. I think Micheal Levin's work pushes against metaphysical assumptions in really interesting ways. Like with his cognitive light cones.
For sure! This short excerpt is just an introduction to an entire series this year that will lead to Levin's work (and others who are doing "new sciences." Stay tuned, there is a lot more coming down the pike
I like this take on meta-metaphysics way more than the "shut up and calculate" one. I like how you anchor metaphysics as an influence on theory formation, pinpointing it's relational nature (reveling the author a la whitehead)
I've had some lines of inquiry related to this bobbing around for some time. Writing them out here in case someone have input.
How do you keep metaphysics practical? I guess a lot of the aversion towards metaphysics stem from a perception that it's disconnected from things of practical importance
Inspired by Whitehead's author-aware, "serious play" framing of metaphysics, I'm interested in trying out things like neo-animism. Yet I treat them as "less real" than ontological materialism, my "home metaphysics". Why? Is this a habit thing or is it possible to make an argument (generalizeability, coherence etc etc) for my preference? How does having a "home metaphysics" affect my ability to play with other frames of reference?
This is very good inquiry. I like this notion of "home meatphysics." The goal of metaphysics properly is not to throw out what is good about home metaphysics (there's even a lot of truth in folk metaphysics) ... but to make it less partial. Home metaphysics is useful and makes meaning (somewhat) but it is dienchanting and ruins the planet. This sense of "less real" is crucial to metaphysics, too, because we don't just want to go around telling stories that people would like to hear, and believe them to be the case.
The process philosophers ground metaphysics in experience. This means part of doing metaphysics is learning how to attend to experience (in a William James-ian or mindfulness practice way.)
Yesterday, working on a much more ambition essay I wrote:
"What makes for a good metaphysics?The main qualification of a good metaphysics are
- Clarity - precision in language, clean definitions, sharp reasoning
- Simplicity - capturing the essence of by releasing the complexity without reducing the complexity
- Error correction - correcting errors within or contradictions across disciplines"
Unfortunately, while there are many errors to correct there, the new sciences have gone beyond the home metaphysics of most philosophers. I wrote
A hundred years ago a group of American philosophers, which included Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), William James (1842-1910), Josiah Royce (1855-1916), John Dewey (1859-1952), Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947), and George Santayana (1863-1952) plus the junior member, Charles Hartshorne (1897-2000 ) produced the most important metaphysical innovations of our time. The “American group” as Hartshorne called them, were grappling with making sense of the scientific advances, namely relativity and quantum theory. Along with the scientists, they were tasked with replacing the categories of a Newtonian, mechanistic, linearly causal world, with categories that made sense in a new world where time, space and motion were relative, matter had self-agency, and the boundary between physical reality and mind was becoming porous to both material processes and participant observation. Science was exposing us to a new world, and the philosophers were exploring a new understanding of reality, through the lens of experience and process, instead of mechanism and law.
“It was a golden opportunity,” Hartshorne wrote, "not only because they were situated in the advances of science, but also because each philosopher was also steeped in the classic traditions from ancient Palestine and Greece, which made them “richly sensitive to the religious and humanistic.”
One of the challenges we have today is that most process philosophers have declared war on science, rather than trying to make sense of it from a process philosophical view. Sure, there is still plenty of reductive physicalism to go around in the sciences, and it is good that scientists are not willing to adopt a “minimal physicalism” — but a minimal physicalism is not the same as a maximal psychism — a trap that too many process-oriented philosophies have set for the intelletually curious scientist. There are curious scientists working at the leading edge of scientific research, who are now facing the same theoretical boundaries that process philosophers are well equipped to breach. It seems clear to me that we are situated in another “golden opportunity.”
So if you are interested in championing animism, you should begin by finding the science that champions it! There's a lot more out there than you think! And the scientists are not often at liberty to say such things out loud.
Thanks for the comments.
Thanks for the extensive reply, I have some comments and questions :)
I have multiple interpretations of "Home metaphysics is useful and makes meaning (somewhat) but it is dienchanting and ruins the planet". Do you mean:
* My home metaphysics (ontological materialism) is disenchanting and ruins the planet?
* People being "stuck" in their home metaphysics is disenchanting and ruins the planet?
I don't follow "and it is good that scientists are not willing to adopt a “minimal physicalism” — but a minimal physicalism is not the same as a maximal psychism — a trap that too many process-oriented philosophies have set for the intelletually curious scientist. "
I am interested in the role of metaphysics when it comes to furthering scientific research. Particularily in physics - I have this hunch that the "shut up and calculate" approach limits the potential for jumps of intuition, leaving only incremental discoveries within the established paradigm. Giving a coherent metaphysics to ground research might serve as a spring board for insight.
On a more personal level, I'm curious about playing with other metaphysics, trying to shift the way I relate to the world by temporarily adopting another.
I don't think championing animism is on the agenda, I'd rather try to reconcile ontological materialism and a sense of wonder. I'm trying to bridge between lesswrong style rationalism and the wisdom commons - adopting animism would bring with it animosity :)
Hey there
Yes, I believe that our home metaphysics (over all) is disenchanting and ruining the planet. I am serializing my paper on metaphysics. You'll be able to see my argument as they post each month. Neo-animism, as I understand it, is very close to just what you say "ontological materialism and a sense of wonder" -- but I would place the term "materialism" with "naturalism" or something fancier like "compositionally stratified vertical reality" ... (a la Carl Gillet- watch for a video with me and Gregg Henriques coming out soon around this)
Many people are calling for a minimal physicalism -- which just means placing a bar for consciousness as far down in the stack as possible (animal and plant consciousness, but not fruther down, for example). But this is often the beginning of people deciding "well heck, everything is conscoius -- maximal psychism." I like Michael Levin's distinction between cognitive agency and consciousness. Like Levin, neo-animism considers that entities, beings and things at all scales (from the atomistic to the compound and collective) are agentic. Levin takes the example of a tennis ball on a hill. It has a certain competency, he quips -- the competency to get to the bottom of the hill. That is agency. He then define "cognition" as the ability to solve a problem by different means. IN this sense the tennis ball is not cognitive.
Hope you are writing your way through your own process. You never know what wonders you will find.