1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:04,679
Okay, I think I'm gonna go

2
00:00:04,679 --> 00:00:06,930
ahead and say
welcome everybody to

3
00:00:06,930 --> 00:00:08,219
the System Science Friday

4
00:00:08,219 --> 00:00:09,299
noon seminar series.

5
00:00:09,299 --> 00:00:10,710
And today we have

6
00:00:10,710 --> 00:00:13,185
our senior faculty
member, Martin Zwick,

7
00:00:13,185 --> 00:00:17,554
presenting a topic
sort of in a,

8
00:00:17,554 --> 00:00:19,605
more of a 
philosophical bent.

9
00:00:19,605 --> 00:00:21,315
I bent, I'm pretty sure,

10
00:00:21,315 --> 00:00:23,639
and I'm looking forward
to hearing the doc.

11
00:00:23,639 --> 00:00:25,335
Okay. Thank you. Wayne

12
00:00:25,335 --> 00:00:30,529
Thank you. Um, I

13
00:00:30,529 --> 00:00:34,610
was suppose to give
this talk at a,

14
00:00:34,610 --> 00:00:36,709
at the north, northwest

15
00:00:36,709 --> 00:00:38,329
philosophy conference held

16
00:00:38,329 --> 00:00:39,860
in Lewis and Clark

17
00:00:39,860 --> 00:00:41,960
just at the end
of October.

18
00:00:41,960 --> 00:00:44,555
But I was sick

19
00:00:44,555 --> 00:00:46,924
and I couldn't actually
give this talk.

20
00:00:46,924 --> 00:00:49,070
And in fact, I'm
still a little sick,

21
00:00:49,070 --> 00:00:52,310
so this is the same talk

22
00:00:52,310 --> 00:00:53,599
that I was gonna give to

23
00:00:53,599 --> 00:00:55,369
a philosophy conference.

24
00:00:55,369 --> 00:00:56,840
But it has, it has

25
00:00:56,840 --> 00:00:59,270
a good bit of system
science and in IT,

26
00:00:59,270 --> 00:01:01,999
so if the
philosophical stuff

27
00:01:01,999 --> 00:01:05,719
seems unfamiliar,

28
00:01:05,719 --> 00:01:09,109
bear with me, and
you will also see

29
00:01:09,109 --> 00:01:13,204
a good bit of systems
theory material.

30
00:01:13,204 --> 00:01:20,209
So in the, I won't read

31
00:01:20,209 --> 00:01:22,219
the abstract because
I'm basically going

32
00:01:22,219 --> 00:01:28,320
to plunge into
the paper itself.

33
00:01:30,580 --> 00:01:33,949
In the philosophical
community,

34
00:01:33,949 --> 00:01:37,160
it's common to
read papers,

35
00:01:37,160 --> 00:01:39,379
you know, and we
don't usually do

36
00:01:39,379 --> 00:01:41,870
that and systems
and seminars.

37
00:01:41,870 --> 00:01:44,359
But I'm going to
read this paper,

38
00:01:44,359 --> 00:01:46,309
but I'm also going
to talk about

39
00:01:46,309 --> 00:01:47,944
a few slides that

40
00:01:47,944 --> 00:01:50,104
illustrate some
of the points,

41
00:01:50,104 --> 00:01:52,850
not, not most of the
points in the papers.

42
00:01:52,850 --> 00:01:55,804
So you're going to
have to listen and

43
00:01:55,804 --> 00:01:58,100
attentively to my words

44
00:01:58,100 --> 00:02:01,619
without that much
visual aids.

45
00:02:01,870 --> 00:02:04,100
Okay, so the title of

46
00:02:04,100 --> 00:02:07,294
the talk is
speculative realism,

47
00:02:07,294 --> 00:02:11,344
which is a new movement
of Philosopher,

48
00:02:11,344 --> 00:02:12,620
of philosophy and

49
00:02:12,620 --> 00:02:14,495
continental philosophy

50
00:02:14,495 --> 00:02:16,820
and systems metaphysics.

51
00:02:16,820 --> 00:02:18,994
So introduction,

52
00:02:18,994 --> 00:02:23,810
realism versus
human centeredness.

53
00:02:23,810 --> 00:02:26,150
A new school of
thought under

54
00:02:26,150 --> 00:02:28,580
the name speculative
realism has

55
00:02:28,580 --> 00:02:31,520
recently emerged
in continental,

56
00:02:31,520 --> 00:02:34,970
that is European
philosophy that

57
00:02:34,970 --> 00:02:36,890
explicitly rejects as

58
00:02:36,890 --> 00:02:39,754
long dominant
anti-realism.

59
00:02:39,754 --> 00:02:43,100
This paper looks at
some salient ideas of

60
00:02:43,100 --> 00:02:44,480
his school from

61
00:02:44,480 --> 00:02:46,984
the perspective of
systems theory.

62
00:02:46,984 --> 00:02:48,424
Systems theory,

63
00:02:48,424 --> 00:02:52,700
a transdisciplinary
project within science,

64
00:02:52,700 --> 00:02:56,734
is predominantly
realist, but includes

65
00:02:56,734 --> 00:02:59,839
also construction
and other

66
00:02:59,839 --> 00:03:02,044
non-real as
points of view.

67
00:03:02,044 --> 00:03:03,980
My own orientation as

68
00:03:03,980 --> 00:03:06,365
a system theorists
has been realist.

69
00:03:06,365 --> 00:03:08,000
I could mention that

70
00:03:08,000 --> 00:03:09,650
my colleague
George London,

71
00:03:09,650 --> 00:03:11,300
Paris, was more of

72
00:03:11,300 --> 00:03:14,345
a constructionist
and a non-realistic.

73
00:03:14,345 --> 00:03:18,080
But I've always been
a kind of realists,

74
00:03:18,080 --> 00:03:20,344
taken the realist
position,

75
00:03:20,344 --> 00:03:21,739
but I've been interested

76
00:03:21,739 --> 00:03:23,360
in possible relevance to

77
00:03:23,360 --> 00:03:25,040
systems theory
of the thought

78
00:03:25,040 --> 00:03:27,020
of continental
philosophers,

79
00:03:27,020 --> 00:03:29,644
such as Heidegger
and Derrida.

80
00:03:29,644 --> 00:03:32,390
Speculative realism

81
00:03:32,390 --> 00:03:35,480
marks a significant
departure

82
00:03:35,480 --> 00:03:38,760
from these
earlier thinkers.

83
00:03:39,970 --> 00:03:43,999
I'm now reading a book,

84
00:03:43,999 --> 00:03:46,850
the specular term,

85
00:03:46,850 --> 00:03:49,610
continental realism
and materialism.

86
00:03:49,610 --> 00:03:53,149
And another book
against continuity.

87
00:03:53,149 --> 00:03:56,750
Guile is the loses
speculative realism.

88
00:03:56,750 --> 00:03:59,629
And some ideas
in these books

89
00:03:59,629 --> 00:04:03,560
seem in accord with
systems metaphysics.

90
00:04:03,560 --> 00:04:05,659
Reading the
speculative turn

91
00:04:05,659 --> 00:04:07,879
makes it very clear that

92
00:04:07,879 --> 00:04:09,650
there is diversity of

93
00:04:09,650 --> 00:04:12,725
views within
speculative realism.

94
00:04:12,725 --> 00:04:14,525
So I'm going to
take up here

95
00:04:14,525 --> 00:04:17,540
only themes addressed by

96
00:04:17,540 --> 00:04:19,970
a few contributors to

97
00:04:19,970 --> 00:04:22,144
the speculative turn book

98
00:04:22,144 --> 00:04:25,219
and to the against
continuity book.

99
00:04:25,219 --> 00:04:27,709
Speculative
realists appear to

100
00:04:27,709 --> 00:04:29,779
be reacting to
what they see as

101
00:04:29,779 --> 00:04:33,019
the prevailing
anti-realist or

102
00:04:33,019 --> 00:04:35,449
human centered orientation

103
00:04:35,449 --> 00:04:37,100
of continental philosophy,

104
00:04:37,100 --> 00:04:38,989
as opposed to what
might be called the

105
00:04:38,989 --> 00:04:41,959
World centered
orientation that

106
00:04:41,959 --> 00:04:45,200
typifies science

107
00:04:45,200 --> 00:04:48,064
and towards which
analytic philosophy,

108
00:04:48,064 --> 00:04:49,880
and especially America and

109
00:04:49,880 --> 00:04:53,220
England is more aligned.

110
00:04:53,920 --> 00:04:58,969
The editors of the
book speculative turn,

111
00:04:58,969 --> 00:05:01,520
described the
continental tradition

112
00:05:01,520 --> 00:05:02,839
as follows.

113
00:05:02,839 --> 00:05:04,730
Humanity remains

114
00:05:04,730 --> 00:05:06,574
at the center
of these works.

115
00:05:06,574 --> 00:05:09,485
And reality appears
in philosophy

116
00:05:09,485 --> 00:05:13,340
only as the Carl it,
of human thought.

117
00:05:13,340 --> 00:05:16,475
In this respect
phenomenon ology,

118
00:05:16,475 --> 00:05:18,334
structuralism,

119
00:05:18,334 --> 00:05:20,195
post-structuralism,

120
00:05:20,195 --> 00:05:23,420
deconstruction,
and postmodernism.

121
00:05:23,420 --> 00:05:26,105
And these are the,

122
00:05:26,105 --> 00:05:28,955
these are all
Continental traditions.

123
00:05:28,955 --> 00:05:31,880
They've all been
perfect exemplars of

124
00:05:31,880 --> 00:05:33,650
the anti-realist trend

125
00:05:33,650 --> 00:05:36,360
in continental philosophy.

126
00:05:37,030 --> 00:05:40,039
They contrast, the editors

127
00:05:40,039 --> 00:05:42,319
of the book contrast
this approach

128
00:05:42,319 --> 00:05:44,465
with their own
noting that while

129
00:05:44,465 --> 00:05:46,699
speculative realists
obviously did

130
00:05:46,699 --> 00:05:48,245
not agree on many issues,

131
00:05:48,245 --> 00:05:51,169
quote all of them in
one way or another,

132
00:05:51,169 --> 00:05:52,939
have begun
speculating once

133
00:05:52,939 --> 00:05:55,310
more about the
nature of reality

134
00:05:55,310 --> 00:05:57,889
independently
of thought and

135
00:05:57,889 --> 00:06:00,169
of humanity
more generally,

136
00:06:00,169 --> 00:06:02,600
the phrase human
centered appears

137
00:06:02,600 --> 00:06:04,910
explicitly in this book

138
00:06:04,910 --> 00:06:06,349
to characterize

139
00:06:06,349 --> 00:06:09,784
the orientation
that is rejected.

140
00:06:09,784 --> 00:06:11,974
Another way of expressing

141
00:06:11,974 --> 00:06:14,570
the relationship between
human centeredness

142
00:06:14,570 --> 00:06:16,339
and world centeredness is

143
00:06:16,339 --> 00:06:17,900
to say that it maps onto

144
00:06:17,900 --> 00:06:19,760
the relation between

145
00:06:19,760 --> 00:06:24,059
epistemology and ontology.

146
00:06:24,970 --> 00:06:28,550
While one cannot
completely

147
00:06:28,550 --> 00:06:31,354
separate ontology
from epistomology,

148
00:06:31,354 --> 00:06:34,264
realists, privilege
on topology,

149
00:06:34,264 --> 00:06:35,809
which is about what,

150
00:06:35,809 --> 00:06:40,924
what is Andy real is
privilege epistemology,

151
00:06:40,924 --> 00:06:44,000
which is about
what we know,

152
00:06:44,000 --> 00:06:46,174
what is, what we think.

153
00:06:46,174 --> 00:06:47,165
There is.

154
00:06:47,165 --> 00:06:50,344
Some continental
philosophers Mike claim

155
00:06:50,344 --> 00:06:51,709
not to be human

156
00:06:51,709 --> 00:06:54,034
centered and to be
doing ontology,

157
00:06:54,034 --> 00:06:55,819
or at least that
their philosophy is

158
00:06:55,819 --> 00:06:58,909
neutral with respect
to these distinctions.

159
00:06:58,909 --> 00:07:00,755
E.g. Heidegger is,

160
00:07:00,755 --> 00:07:04,115
does adding
human centered.

161
00:07:04,115 --> 00:07:06,664
But how do you,
Heidegger claimed

162
00:07:06,664 --> 00:07:09,259
to have later
emerged from humans,

163
00:07:09,259 --> 00:07:12,395
moved away from
human centeredness.

164
00:07:12,395 --> 00:07:17,269
Might regard his
notion of being as

165
00:07:17,269 --> 00:07:20,120
a neutral conception
that transcends

166
00:07:20,120 --> 00:07:21,139
the dualism of

167
00:07:21,139 --> 00:07:24,154
human versus world's
centeredness.

168
00:07:24,154 --> 00:07:26,510
The book, the
speculative turn,

169
00:07:26,510 --> 00:07:29,119
often characterizes
the dominant position

170
00:07:29,119 --> 00:07:31,160
of continental
philosophy as

171
00:07:31,160 --> 00:07:34,774
oriented towards
the correlation

172
00:07:34,774 --> 00:07:36,890
of subject and an object.

173
00:07:36,890 --> 00:07:38,960
But Heidegger didn't move

174
00:07:38,960 --> 00:07:41,044
far from human
centeredness.

175
00:07:41,044 --> 00:07:43,715
And in correlation as

176
00:07:43,715 --> 00:07:47,120
human centeredness
is clearly dominant,

177
00:07:47,120 --> 00:07:51,079
the focus in correlation
is on human act,

178
00:07:51,079 --> 00:07:56,570
access to being IEEE
or to epistemology.

179
00:07:56,570 --> 00:07:58,970
This is plain and cons,

180
00:07:58,970 --> 00:08:03,589
view that the
thing in itself is

181
00:08:03,589 --> 00:08:05,870
inaccessible
and all we have

182
00:08:05,870 --> 00:08:09,709
access to is the
thing for us.

183
00:08:09,709 --> 00:08:13,040
The title of the spectrum
of turn book raises

184
00:08:13,040 --> 00:08:14,419
the question of
the relation

185
00:08:14,419 --> 00:08:17,249
of realism to materialism.

186
00:08:17,560 --> 00:08:21,679
Speculative realist
different on this harm

187
00:08:21,679 --> 00:08:25,235
and advocates realism
without materialism.

188
00:08:25,235 --> 00:08:26,734
But those

189
00:08:26,734 --> 00:08:28,789
speculative realists
who are influenced by

190
00:08:28,789 --> 00:08:31,505
Marxism regard realism

191
00:08:31,505 --> 00:08:33,724
and materialism
as synonymous,

192
00:08:33,724 --> 00:08:36,034
which I do not.

193
00:08:36,034 --> 00:08:37,490
And systems, I'd say

194
00:08:37,490 --> 00:08:39,455
Systems thought does not.

195
00:08:39,455 --> 00:08:42,469
Okay? So systems theory

196
00:08:42,469 --> 00:08:44,765
and the ontology,
epistemology,

197
00:08:44,765 --> 00:08:47,480
dichotomy as a
project within

198
00:08:47,480 --> 00:08:49,384
science systems theory is

199
00:08:49,384 --> 00:08:52,145
aligned with world
centered realism.

200
00:08:52,145 --> 00:08:54,379
But there's still a
diversity of views

201
00:08:54,379 --> 00:08:56,720
about this in the
systems community.

202
00:08:56,720 --> 00:09:01,319
My view agrees with
that of Mario Banga,

203
00:09:01,870 --> 00:09:05,299
who characterize
the systems project

204
00:09:05,299 --> 00:09:06,814
as an attempt
to construct,

205
00:09:06,814 --> 00:09:07,879
quote, and

206
00:09:07,879 --> 00:09:12,360
exact and scientific
metaphysics, ESM.

207
00:09:12,460 --> 00:09:16,879
Where metaphysics
means a system of

208
00:09:16,879 --> 00:09:18,889
general ideas
applicable to

209
00:09:18,889 --> 00:09:21,065
many diverse phenomena,

210
00:09:21,065 --> 00:09:23,899
where the word exact means

211
00:09:23,899 --> 00:09:27,019
mathematical or
expressed mathematically

212
00:09:27,019 --> 00:09:29,524
at least as an
ultimate goal.

213
00:09:29,524 --> 00:09:32,630
And the scientific means
is drawing upon and

214
00:09:32,630 --> 00:09:35,705
contributing to the
theories, sciences.

215
00:09:35,705 --> 00:09:38,090
This aim is realist but

216
00:09:38,090 --> 00:09:41,615
not positivist
since it is terms,

217
00:09:41,615 --> 00:09:43,039
but since it affirms

218
00:09:43,039 --> 00:09:44,629
a useful connection

219
00:09:44,629 --> 00:09:46,669
between science
and metaphysics,

220
00:09:46,669 --> 00:09:48,469
bone it and explain
it that systems

221
00:09:48,469 --> 00:09:49,609
project with

222
00:09:49,609 --> 00:09:51,739
the epistemological
hierarchy that

223
00:09:51,739 --> 00:09:53,869
summarized in table one as

224
00:09:53,869 --> 00:09:55,699
a five level hierarchy of

225
00:09:55,699 --> 00:09:58,100
inclusion on the left,

226
00:09:58,100 --> 00:10:01,085
fused with a three
level hierarchy

227
00:10:01,085 --> 00:10:03,574
of abstraction
on the right.

228
00:10:03,574 --> 00:10:05,854
This terms are
in brackets.

229
00:10:05,854 --> 00:10:07,745
He doesn't include tube,

230
00:10:07,745 --> 00:10:10,249
which is why
it's indented.

231
00:10:10,249 --> 00:10:13,654
Level five systems theory.

232
00:10:13,654 --> 00:10:18,799
Is ESM above level

233
00:10:18,799 --> 00:10:21,244
five at the highest
level of abstraction,

234
00:10:21,244 --> 00:10:23,569
e refers to mathematics,

235
00:10:23,569 --> 00:10:28,939
which can confer is
exactness on ESM.

236
00:10:28,939 --> 00:10:33,110
And M refers
to philosophy,

237
00:10:33,110 --> 00:10:35,089
specifically metaphysics,

238
00:10:35,089 --> 00:10:38,660
which confers meaning
and generality on ESM.

239
00:10:38,660 --> 00:10:42,920
Level four is
aligned with S,

240
00:10:42,920 --> 00:10:46,249
whose multiple
lines represent

241
00:10:46,249 --> 00:10:48,559
multiple theories
in the sciences.

242
00:10:48,559 --> 00:10:50,000
This conveys the idea

243
00:10:50,000 --> 00:10:51,859
that systems theory draws

244
00:10:51,859 --> 00:10:53,150
upon and contributes

245
00:10:53,150 --> 00:10:55,849
to multiple
scientific theories.

246
00:10:55,849 --> 00:10:59,104
Esm, this single line

247
00:10:59,104 --> 00:11:00,349
should actually also be

248
00:11:00,349 --> 00:11:02,359
drawn as multiple lines.

249
00:11:02,359 --> 00:11:04,730
Since systems
theory in the

250
00:11:04,730 --> 00:11:07,895
singular does not exist,

251
00:11:07,895 --> 00:11:10,249
but systems theories and

252
00:11:10,249 --> 00:11:12,920
the plural a bound, e.g.

253
00:11:12,920 --> 00:11:15,169
network theory,
information theory,

254
00:11:15,169 --> 00:11:16,370
or Automata Theory,

255
00:11:16,370 --> 00:11:17,599
non-linear dynamics,

256
00:11:17,599 --> 00:11:18,919
feedback control theory,

257
00:11:18,919 --> 00:11:20,389
game theory, etcetera.

258
00:11:20,389 --> 00:11:22,519
Calling something
a systems theory

259
00:11:22,519 --> 00:11:24,080
doesn't imply

260
00:11:24,080 --> 00:11:25,099
that the theory was

261
00:11:25,099 --> 00:11:27,635
developed by
system theorists,

262
00:11:27,635 --> 00:11:29,540
but rather that it has

263
00:11:29,540 --> 00:11:31,969
transdisciplinary
usefulness.

264
00:11:31,969 --> 00:11:34,460
E.g. thermodynamics.

265
00:11:34,460 --> 00:11:35,689
A theory in physics is

266
00:11:35,689 --> 00:11:38,180
fundamentals and
systems ontology.

267
00:11:38,180 --> 00:11:41,910
I would call it
a system theory.

268
00:11:42,220 --> 00:11:45,710
A model at level three

269
00:11:45,710 --> 00:11:49,310
is the length set of
relations at level two

270
00:11:49,310 --> 00:11:52,249
that apply a general
theory at level

271
00:11:52,249 --> 00:11:55,715
four to an
empirical domain

272
00:11:55,715 --> 00:11:58,610
at level one, e.g.

273
00:11:58,610 --> 00:12:01,055
a model of the
solar system.

274
00:12:01,055 --> 00:12:03,005
That's level three,

275
00:12:03,005 --> 00:12:05,330
is the application
of the theory of

276
00:12:05,330 --> 00:12:08,314
Newtonian mechanics
level for

277
00:12:08,314 --> 00:12:11,719
two relations between
observable motions,

278
00:12:11,719 --> 00:12:14,254
the planets and
their satellites,

279
00:12:14,254 --> 00:12:16,499
that's level one.

280
00:12:17,560 --> 00:12:20,270
Capillary
discovered some of

281
00:12:20,270 --> 00:12:24,979
these relations level
to empirically,

282
00:12:24,979 --> 00:12:26,989
but they were only
comprehensible when

283
00:12:26,989 --> 00:12:30,019
derivable from
Newton's theory level

284
00:12:30,019 --> 00:12:36,529
for epistemologically
a system is the model.

285
00:12:36,529 --> 00:12:38,704
But ontologically,

286
00:12:38,704 --> 00:12:41,149
a system is the reality

287
00:12:41,149 --> 00:12:43,040
referred to by the model.

288
00:12:43,040 --> 00:12:45,919
There is an actual
solar system

289
00:12:45,919 --> 00:12:47,930
independent of
human thought.

290
00:12:47,930 --> 00:12:50,734
Models of the solar
system represent

291
00:12:50,734 --> 00:12:53,960
this actual system
only approximately.

292
00:12:53,960 --> 00:12:55,880
E.g. in Newtonian model of

293
00:12:55,880 --> 00:13:00,019
the solar system ignores
electromagnetism.

294
00:13:00,019 --> 00:13:03,539
A more accurate model
would include it.

295
00:13:05,140 --> 00:13:07,940
Okay, the core tenants

296
00:13:07,940 --> 00:13:09,784
of speculative realism,

297
00:13:09,784 --> 00:13:11,870
let me summarize
some tenants

298
00:13:11,870 --> 00:13:14,795
held by many of
these thinkers.

299
00:13:14,795 --> 00:13:17,255
One object.

300
00:13:17,255 --> 00:13:20,300
Many speculative
realists advocate

301
00:13:20,300 --> 00:13:23,285
in object-oriented
ontology.

302
00:13:23,285 --> 00:13:27,590
Oh, where objects
or entities,

303
00:13:27,590 --> 00:13:29,090
things, beings.

304
00:13:29,090 --> 00:13:32,029
Deleuze, regarded
by the author

305
00:13:32,029 --> 00:13:35,610
of that second book,
Klein Heron brink,

306
00:13:36,930 --> 00:13:39,819
as both a foreigner and

307
00:13:39,819 --> 00:13:42,850
a high point of speculative
realism and more

308
00:13:42,850 --> 00:13:46,014
specifically of its
object oriented branch

309
00:13:46,014 --> 00:13:51,115
calls objects
assemblages on machines.

310
00:13:51,115 --> 00:13:54,234
This object
centeredness rejects

311
00:13:54,234 --> 00:13:55,959
prevailing attitudes and

312
00:13:55,959 --> 00:13:57,715
continental philosophy,

313
00:13:57,715 --> 00:13:59,785
which in turn
were critical of

314
00:13:59,785 --> 00:14:02,455
earlier philosophical
positions

315
00:14:02,455 --> 00:14:03,909
as Harmon observed.

316
00:14:03,909 --> 00:14:05,589
It's fascinating to note

317
00:14:05,589 --> 00:14:07,945
that almost every
radical option,

318
00:14:07,945 --> 00:14:10,270
every so-called
radical option in

319
00:14:10,270 --> 00:14:12,790
philosophy in the past has

320
00:14:12,790 --> 00:14:15,790
targeted objects
about what most need

321
00:14:15,790 --> 00:14:19,140
to be eliminated in
philosophical thought.

322
00:14:19,140 --> 00:14:21,125
But this
philosophical school,

323
00:14:21,125 --> 00:14:22,640
speculative realism.

324
00:14:22,640 --> 00:14:24,710
In this school,
the pendulum has

325
00:14:24,710 --> 00:14:27,499
swung back to objects.

326
00:14:27,499 --> 00:14:29,360
And these can be joined

327
00:14:29,360 --> 00:14:32,360
together to produce
new entities.

328
00:14:32,360 --> 00:14:34,429
Client Heron,
bring the author

329
00:14:34,429 --> 00:14:35,960
of that second book notes,

330
00:14:35,960 --> 00:14:38,000
as the lose argues,

331
00:14:38,000 --> 00:14:40,879
each newly formed
relation is itself

332
00:14:40,879 --> 00:14:45,330
immediately and irreducible
machine, unquote.

333
00:14:45,670 --> 00:14:48,140
The constituents of

334
00:14:48,140 --> 00:14:50,959
entities are
also entities.

335
00:14:50,959 --> 00:14:53,060
Coin Heron bank
notes, quote,

336
00:14:53,060 --> 00:14:54,620
it is important
to note that

337
00:14:54,620 --> 00:14:57,889
the heterogeneous
elements constituting

338
00:14:57,889 --> 00:15:01,324
machines are simply
more machines.

339
00:15:01,324 --> 00:15:03,380
Difference.

340
00:15:03,380 --> 00:15:05,149
There's some speculative

341
00:15:05,149 --> 00:15:06,740
realist difference plays

342
00:15:06,740 --> 00:15:07,760
an important role in

343
00:15:07,760 --> 00:15:10,610
this object-oriented
ontology, e.g.

344
00:15:10,610 --> 00:15:12,080
difference is central to

345
00:15:12,080 --> 00:15:13,669
the loses notion of

346
00:15:13,669 --> 00:15:15,650
being more about
this later.

347
00:15:15,650 --> 00:15:18,274
It reduction Latour.

348
00:15:18,274 --> 00:15:21,019
The irreducibility
of entities is

349
00:15:21,019 --> 00:15:24,379
asserted in an extreme
way by Latour.

350
00:15:24,379 --> 00:15:27,304
Brian writes,
quote, against

351
00:15:27,304 --> 00:15:30,289
all forms of reduction
to physical objects,

352
00:15:30,289 --> 00:15:33,515
cultural structures,
systems of power,

353
00:15:33,515 --> 00:15:35,389
texts, discourses

354
00:15:35,389 --> 00:15:37,520
or phenomena in
consciousness.

355
00:15:37,520 --> 00:15:41,330
Latour argues for
an ear reductionism

356
00:15:41,330 --> 00:15:43,655
in which all entities are.

357
00:15:43,655 --> 00:15:46,610
Equally real,
although not equally

358
00:15:46,610 --> 00:15:48,499
strong in so far

359
00:15:48,499 --> 00:15:50,659
as they act on
other entities.

360
00:15:50,659 --> 00:15:52,670
While non-human
actors such

361
00:15:52,670 --> 00:15:54,845
as germs, weather
patterns,

362
00:15:54,845 --> 00:15:56,719
Adams, and mountains,

363
00:15:56,719 --> 00:15:59,525
obviously relate to
the world around them.

364
00:15:59,525 --> 00:16:02,089
The same is true
of Harry Potter.

365
00:16:02,089 --> 00:16:03,800
The Virgin Mary.

366
00:16:03,800 --> 00:16:08,609
Democracies and
hallucinations, unquote.

367
00:16:09,070 --> 00:16:11,149
For many speculative

368
00:16:11,149 --> 00:16:12,679
realist physical entities

369
00:16:12,679 --> 00:16:13,805
are not special.

370
00:16:13,805 --> 00:16:16,669
So entities are not
restricted in tight,

371
00:16:16,669 --> 00:16:19,430
speculative material
is may not agree,

372
00:16:19,430 --> 00:16:20,840
but even for them,

373
00:16:20,840 --> 00:16:24,050
there is no universal
ground for entities.

374
00:16:24,050 --> 00:16:26,015
Relation.

375
00:16:26,015 --> 00:16:28,714
For Deleuze, relations

376
00:16:28,714 --> 00:16:31,505
are external to objects.

377
00:16:31,505 --> 00:16:33,169
There are multiple grounds

378
00:16:33,169 --> 00:16:35,404
for this
externality thesis.

379
00:16:35,404 --> 00:16:39,050
One, involvement of an
entities qualities in

380
00:16:39,050 --> 00:16:43,639
particular relations
isn't the obligatory to.

381
00:16:43,639 --> 00:16:45,710
The qualities are
separate from

382
00:16:45,710 --> 00:16:49,355
the external unity that
binds them together.

383
00:16:49,355 --> 00:16:52,594
Three, the external aspect

384
00:16:52,594 --> 00:16:54,860
of the entity is
supplemented by

385
00:16:54,860 --> 00:16:57,559
an internal aspect that

386
00:16:57,559 --> 00:17:00,364
has no connection
to these relations.

387
00:17:00,364 --> 00:17:02,179
More about this later,

388
00:17:02,179 --> 00:17:04,130
I'm going to disagree.

389
00:17:04,130 --> 00:17:06,710
Their religions
that are set here

390
00:17:06,710 --> 00:17:09,560
to be external,
really mean exterior.

391
00:17:09,560 --> 00:17:12,709
And specular realists
rarely recognized that

392
00:17:12,709 --> 00:17:15,650
entities also have
interior relations.

393
00:17:15,650 --> 00:17:17,209
That's one of the problems

394
00:17:17,209 --> 00:17:18,755
with their orientation.

395
00:17:18,755 --> 00:17:20,869
They are there external

396
00:17:20,869 --> 00:17:22,940
Also in a second and
different sense.

397
00:17:22,940 --> 00:17:26,105
They are extrinsic,
E, contingent,

398
00:17:26,105 --> 00:17:27,680
and not intrinsic or

399
00:17:27,680 --> 00:17:31,384
necessary to entities
and their qualities.

400
00:17:31,384 --> 00:17:34,889
Internal dimension.

401
00:17:35,200 --> 00:17:37,700
Bryant notes,

402
00:17:37,700 --> 00:17:40,609
nothing boils down
to its relations.

403
00:17:40,609 --> 00:17:42,530
And here relations
really means

404
00:17:42,530 --> 00:17:45,694
external relations
with other entities.

405
00:17:45,694 --> 00:17:47,840
Entities are not
solely defined

406
00:17:47,840 --> 00:17:50,089
in terms of the
differences from

407
00:17:50,089 --> 00:17:53,090
their relations with
other entities or

408
00:17:53,090 --> 00:17:56,390
differences in the
qualities that they have.

409
00:17:56,390 --> 00:18:00,230
Rather entities have
an interior dimension

410
00:18:00,230 --> 00:18:03,455
distinct from their
exterior manifestations.

411
00:18:03,455 --> 00:18:07,114
Something internal
is withheld

412
00:18:07,114 --> 00:18:09,530
from all external
relations

413
00:18:09,530 --> 00:18:11,134
with other entities.

414
00:18:11,134 --> 00:18:13,699
This calls to mind
constant distinction

415
00:18:13,699 --> 00:18:17,179
between phenomena
and noumena.

416
00:18:17,179 --> 00:18:20,270
Phenomena or what's
accessible to us

417
00:18:20,270 --> 00:18:23,404
new math is what's kind
of hidden from us.

418
00:18:23,404 --> 00:18:26,090
Comms distinction
concerns the relation

419
00:18:26,090 --> 00:18:27,919
of subject and object

420
00:18:27,919 --> 00:18:29,360
and establishes

421
00:18:29,360 --> 00:18:33,020
epistemological limits
for the subject.

422
00:18:33,020 --> 00:18:35,179
For speculative
realists, however,

423
00:18:35,179 --> 00:18:38,810
the human subject has
no special status.

424
00:18:38,810 --> 00:18:41,794
Limits apply
also to object,

425
00:18:41,794 --> 00:18:43,505
object relations.

426
00:18:43,505 --> 00:18:45,560
But these limits
ontological

427
00:18:45,560 --> 00:18:47,240
and epistemological.

428
00:18:47,240 --> 00:18:50,719
No object interacting
with another object

429
00:18:50,719 --> 00:18:53,584
encounters the
full reality

430
00:18:53,584 --> 00:18:55,070
of the other object.

431
00:18:55,070 --> 00:18:56,960
This withholding of

432
00:18:56,960 --> 00:19:00,500
the interior from
external manifestation,

433
00:19:00,500 --> 00:19:03,769
E, from presence
also calls to

434
00:19:03,769 --> 00:19:06,965
mind, Heidegger
is concealing.

435
00:19:06,965 --> 00:19:09,800
But for Heidegger,
what is concealed is

436
00:19:09,800 --> 00:19:12,904
not an inside sealed
off from the outside.

437
00:19:12,904 --> 00:19:15,139
But the, this is

438
00:19:15,139 --> 00:19:16,730
Heidegger talk that
you have to get

439
00:19:16,730 --> 00:19:18,890
used to the
degenerative openness

440
00:19:18,890 --> 00:19:21,065
of presencing itself.

441
00:19:21,065 --> 00:19:22,880
While one might
expect that

442
00:19:22,880 --> 00:19:25,430
these withheld
anterior aspects of

443
00:19:25,430 --> 00:19:27,560
entities are
still linked in

444
00:19:27,560 --> 00:19:30,829
some way with their
external qualities.

445
00:19:30,829 --> 00:19:33,470
Some speculative
realist seem to regard

446
00:19:33,470 --> 00:19:36,500
such linkage as
minimal or absent,

447
00:19:36,500 --> 00:19:39,785
and I will criticize
them for that position.

448
00:19:39,785 --> 00:19:41,610
Unity.

449
00:19:41,950 --> 00:19:45,410
Entities have
intrinsic unity

450
00:19:45,410 --> 00:19:48,209
and thus are discrete.

451
00:19:48,930 --> 00:19:53,259
The loses four-fold
ontology of machines.

452
00:19:53,259 --> 00:19:56,305
And for him, every
entity is a machine.

453
00:19:56,305 --> 00:20:00,025
In that the
terminal aspect

454
00:20:00,025 --> 00:20:02,530
of an entity is twofold.

455
00:20:02,530 --> 00:20:06,520
0 is a twofold one term
of which is a unity.

456
00:20:06,520 --> 00:20:09,760
The other term of
which multiplicity,

457
00:20:09,760 --> 00:20:13,750
the internal aspect of

458
00:20:13,750 --> 00:20:16,000
an entity is
also a two-fold,

459
00:20:16,000 --> 00:20:18,699
a unity, and a
multiplicity.

460
00:20:18,699 --> 00:20:20,994
The external twofold is

461
00:20:20,994 --> 00:20:23,560
actual and relational.

462
00:20:23,560 --> 00:20:26,904
The internal two-fold for

463
00:20:26,904 --> 00:20:30,375
Deleuze is virtual
or non-relational,

464
00:20:30,375 --> 00:20:33,065
to lose calls the
internal unity.

465
00:20:33,065 --> 00:20:35,465
This is a very
expressive phrase,

466
00:20:35,465 --> 00:20:38,329
a body without organs,

467
00:20:38,329 --> 00:20:41,239
and characterizes
it as indivisible,

468
00:20:41,239 --> 00:20:42,410
non decomposable,

469
00:20:42,410 --> 00:20:45,199
unproductive, and
an ineffable.

470
00:20:45,199 --> 00:20:47,700
And I will disagree
with that.

471
00:20:48,400 --> 00:20:51,574
External entity carries,

472
00:20:51,574 --> 00:20:53,240
the external
entity carries

473
00:20:53,240 --> 00:20:55,609
the multiplicity
of qualities.

474
00:20:55,609 --> 00:20:59,209
The internal
unity separates

475
00:20:59,209 --> 00:21:01,220
this entity from
other entities

476
00:21:01,220 --> 00:21:03,635
and assures that
individuality.

477
00:21:03,635 --> 00:21:05,240
Okay, now we're gonna get

478
00:21:05,240 --> 00:21:07,040
to the systems theory.

479
00:21:07,040 --> 00:21:10,430
Many core ideas of
speculative realism have

480
00:21:10,430 --> 00:21:13,534
long been recognized
and systems ontology.

481
00:21:13,534 --> 00:21:16,430
What follows our
systems equivalents

482
00:21:16,430 --> 00:21:20,014
of core ideas of
speculative realism?

483
00:21:20,014 --> 00:21:23,120
Noting also some
differences between

484
00:21:23,120 --> 00:21:27,510
systems metaphysics and
speculative realism.

485
00:21:30,460 --> 00:21:32,555
System.

486
00:21:32,555 --> 00:21:35,995
An object is a system,
system ontology,

487
00:21:35,995 --> 00:21:38,360
centers and the
notion of systems

488
00:21:38,360 --> 00:21:41,179
which a system which
means entity or object,

489
00:21:41,179 --> 00:21:43,384
but can also mean process.

490
00:21:43,384 --> 00:21:44,899
The most common definition

491
00:21:44,899 --> 00:21:45,979
of a system has set of

492
00:21:45,979 --> 00:21:47,329
elements and a set of

493
00:21:47,329 --> 00:21:49,760
relations that
organize the elements.

494
00:21:49,760 --> 00:21:52,130
So here are the
elements are a, B,

495
00:21:52,130 --> 00:21:56,010
C relations or abbc.

496
00:21:56,590 --> 00:21:59,269
Later attributes will be

497
00:21:59,269 --> 00:22:01,220
added to elements
and relations.

498
00:22:01,220 --> 00:22:03,514
To expand this definition,

499
00:22:03,514 --> 00:22:07,789
every system is that
Janice faced duality.

500
00:22:07,789 --> 00:22:13,170
It's simultaneously
a relation like ABC.

501
00:22:13,200 --> 00:22:17,350
The relation ABC
among the elements.

502
00:22:17,350 --> 00:22:21,519
And also a, an element S.

503
00:22:21,519 --> 00:22:24,565
As a religion organized
at the system.

504
00:22:24,565 --> 00:22:25,990
Internal elements,

505
00:22:25,990 --> 00:22:28,314
which are also
sub-systems.

506
00:22:28,314 --> 00:22:33,055
That is, a, B and C
are also sub-systems.

507
00:22:33,055 --> 00:22:35,874
And element
relation dyads.

508
00:22:35,874 --> 00:22:37,795
As an element.

509
00:22:37,795 --> 00:22:40,419
S, It can be part

510
00:22:40,419 --> 00:22:42,639
of an external
super system,

511
00:22:42,639 --> 00:22:44,109
which is also
an element in

512
00:22:44,109 --> 00:22:48,790
relation dyad system
hood is mu rheological,

513
00:22:48,790 --> 00:22:50,650
that is, it's all
about holes and

514
00:22:50,650 --> 00:22:54,860
parts and is
recursive or fractal.

515
00:22:56,670 --> 00:22:59,184
Distinction.

516
00:22:59,184 --> 00:23:00,855
Different system

517
00:23:00,855 --> 00:23:03,099
theoretically is
called distinction.

518
00:23:03,099 --> 00:23:04,374
The notion of system

519
00:23:04,374 --> 00:23:07,164
encompasses two
core ideas.

520
00:23:07,164 --> 00:23:10,180
One idea is distinction
exemplified

521
00:23:10,180 --> 00:23:11,559
in the distinction

522
00:23:11,559 --> 00:23:13,360
between system
and environment.

523
00:23:13,360 --> 00:23:15,609
Distinction has the
same meaning here

524
00:23:15,609 --> 00:23:18,039
as difference
and difference.

525
00:23:18,039 --> 00:23:19,540
So difference
is fundamental

526
00:23:19,540 --> 00:23:21,535
to the systems ontology.

527
00:23:21,535 --> 00:23:22,884
The word distinction

528
00:23:22,884 --> 00:23:24,070
shouldn't be
interpreted as

529
00:23:24,070 --> 00:23:26,619
implying a human
perspective.

530
00:23:26,619 --> 00:23:28,749
In thermodynamic
ideas about

531
00:23:28,749 --> 00:23:33,145
System difference
means disequilibrium.

532
00:23:33,145 --> 00:23:35,079
The basis of the being of

533
00:23:35,079 --> 00:23:39,619
any system inheres in
its disequilibrium.

534
00:23:39,670 --> 00:23:43,745
I'm from it's,

535
00:23:43,745 --> 00:23:45,965
it's different from
its environment.

536
00:23:45,965 --> 00:23:47,869
This equilibrium
is equally

537
00:23:47,869 --> 00:23:50,509
the basis for becoming.

538
00:23:50,509 --> 00:23:52,249
Not just the
basis of being,

539
00:23:52,249 --> 00:23:55,099
but the basis for
becoming since it

540
00:23:55,099 --> 00:23:58,355
generates a drive
towards equilibrium,

541
00:23:58,355 --> 00:24:01,430
which if not blocked,
yields a process.

542
00:24:01,430 --> 00:24:03,380
That distinction
between system

543
00:24:03,380 --> 00:24:07,054
and environment
is external.

544
00:24:07,054 --> 00:24:09,800
Distinction also
implies internally

545
00:24:09,800 --> 00:24:11,479
in that elements
are distinct

546
00:24:11,479 --> 00:24:17,359
from one another as
our relations. Holism.

547
00:24:17,359 --> 00:24:22,909
Reduction is holism.

548
00:24:22,909 --> 00:24:25,685
System theory is anti
reductionist system is

549
00:24:25,685 --> 00:24:27,920
a partial hole which

550
00:24:27,920 --> 00:24:30,229
is different from the
sum of its parts.

551
00:24:30,229 --> 00:24:31,760
Holes can be anything.

552
00:24:31,760 --> 00:24:33,154
So this implies

553
00:24:33,154 --> 00:24:36,590
a ontological parody,
which I call,

554
00:24:36,590 --> 00:24:38,435
or I call it ontological

555
00:24:38,435 --> 00:24:42,575
egalitarianism, which
rejects reductionism.

556
00:24:42,575 --> 00:24:45,154
While all systems
are equally real,

557
00:24:45,154 --> 00:24:46,804
one still can distinguish

558
00:24:46,804 --> 00:24:49,430
different types.
Miller, e.g.

559
00:24:49,430 --> 00:24:52,400
devise systems into
concrete, abstracted,

560
00:24:52,400 --> 00:24:56,810
and conceptual concrete
systems of physical,

561
00:24:56,810 --> 00:24:59,660
typically the
natural sciences.

562
00:24:59,660 --> 00:25:01,429
Since the systems project

563
00:25:01,429 --> 00:25:03,214
is rooted in the sciences,

564
00:25:03,214 --> 00:25:05,359
much of systems
theory concerns

565
00:25:05,359 --> 00:25:07,100
concrete systems and

566
00:25:07,100 --> 00:25:09,259
thermodynamics
as fundamental.

567
00:25:09,259 --> 00:25:11,210
Abstracted systems are

568
00:25:11,210 --> 00:25:13,069
physically instantiated,

569
00:25:13,069 --> 00:25:14,794
but their physical aspects

570
00:25:14,794 --> 00:25:16,235
are not of interest.

571
00:25:16,235 --> 00:25:18,560
This is predominantly
the domain

572
00:25:18,560 --> 00:25:20,929
and the social
sciences, e.g.

573
00:25:20,929 --> 00:25:22,640
network theory
and game theory,

574
00:25:22,640 --> 00:25:24,590
our systems theory
that apply to

575
00:25:24,590 --> 00:25:26,915
this domain and
networks and

576
00:25:26,915 --> 00:25:28,339
agents need not be

577
00:25:28,339 --> 00:25:32,300
instantiated in any
specific material way.

578
00:25:32,300 --> 00:25:35,030
In bunkers terms
their stuff read.

579
00:25:35,030 --> 00:25:36,770
The categories
of information

580
00:25:36,770 --> 00:25:38,825
on utility are important.

581
00:25:38,825 --> 00:25:40,925
For abstracted systems.

582
00:25:40,925 --> 00:25:43,145
Neither have
physical units,

583
00:25:43,145 --> 00:25:46,219
neither inflammation or
utility or physical.

584
00:25:46,219 --> 00:25:49,205
And contract contrast
with matter and energy,

585
00:25:49,205 --> 00:25:50,855
which have physical units,

586
00:25:50,855 --> 00:25:54,319
are fundamental to
concrete systems.

587
00:25:54,319 --> 00:25:56,570
Conceptual systems are not

588
00:25:56,570 --> 00:25:59,750
materially instantiated
and include e.g.

589
00:25:59,750 --> 00:26:03,185
mathematics and
tooth fairies.

590
00:26:03,185 --> 00:26:06,499
Since only some systems
on our material

591
00:26:06,499 --> 00:26:08,179
and even material systems

592
00:26:08,179 --> 00:26:10,174
have immaterial aspects.

593
00:26:10,174 --> 00:26:12,560
Systems theory
is realistic,

594
00:26:12,560 --> 00:26:15,660
but not materialists.

595
00:26:16,780 --> 00:26:19,470
Function.

596
00:26:22,780 --> 00:26:25,670
The relations of
the system with

597
00:26:25,670 --> 00:26:28,054
external entity
defined function,

598
00:26:28,054 --> 00:26:30,740
or that's the way I
use the word function.

599
00:26:30,740 --> 00:26:32,660
The systems you partially

600
00:26:32,660 --> 00:26:35,630
supports the
externality thesis.

601
00:26:35,630 --> 00:26:37,399
The second core idea of

602
00:26:37,399 --> 00:26:39,529
the notion of
system is order.

603
00:26:39,529 --> 00:26:41,360
The system participates in

604
00:26:41,360 --> 00:26:43,940
the exterior order
of the environment.

605
00:26:43,940 --> 00:26:47,989
A system is an
element S here that

606
00:26:47,989 --> 00:26:49,850
binds or carries and

607
00:26:49,850 --> 00:26:52,984
binds its
attributes q and r,

608
00:26:52,984 --> 00:26:55,325
commonly referred to as

609
00:26:55,325 --> 00:26:56,569
attributes
through which it

610
00:26:56,569 --> 00:26:58,340
enters interrelations,

611
00:26:58,340 --> 00:27:01,505
QU and RV with

612
00:27:01,505 --> 00:27:04,354
entities in the
environment, ie.

613
00:27:04,354 --> 00:27:06,799
Collectively, these
relations are often

614
00:27:06,799 --> 00:27:09,710
referred to as the
systems function.

615
00:27:09,710 --> 00:27:13,649
No connotation of
purposes intended here.

616
00:27:13,930 --> 00:27:17,554
But relations also,

617
00:27:17,554 --> 00:27:20,585
relations I show as
dotted as dashed.

618
00:27:20,585 --> 00:27:22,924
They also specify
attributes,

619
00:27:22,924 --> 00:27:25,220
relations carried
by the system and

620
00:27:25,220 --> 00:27:29,014
by q, q and r.

621
00:27:29,014 --> 00:27:30,440
And those relations

622
00:27:30,440 --> 00:27:32,420
carried by those
attributes,

623
00:27:32,420 --> 00:27:34,820
carried by, Sorry,

624
00:27:34,820 --> 00:27:37,505
attributes carried
by the system.

625
00:27:37,505 --> 00:27:39,530
And those carried by

626
00:27:39,530 --> 00:27:41,539
the External
Relations need not

627
00:27:41,539 --> 00:27:44,360
coincide around peg may

628
00:27:44,360 --> 00:27:46,745
not fit into a
square hole.

629
00:27:46,745 --> 00:27:48,800
Here. Here I show

630
00:27:48,800 --> 00:27:54,470
an attribute of the
environment that has

631
00:27:54,470 --> 00:27:57,409
a certain that is
different from

632
00:27:57,409 --> 00:28:00,155
the attribute
of the relation

633
00:28:00,155 --> 00:28:02,029
that could exist
with a system.

634
00:28:02,029 --> 00:28:06,439
This would be a
gestalt mismatch.

635
00:28:06,439 --> 00:28:08,509
This is a major theme in

636
00:28:08,509 --> 00:28:10,340
gestalt psychology
is a field that

637
00:28:10,340 --> 00:28:12,499
has contributed
significantly

638
00:28:12,499 --> 00:28:14,730
to systems theory.

639
00:28:15,250 --> 00:28:17,449
Structure.

640
00:28:17,449 --> 00:28:22,579
The internal, internal
dimension is structure

641
00:28:22,579 --> 00:28:24,770
as what I call
structure order

642
00:28:24,770 --> 00:28:27,544
applies internally as
well as externally.

643
00:28:27,544 --> 00:28:29,675
And in fact,
internal order

644
00:28:29,675 --> 00:28:32,404
is the basis of the
definition of system

645
00:28:32,404 --> 00:28:33,859
as a set of L into

646
00:28:33,859 --> 00:28:35,269
a set of elements
and a set

647
00:28:35,269 --> 00:28:36,709
of internal relations

648
00:28:36,709 --> 00:28:38,314
that organize
the elements.

649
00:28:38,314 --> 00:28:40,250
These internal relations

650
00:28:40,250 --> 00:28:42,979
defined the
systems structure.

651
00:28:42,979 --> 00:28:46,369
A system is ordered as
opposed to disordered.

652
00:28:46,369 --> 00:28:48,979
This interior order
is thermodynamically

653
00:28:48,979 --> 00:28:51,619
you expressed by
saying that systems,

654
00:28:51,619 --> 00:28:52,939
systems normally have

655
00:28:52,939 --> 00:28:55,774
lower entropy than
their environments.

656
00:28:55,774 --> 00:29:02,524
Usually structure
is viewed

657
00:29:02,524 --> 00:29:07,924
as constitutive at
what is system is.

658
00:29:07,924 --> 00:29:11,060
While function is viewed

659
00:29:11,060 --> 00:29:13,985
as what a system does.

660
00:29:13,985 --> 00:29:15,889
But function can be viewed

661
00:29:15,889 --> 00:29:17,674
as constitutive as well.

662
00:29:17,674 --> 00:29:18,979
Structure is no less

663
00:29:18,979 --> 00:29:20,870
relational than function,

664
00:29:20,870 --> 00:29:23,659
which follows from the
fractal character of

665
00:29:23,659 --> 00:29:26,704
systems or recursive
character systems.

666
00:29:26,704 --> 00:29:27,919
This differs from

667
00:29:27,919 --> 00:29:30,410
the non relationality
that the lose

668
00:29:30,410 --> 00:29:36,269
posits for the inner
character of entities.

669
00:29:37,240 --> 00:29:40,715
So I would say loses
wrong about that.

670
00:29:40,715 --> 00:29:45,990
Unity system is a single
element relation,

671
00:29:51,610 --> 00:29:54,799
the unity of a system.

672
00:29:54,799 --> 00:29:56,419
And here's in the
fact that a set of

673
00:29:56,419 --> 00:29:58,730
relations can
be integrated

674
00:29:58,730 --> 00:30:00,665
into a single relation,

675
00:30:00,665 --> 00:30:02,104
a, b, in this case,

676
00:30:02,104 --> 00:30:07,625
AB relation,
which is Janice,

677
00:30:07,625 --> 00:30:10,610
a member of the
Janice pair.

678
00:30:10,610 --> 00:30:12,920
Element relation pair a,

679
00:30:12,920 --> 00:30:17,959
b is equivalent to
element S. Facing

680
00:30:17,959 --> 00:30:20,840
inward the system as a
unitary relation that

681
00:30:20,840 --> 00:30:23,990
organizes its
constituent elements.

682
00:30:23,990 --> 00:30:25,610
Facing outwards.

683
00:30:25,610 --> 00:30:29,329
A system is a
unitary element

684
00:30:29,329 --> 00:30:30,650
that participates in

685
00:30:30,650 --> 00:30:32,510
the exterior order of

686
00:30:32,510 --> 00:30:34,309
the environment

687
00:30:34,309 --> 00:30:36,710
through relations
with other systems.

688
00:30:36,710 --> 00:30:39,799
That's the SEE
relation here.

689
00:30:39,799 --> 00:30:41,824
These Unity's

690
00:30:41,824 --> 00:30:44,630
resemble the outer
and inner unities

691
00:30:44,630 --> 00:30:46,069
and the loses fourfold.

692
00:30:46,069 --> 00:30:47,720
So here I'm saying that I

693
00:30:47,720 --> 00:30:49,610
see a point to
that the loses

694
00:30:49,610 --> 00:30:52,250
actually saying something
that is not deeply

695
00:30:52,250 --> 00:30:54,155
different from this idea

696
00:30:54,155 --> 00:30:56,780
of a system as a unity.

697
00:30:56,780 --> 00:30:59,209
But the matter is
actually more complex

698
00:30:59,209 --> 00:31:01,550
than since the system does

699
00:31:01,550 --> 00:31:03,709
not interact with
the environment

700
00:31:03,709 --> 00:31:07,024
only via its
outer equalities,

701
00:31:07,024 --> 00:31:08,960
rather, elements within

702
00:31:08,960 --> 00:31:11,479
the system can also be

703
00:31:11,479 --> 00:31:13,744
involved via
their attributes

704
00:31:13,744 --> 00:31:17,519
in relations
with external.

705
00:31:18,310 --> 00:31:21,035
With external elements.

706
00:31:21,035 --> 00:31:23,555
System theory denies

707
00:31:23,555 --> 00:31:26,374
the hermetically
sealed inner,

708
00:31:26,374 --> 00:31:28,730
inner reality, which seems

709
00:31:28,730 --> 00:31:31,414
to be posited by dilutes.

710
00:31:31,414 --> 00:31:35,195
So here's a picture.

711
00:31:35,195 --> 00:31:38,210
Here you have an
element women system

712
00:31:38,210 --> 00:31:39,410
that interacts with

713
00:31:39,410 --> 00:31:41,119
an element within
the environment.

714
00:31:41,119 --> 00:31:43,235
It's not that the
system interacts

715
00:31:43,235 --> 00:31:45,934
only as a unity with
the environment.

716
00:31:45,934 --> 00:31:48,530
Also, its interior
components

717
00:31:48,530 --> 00:31:50,435
interact with

718
00:31:50,435 --> 00:31:53,405
the components of
the environment.

719
00:31:53,405 --> 00:31:55,339
While structure is

720
00:31:55,339 --> 00:31:58,760
usually partially
concealed inner function,

721
00:31:58,760 --> 00:32:00,830
which is something
that is speculative,

722
00:32:00,830 --> 00:32:03,665
realists like to assert.

723
00:32:03,665 --> 00:32:06,889
Nothing is absolutely
in permanently

724
00:32:06,889 --> 00:32:10,359
immune to
environmental access.

725
00:32:10,359 --> 00:32:12,540
Content is wrong.

726
00:32:12,540 --> 00:32:15,000
There is no Neumann
ion that is

727
00:32:15,000 --> 00:32:16,199
permanently,

728
00:32:16,199 --> 00:32:19,860
completely, forever
inaccessible.

729
00:32:19,860 --> 00:32:22,424
Client Heron
Branco writes,

730
00:32:22,424 --> 00:32:25,499
Bryan holds that no
entity ever directly

731
00:32:25,499 --> 00:32:29,190
encounters the interior
of another being.

732
00:32:29,190 --> 00:32:30,990
From a systems
perspective,

733
00:32:30,990 --> 00:32:32,880
this is an exaggeration.

734
00:32:32,880 --> 00:32:36,045
It's often true
or mostly true,

735
00:32:36,045 --> 00:32:37,785
but it's not always true.

736
00:32:37,785 --> 00:32:39,599
X-rays, e.g.

737
00:32:39,599 --> 00:32:43,230
encounter the inner
structure of bodies.

738
00:32:43,230 --> 00:32:46,380
The internal unity of

739
00:32:46,380 --> 00:32:49,994
a system can be expressed
mathematically.

740
00:32:49,994 --> 00:32:53,660
If the single
relation representing

741
00:32:53,660 --> 00:32:55,280
the entire
system cannot be

742
00:32:55,280 --> 00:32:57,304
fully decomposed
without loss,

743
00:32:57,304 --> 00:32:58,789
then the system
has at least

744
00:32:58,789 --> 00:33:01,234
some non
decomposable unity.

745
00:33:01,234 --> 00:33:03,499
Some aspect of the
system involves

746
00:33:03,499 --> 00:33:05,539
a relation of all
of its parts.

747
00:33:05,539 --> 00:33:07,010
And this aspect

748
00:33:07,010 --> 00:33:09,019
might metaphorically
be spoken

749
00:33:09,019 --> 00:33:11,435
of in the loses terms

750
00:33:11,435 --> 00:33:13,505
as a body without organs.

751
00:33:13,505 --> 00:33:17,614
But if internal unity
is defined in this way,

752
00:33:17,614 --> 00:33:20,449
the loses characterization
of this unity

753
00:33:20,449 --> 00:33:23,195
as unproductive
ignores the fact that

754
00:33:23,195 --> 00:33:26,150
it is from this
internal unity

755
00:33:26,150 --> 00:33:27,920
that the external
qualities

756
00:33:27,920 --> 00:33:29,719
of the system emerge.

757
00:33:29,719 --> 00:33:32,495
And there's nothing
inevitable about

758
00:33:32,495 --> 00:33:36,380
a non decomposable
relation about ABC or

759
00:33:36,380 --> 00:33:42,560
these bromine rings
such that one can

760
00:33:42,560 --> 00:33:45,379
define a non
decomposed relation

761
00:33:45,379 --> 00:33:47,509
mathematically precisely

762
00:33:47,509 --> 00:33:49,655
nothing ineffable
about it.

763
00:33:49,655 --> 00:33:52,190
This said, most
systems are in

764
00:33:52,190 --> 00:33:56,224
fact partially decomposable
and Simon argued.

765
00:33:56,224 --> 00:33:58,339
So decomposition does not

766
00:33:58,339 --> 00:34:01,580
eliminate all order
in the system.

767
00:34:01,580 --> 00:34:05,850
Summary. And we'll have
time for discussion.

768
00:34:06,310 --> 00:34:10,160
Many tenants of
speculative realism have

769
00:34:10,160 --> 00:34:13,459
long been asserted
by systems theory.

770
00:34:13,459 --> 00:34:17,390
The School of speculative
realism would gain

771
00:34:17,390 --> 00:34:18,905
significantly from

772
00:34:18,905 --> 00:34:21,380
familiarity with the
systems literature.

773
00:34:21,380 --> 00:34:22,520
And I should mention that

774
00:34:22,520 --> 00:34:23,870
one of the authors in

775
00:34:23,870 --> 00:34:26,450
the first book that I

776
00:34:26,450 --> 00:34:29,765
mentioned name De Landa,

777
00:34:29,765 --> 00:34:32,480
is apparently quite
familiar with

778
00:34:32,480 --> 00:34:33,889
systems literature and in

779
00:34:33,889 --> 00:34:35,900
fact wrote a
book on complex,

780
00:34:35,900 --> 00:34:38,404
complex systems
that Rajesh

781
00:34:38,404 --> 00:34:41,089
is planning to use
in his course on

782
00:34:41,089 --> 00:34:43,745
systems theory so that
speculative realists

783
00:34:43,745 --> 00:34:46,775
are not totally
ignorant of systems.

784
00:34:46,775 --> 00:34:49,534
The systems tradition,
at least one of them,

785
00:34:49,534 --> 00:34:51,274
quite familiar with it.

786
00:34:51,274 --> 00:34:53,030
The philosophical work of

787
00:34:53,030 --> 00:34:54,259
Mario bongo would be

788
00:34:54,259 --> 00:34:55,460
a good starting point for

789
00:34:55,460 --> 00:34:57,649
them to understand what

790
00:34:57,649 --> 00:35:00,050
the systems
orientation is.

791
00:35:00,050 --> 00:35:01,760
This is not to say that

792
00:35:01,760 --> 00:35:04,534
systems metaphysics
agrees with everything

793
00:35:04,534 --> 00:35:09,484
asserted by all
speculative realist.

794
00:35:09,484 --> 00:35:12,094
It doesn't, as
I pointed out.

795
00:35:12,094 --> 00:35:13,969
But the focus of
this paper has been

796
00:35:13,969 --> 00:35:17,240
mainly to point to
areas of agreement.

797
00:35:17,240 --> 00:35:18,679
This is also not to

798
00:35:18,679 --> 00:35:20,270
say that system
theory is nothing

799
00:35:20,270 --> 00:35:23,085
to gain by familiarity
with the literature.

800
00:35:23,085 --> 00:35:24,575
Speculative realism.

801
00:35:24,575 --> 00:35:26,270
I think it's always of

802
00:35:26,270 --> 00:35:27,949
interest to look at what

803
00:35:27,949 --> 00:35:30,559
philosophers have to say

804
00:35:30,559 --> 00:35:32,179
when they're somewhat

805
00:35:32,179 --> 00:35:33,740
scientifically oriented.

806
00:35:33,740 --> 00:35:35,479
Finally, commonalities

807
00:35:35,479 --> 00:35:37,385
between systems
metaphysics

808
00:35:37,385 --> 00:35:40,609
and speculative
realism illustrates

809
00:35:40,609 --> 00:35:43,850
clearly that the
systems project is

810
00:35:43,850 --> 00:35:48,064
engaged in constructing
an ontology.

811
00:35:48,064 --> 00:35:50,210
Or if you will,
and epistemology.

812
00:35:50,210 --> 00:35:52,999
But I would stress
ontology that

813
00:35:52,999 --> 00:35:54,170
connects not only to

814
00:35:54,170 --> 00:35:56,390
mathematics and
scientific theories,

815
00:35:56,390 --> 00:35:58,684
but also to metaphysics.

816
00:35:58,684 --> 00:36:00,470
And most recently to

817
00:36:00,470 --> 00:36:03,725
this new
continental school.

818
00:36:03,725 --> 00:36:08,539
I want to thank dongle for

819
00:36:08,539 --> 00:36:10,099
introducing me
to continental

820
00:36:10,099 --> 00:36:11,179
philosophy and teaching

821
00:36:11,179 --> 00:36:13,880
me much of the little
that I know about it,

822
00:36:13,880 --> 00:36:15,889
but he's not
responsible for

823
00:36:15,889 --> 00:36:19,129
the errors that I continue
to make about it.

824
00:36:19,129 --> 00:36:22,475
And also some other
people I want to thank

825
00:36:22,475 --> 00:36:25,414
Jon Hamm and see
Joel and Kirk Wolf

826
00:36:25,414 --> 00:36:27,755
and also know
what laid him,

827
00:36:27,755 --> 00:36:30,139
who offered comments for

828
00:36:30,139 --> 00:36:31,400
the Northwest

829
00:36:31,400 --> 00:36:33,365
Philosophy Conference
on my paper,

830
00:36:33,365 --> 00:36:34,879
but never got a chance.

831
00:36:34,879 --> 00:36:37,340
I got a chance to
deliver these comments.

832
00:36:37,340 --> 00:36:41,210
So then there are
some references.

833
00:36:41,210 --> 00:36:44,374
Thank you. And you can,

834
00:36:44,374 --> 00:36:45,739
if you want to look at

835
00:36:45,739 --> 00:36:49,100
my papers on systems
theory and philosophy.

836
00:36:49,100 --> 00:36:55,790
You can go to My Selected
Works page and you,

837
00:36:55,790 --> 00:36:56,990
on a pull-down menu,

838
00:36:56,990 --> 00:36:58,880
you jumped to the category

839
00:36:58,880 --> 00:37:00,559
system theory
and philosophy.

840
00:37:00,559 --> 00:37:01,924
Some of the papers there

841
00:37:01,924 --> 00:37:03,859
are more theory
oriented and

842
00:37:03,859 --> 00:37:06,230
some of them are
more philosoph

843
00:37:06,230 --> 00:37:08,075
philosophically oriented.

844
00:37:08,075 --> 00:37:10,579
Okay, So I am finished

845
00:37:10,579 --> 00:37:14,960
with good time
for discussion,

846
00:37:14,960 --> 00:37:17,119
which I'm happy
to say, no,

847
00:37:17,119 --> 00:37:19,789
when should I
stop share or

848
00:37:19,789 --> 00:37:21,650
I think just
to what do you

849
00:37:21,650 --> 00:37:23,555
think? When you're muted?

850
00:37:23,555 --> 00:37:26,329
Let's first see if there
are questions about

851
00:37:26,329 --> 00:37:27,709
anything at that slide

852
00:37:27,709 --> 00:37:29,255
might help with
the question.

853
00:37:29,255 --> 00:37:30,780
Okay.

854
00:37:31,750 --> 00:37:34,714
So Nick has just
said in the chat

855
00:37:34,714 --> 00:37:36,799
is slide 15 and
attempt to add

856
00:37:36,799 --> 00:37:39,679
time function dynamics to

857
00:37:39,679 --> 00:37:42,335
the model on the
previous page.

858
00:37:42,335 --> 00:37:45,680
The previous which page?

859
00:37:45,680 --> 00:37:55,339
15.14. 015.14. 15.14.

860
00:37:55,339 --> 00:37:59,519
Well, at time, I
haven't added time.

861
00:37:59,560 --> 00:38:04,909
In fact, this was a
time limited talk.

862
00:38:04,909 --> 00:38:08,600
So my view of,
well actually,

863
00:38:08,600 --> 00:38:10,910
my view of systems

864
00:38:10,910 --> 00:38:14,419
ontology is triadic
and not dyadic.

865
00:38:14,419 --> 00:38:15,935
It's not structural
function,

866
00:38:15,935 --> 00:38:17,840
is actually
structure function

867
00:38:17,840 --> 00:38:19,955
and his history where,

868
00:38:19,955 --> 00:38:23,539
where in history
time is qualitative,

869
00:38:23,539 --> 00:38:25,730
there's qualitative
change over time

870
00:38:25,730 --> 00:38:28,385
and typically
irreversible change.

871
00:38:28,385 --> 00:38:30,109
So I haven't managed to

872
00:38:30,109 --> 00:38:31,940
include this in
this presentation,

873
00:38:31,940 --> 00:38:34,790
but certainly
a systems view

874
00:38:34,790 --> 00:38:36,499
would involve time.

875
00:38:36,499 --> 00:38:38,764
And in fact, a
system could be

876
00:38:38,764 --> 00:38:40,640
interpreted as a process

877
00:38:40,640 --> 00:38:43,549
which is defined
over time.

878
00:38:43,549 --> 00:38:47,404
So time is certainly
very relevant.

879
00:38:47,404 --> 00:38:48,530
Yeah, absolutely, but I

880
00:38:48,530 --> 00:38:50,240
just haven't included it

881
00:38:50,240 --> 00:38:53,585
explicitly in either
of these slides,

882
00:38:53,585 --> 00:38:57,065
but I would include time.

883
00:38:57,065 --> 00:38:58,935
That is, I don't consider

884
00:38:58,935 --> 00:39:00,829
structure and
function static.

885
00:39:00,829 --> 00:39:03,049
I consider them dynamic.

886
00:39:03,049 --> 00:39:05,524
What I mean by history is,

887
00:39:05,524 --> 00:39:07,835
are things that happen
in time that are

888
00:39:07,835 --> 00:39:09,485
qualitatively

889
00:39:09,485 --> 00:39:11,854
with there's
qualitative change.

890
00:39:11,854 --> 00:39:13,729
So let's say if you have

891
00:39:13,729 --> 00:39:16,580
a simple oscillator
in physics,

892
00:39:16,580 --> 00:39:18,559
a pendulum that's

893
00:39:18,559 --> 00:39:23,089
moving Regularly
back-and-forth.

894
00:39:23,089 --> 00:39:25,670
There's time,
there's dynamics,

895
00:39:25,670 --> 00:39:26,929
but there's no qualitative

896
00:39:26,929 --> 00:39:28,415
change unless there's,

897
00:39:28,415 --> 00:39:30,470
unless there's
resistance and

898
00:39:30,470 --> 00:39:32,060
the pendulum slows down.

899
00:39:32,060 --> 00:39:35,059
So I would include time
within structure and

900
00:39:35,059 --> 00:39:38,585
function if it's
basically reversible.

901
00:39:38,585 --> 00:39:40,849
But time when it involves

902
00:39:40,849 --> 00:39:44,720
qualitative change,
typically irreversible.

903
00:39:44,720 --> 00:39:47,330
I would call that history.

904
00:39:47,330 --> 00:39:50,644
So yeah, so time,

905
00:39:50,644 --> 00:39:52,309
I haven't talked much

906
00:39:52,309 --> 00:39:54,840
about time and the slides.

907
00:39:55,300 --> 00:39:57,725
Are there any
other questions

908
00:39:57,725 --> 00:39:58,669
for the slides will be

909
00:39:58,669 --> 00:39:59,930
helpful before
we just go to

910
00:39:59,930 --> 00:40:02,489
gallery so we can
all see each other.

911
00:40:04,590 --> 00:40:07,884
There's a question
from Percy.

912
00:40:07,884 --> 00:40:08,919
Are there

913
00:40:08,919 --> 00:40:10,570
any new mathematical
approaches that we

914
00:40:10,570 --> 00:40:12,489
could use to capture
these prayers?

915
00:40:12,489 --> 00:40:14,350
I didn't get
her. Oh, okay.

916
00:40:14,350 --> 00:40:15,879
This is a
question in chat.

917
00:40:15,879 --> 00:40:16,584
Yeah.

918
00:40:16,584 --> 00:40:17,860
Are there any new

919
00:40:17,860 --> 00:40:19,509
mathematical
approaches that

920
00:40:19,509 --> 00:40:22,330
could go ahead and

921
00:40:22,330 --> 00:40:24,310
take a mic if
you have one.

922
00:40:24,310 --> 00:40:26,589
Yeah, I'm thinking
about the relations,

923
00:40:26,589 --> 00:40:28,330
the attributes of objects

924
00:40:28,330 --> 00:40:29,770
and the relations
of these objects.

925
00:40:29,770 --> 00:40:30,429
And I'm just thinking

926
00:40:30,429 --> 00:40:31,600
about the limitations of

927
00:40:31,600 --> 00:40:34,629
our mathematical tools
and just wondering

928
00:40:34,629 --> 00:40:36,070
if there's anything
I'm missing out

929
00:40:36,070 --> 00:40:38,749
on that would be useful.

930
00:40:40,080 --> 00:40:42,819
Well, what limitations and

931
00:40:42,819 --> 00:40:45,779
mathematical tools
are you thinking of?

932
00:40:45,779 --> 00:40:49,204
I, I'm just thinking
that most of our,

933
00:40:49,204 --> 00:40:50,705
most of our equations for,

934
00:40:50,705 --> 00:40:52,249
for modeling things are so

935
00:40:52,249 --> 00:40:54,155
simple that they
don't capture

936
00:40:54,155 --> 00:40:56,749
a lot of the complexity

937
00:40:56,749 --> 00:40:57,874
that we're talking
about here.

938
00:40:57,874 --> 00:41:00,949
Alright? You
know, one of the,

939
00:41:00,949 --> 00:41:04,175
I get pushback when I,

940
00:41:04,175 --> 00:41:05,585
when I argue for

941
00:41:05,585 --> 00:41:09,770
an exact metaphysics
that isn't metaphysics,

942
00:41:09,770 --> 00:41:10,819
that's mathematical

943
00:41:10,819 --> 00:41:12,499
because there's
a good bit of

944
00:41:12,499 --> 00:41:15,455
systems theory that's
not mathematical.

945
00:41:15,455 --> 00:41:17,030
And there are people
who say, well,

946
00:41:17,030 --> 00:41:18,395
there's some
things that you

947
00:41:18,395 --> 00:41:20,735
can't express
mathematically.

948
00:41:20,735 --> 00:41:22,100
And you're pointing
out that there's

949
00:41:22,100 --> 00:41:24,889
some things that
maybe right now,

950
00:41:24,889 --> 00:41:26,464
we're not that good at

951
00:41:26,464 --> 00:41:27,935
expressing mathematically.

952
00:41:27,935 --> 00:41:33,349
But I would say there's

953
00:41:33,349 --> 00:41:36,559
nothing that
intrinsically forever

954
00:41:36,559 --> 00:41:37,759
will never be able

955
00:41:37,759 --> 00:41:39,499
to be expressed
mathematically.

956
00:41:39,499 --> 00:41:41,150
That is, mathematics is

957
00:41:41,150 --> 00:41:44,059
continuing to develop new,

958
00:41:44,059 --> 00:41:47,119
new theories,
new formalisms.

959
00:41:47,119 --> 00:41:50,420
So in fact, if you
look in the past,

960
00:41:50,420 --> 00:41:54,860
there was a time when
you couldn't talk about

961
00:41:54,860 --> 00:41:57,019
the geometry of clouds

962
00:41:57,019 --> 00:41:59,765
and mountains and rivers,

963
00:41:59,765 --> 00:42:01,309
that well, you couldn't do

964
00:42:01,309 --> 00:42:03,020
it with Euclidean
geometry.

965
00:42:03,020 --> 00:42:05,360
Well now we have
fractal geometry.

966
00:42:05,360 --> 00:42:06,800
Well, all of a sudden,

967
00:42:06,800 --> 00:42:08,420
you can now talk about

968
00:42:08,420 --> 00:42:10,865
irregular shapes and very

969
00:42:10,865 --> 00:42:12,020
Precise ways.

970
00:42:12,020 --> 00:42:14,600
So a whole lot of things
that are opened up

971
00:42:14,600 --> 00:42:18,140
by, by fractal geometry.

972
00:42:18,140 --> 00:42:22,414
Another example
is an example

973
00:42:22,414 --> 00:42:24,995
of non exact metaphysics

974
00:42:24,995 --> 00:42:31,370
is Hegel and Hagel's
dialectics and in fact,

975
00:42:31,370 --> 00:42:34,130
handle even was
a forerunner

976
00:42:34,130 --> 00:42:35,525
to fuzzy set theory.

977
00:42:35,525 --> 00:42:38,089
Hegel even wrote about.

978
00:42:38,089 --> 00:42:40,580
At what point do you

979
00:42:40,580 --> 00:42:42,405
say that a person is born?

980
00:42:42,405 --> 00:42:44,675
How many hairs would be

981
00:42:44,675 --> 00:42:48,619
required to qualify a
person as being bald?

982
00:42:48,619 --> 00:42:51,109
And clearly, you
can't define

983
00:42:51,109 --> 00:42:55,609
it's not 27,561 hairs.

984
00:42:55,609 --> 00:42:59,059
And so we couldn't talk

985
00:42:59,059 --> 00:43:05,915
about that in
precision of language.

986
00:43:05,915 --> 00:43:08,359
But now we can with
fuzzy set theory,

987
00:43:08,359 --> 00:43:10,069
he couldn't talk about

988
00:43:10,069 --> 00:43:12,199
Hegel's dialectical
principles.

989
00:43:12,199 --> 00:43:13,939
They're trans,
transition of

990
00:43:13,939 --> 00:43:15,680
quantity and the quality,

991
00:43:15,680 --> 00:43:18,290
the unitary and
struggle of opposites,

992
00:43:18,290 --> 00:43:20,750
the negation of
the negation,

993
00:43:20,750 --> 00:43:24,365
all these Galea and
ideas, dialectical ideas.

994
00:43:24,365 --> 00:43:27,334
Now Catastrophe
theory does

995
00:43:27,334 --> 00:43:30,260
pretty well at capturing
some of these ideas.

996
00:43:30,260 --> 00:43:31,819
Not all of them,
but some of them.

997
00:43:31,819 --> 00:43:35,255
So I would say that

998
00:43:35,255 --> 00:43:38,389
math continues
to develop new,

999
00:43:38,389 --> 00:43:40,444
new formalisms.

1000
00:43:40,444 --> 00:43:43,250
And sure it's true
that a lot of,

1001
00:43:43,250 --> 00:43:44,630
a lot of things can be

1002
00:43:44,630 --> 00:43:46,159
expressed
mathematically now,

1003
00:43:46,159 --> 00:43:47,810
but that's not to say
that they won't be

1004
00:43:47,810 --> 00:43:49,984
able to be expressed
at some point,

1005
00:43:49,984 --> 00:43:52,985
but I wouldn't
say that it's an,

1006
00:43:52,985 --> 00:43:55,580
it's a requirement
for something

1007
00:43:55,580 --> 00:43:58,099
to be systems theoretic

1008
00:43:58,099 --> 00:43:59,735
that it'd be mathematical.

1009
00:43:59,735 --> 00:44:01,399
In the social sciences,

1010
00:44:01,399 --> 00:44:02,885
there's a lot of

1011
00:44:02,885 --> 00:44:06,589
systems work that
is purely verbal.

1012
00:44:06,589 --> 00:44:09,469
Like the work of
Nicholas Loman is major,

1013
00:44:09,469 --> 00:44:11,479
is a major
systems thinker.

1014
00:44:11,479 --> 00:44:13,805
Before him,
Talcott Parsons

1015
00:44:13,805 --> 00:44:16,205
and Nicholas Loman.

1016
00:44:16,205 --> 00:44:19,834
Um, you know, all of his,

1017
00:44:19,834 --> 00:44:22,444
he draws on autopoiesis.

1018
00:44:22,444 --> 00:44:24,980
He draws on George
Spencer Brown's,

1019
00:44:24,980 --> 00:44:27,004
the logic of distinction.

1020
00:44:27,004 --> 00:44:28,879
He draws on
systems theories,

1021
00:44:28,879 --> 00:44:31,880
but what he writes
is all verbal.

1022
00:44:31,880 --> 00:44:36,649
So I think it's, I agree.

1023
00:44:36,649 --> 00:44:39,634
There's, there's lots
more to be done.

1024
00:44:39,634 --> 00:44:40,790
A lot of ideas are

1025
00:44:40,790 --> 00:44:43,354
hard to express
mathematically,

1026
00:44:43,354 --> 00:44:46,579
and it shouldn't
be necessary to

1027
00:44:46,579 --> 00:44:48,079
express them
mathematically to

1028
00:44:48,079 --> 00:44:50,585
be considered
system theory.

1029
00:44:50,585 --> 00:44:52,790
But still,

1030
00:44:52,790 --> 00:44:55,729
the, the ultimate goal

1031
00:44:55,729 --> 00:44:57,710
is to express as
many ideas as

1032
00:44:57,710 --> 00:45:01,550
possible mathematically
with the caveat

1033
00:45:01,550 --> 00:45:03,199
that whenever you express

1034
00:45:03,199 --> 00:45:04,819
ideas mathematically,

1035
00:45:04,819 --> 00:45:06,635
you gain in precision,

1036
00:45:06,635 --> 00:45:08,525
you give up in generality.

1037
00:45:08,525 --> 00:45:11,254
So you always pay a price.

1038
00:45:11,254 --> 00:45:13,039
To be mathematical.

1039
00:45:13,039 --> 00:45:15,680
That is, you lose
the flexibility,

1040
00:45:15,680 --> 00:45:17,059
the ambiguity,

1041
00:45:17,059 --> 00:45:20,075
or the associations
of natural language.

1042
00:45:20,075 --> 00:45:23,510
So it's not a total gain.

1043
00:45:23,510 --> 00:45:25,429
You give up something
when you're,

1044
00:45:25,429 --> 00:45:27,845
when you make things
mathematical.

1045
00:45:27,845 --> 00:45:30,349
Uh, Nick pointed
out in the chat

1046
00:45:30,349 --> 00:45:32,854
that the same thing
is true of language.

1047
00:45:32,854 --> 00:45:35,164
Language is also
limited, right?

1048
00:45:35,164 --> 00:45:35,630
Right.

1049
00:45:35,630 --> 00:45:36,829
So you want both.

1050
00:45:36,829 --> 00:45:39,439
You want, you want
to be able to

1051
00:45:39,439 --> 00:45:42,125
express things in
natural language.

1052
00:45:42,125 --> 00:45:44,029
With natural language has

1053
00:45:44,029 --> 00:45:47,765
this richness of
associations for us.

1054
00:45:47,765 --> 00:45:50,945
And the ambiguity
is a virtue.

1055
00:45:50,945 --> 00:45:54,110
It's a, it's a
feature, not a bug.

1056
00:45:54,110 --> 00:45:56,780
So you want to be

1057
00:45:56,780 --> 00:45:59,029
able to express systems
ideas verbally,

1058
00:45:59,029 --> 00:46:00,199
but you also
want to be able

1059
00:46:00,199 --> 00:46:01,850
to express them
mathematically.

1060
00:46:01,850 --> 00:46:03,980
You want both,
you don't want,

1061
00:46:03,980 --> 00:46:06,785
you don't want
one or the other.

1062
00:46:06,785 --> 00:46:09,710
If you include visually as

1063
00:46:09,710 --> 00:46:11,270
a different language or

1064
00:46:11,270 --> 00:46:13,700
is we're just
visually fit in.

1065
00:46:13,700 --> 00:46:16,430
I was like, I
can't, you know,

1066
00:46:16,430 --> 00:46:18,769
it's actually I had

1067
00:46:18,769 --> 00:46:21,229
a struggle to accept
the idea that I,

1068
00:46:21,229 --> 00:46:23,435
that I, that it's
okay to read a paper.

1069
00:46:23,435 --> 00:46:26,404
Normally I can talk
without a whiteboard.

1070
00:46:26,404 --> 00:46:28,609
And I think, I think

1071
00:46:28,609 --> 00:46:30,439
visual expressions

1072
00:46:30,439 --> 00:46:32,570
are really
interesting and they,

1073
00:46:32,570 --> 00:46:35,239
they kinda mediate between

1074
00:46:35,239 --> 00:46:38,779
words and math, maybe.

1075
00:46:38,779 --> 00:46:42,005
And I've written
a few papers,

1076
00:46:42,005 --> 00:46:44,360
philosophical
papers that begin

1077
00:46:44,360 --> 00:46:49,025
with words and
diagrams about x.

1078
00:46:49,025 --> 00:46:51,379
Where I talked about

1079
00:46:51,379 --> 00:46:53,419
some subject using
diagrams and

1080
00:46:53,419 --> 00:46:55,384
words and I think

1081
00:46:55,384 --> 00:46:57,920
they complement
one another,

1082
00:46:57,920 --> 00:46:59,795
just like words and math,

1083
00:46:59,795 --> 00:47:03,109
compliment diagrams
are really useful.

1084
00:47:03,109 --> 00:47:04,204
Right?

1085
00:47:04,204 --> 00:47:05,209
Why don't you go ahead

1086
00:47:05,209 --> 00:47:06,350
and close the
presentation.

1087
00:47:06,350 --> 00:47:07,369
We can always reopen

1088
00:47:07,369 --> 00:47:08,449
it and then we'll
be able to see

1089
00:47:08,449 --> 00:47:10,969
the gallery of who
all share and people

1090
00:47:10,969 --> 00:47:13,804
can ask questions,
Okay, Great.

1091
00:47:13,804 --> 00:47:14,269
Are there

1092
00:47:14,269 --> 00:47:17,100
questions farming
in people's minds?

1093
00:47:18,160 --> 00:47:20,389
Gone, Go ahead.

1094
00:47:20,389 --> 00:47:22,909
Well, I'm raising my hand

1095
00:47:22,909 --> 00:47:24,140
first because
I have a 02:00

1096
00:47:24,140 --> 00:47:25,040
appointment and this is

1097
00:47:25,040 --> 00:47:26,479
such an interesting paper

1098
00:47:26,479 --> 00:47:27,589
and I wish I could stay

1099
00:47:27,589 --> 00:47:29,359
for the entire discussion,

1100
00:47:29,359 --> 00:47:30,919
but I'm afraid of me go on

1101
00:47:30,919 --> 00:47:32,824
beyond when I
have to leave.

1102
00:47:32,824 --> 00:47:34,550
So forgive me.

1103
00:47:34,550 --> 00:47:36,559
I'm going to
start off first.

1104
00:47:36,559 --> 00:47:37,610
I'd like to say
a bit about my

1105
00:47:37,610 --> 00:47:38,720
background because I'm not

1106
00:47:38,720 --> 00:47:40,489
a scientist and I don't

1107
00:47:40,489 --> 00:47:42,965
have an advanced
degree in philosophy.

1108
00:47:42,965 --> 00:47:44,570
The other hand,
I've had I have

1109
00:47:44,570 --> 00:47:46,549
a pretty strong background

1110
00:47:46,549 --> 00:47:49,745
in the areas related
to this talk.

1111
00:47:49,745 --> 00:47:51,710
I studied with Marcuse,

1112
00:47:51,710 --> 00:47:52,730
I study withdrawn from

1113
00:47:52,730 --> 00:47:54,830
Soviet history
with Roland Barth.

1114
00:47:54,830 --> 00:47:57,665
I studied with
Louis morale

1115
00:47:57,665 --> 00:47:58,999
and I was a colleague

1116
00:47:58,999 --> 00:48:00,739
who's younger and younger.

1117
00:48:00,739 --> 00:48:02,615
See I'm shield is her toe.

1118
00:48:02,615 --> 00:48:04,450
I studied with
Fred Jamison,

1119
00:48:04,450 --> 00:48:07,820
I studied with Anthony
Wilson and I think is

1120
00:48:07,820 --> 00:48:09,680
particularly
important in relation

1121
00:48:09,680 --> 00:48:11,735
to this particular talk.

1122
00:48:11,735 --> 00:48:13,339
And by the way,

1123
00:48:13,339 --> 00:48:15,109
Martin, I'm also a
friend of Crook Wolfs.

1124
00:48:15,109 --> 00:48:17,375
I actually meet with
Kirk Oh, great.

1125
00:48:17,375 --> 00:48:21,125
Weekly or every
other week group.

1126
00:48:21,125 --> 00:48:24,619
That said, with
my background,

1127
00:48:24,619 --> 00:48:27,604
which was originally
in literary studies,

1128
00:48:27,604 --> 00:48:32,900
I find myself constantly
at odds in talking

1129
00:48:32,900 --> 00:48:35,314
with people who are

1130
00:48:35,314 --> 00:48:37,609
in the analytic
philosophy tradition.

1131
00:48:37,609 --> 00:48:38,629
And it relates to some of

1132
00:48:38,629 --> 00:48:40,625
the things that
you're talking about.

1133
00:48:40,625 --> 00:48:42,740
I think, by the way,

1134
00:48:42,740 --> 00:48:44,719
I think propositional
logic is as much of

1135
00:48:44,719 --> 00:48:47,374
a problem is as much as

1136
00:48:47,374 --> 00:48:50,839
the limiting
factor as what was

1137
00:48:50,839 --> 00:48:53,090
just said about
some aspects

1138
00:48:53,090 --> 00:48:55,159
of mathematics
and language.

1139
00:48:55,159 --> 00:48:57,679
I think semantic
representational ism

1140
00:48:57,679 --> 00:48:59,585
is another area

1141
00:48:59,585 --> 00:49:01,460
where I think there's
a limited conception

1142
00:49:01,460 --> 00:49:04,415
of how language functions.

1143
00:49:04,415 --> 00:49:06,019
If there's any possibility

1144
00:49:06,019 --> 00:49:06,799
of meeting with you,

1145
00:49:06,799 --> 00:49:08,344
any of you in the future,

1146
00:49:08,344 --> 00:49:09,709
I would really
be interested

1147
00:49:09,709 --> 00:49:11,749
in getting to know

1148
00:49:11,749 --> 00:49:15,709
some of you and talking
about some of these.

1149
00:49:15,709 --> 00:49:17,979
I'm sorry, I'm
trying to drop some,

1150
00:49:17,979 --> 00:49:19,430
some, some areas here.

1151
00:49:19,430 --> 00:49:20,660
I think two areas,

1152
00:49:20,660 --> 00:49:22,069
particularly from
the continental

1153
00:49:22,069 --> 00:49:23,570
traditional
introduce tradition

1154
00:49:23,570 --> 00:49:26,630
and particularly as

1155
00:49:26,630 --> 00:49:29,345
regards your
reference to Hegel

1156
00:49:29,345 --> 00:49:34,280
are problematic aspect
the epistemology,

1157
00:49:34,280 --> 00:49:36,335
epistemologically
and therefore on,

1158
00:49:36,335 --> 00:49:38,990
ontologically in
our thinking,

1159
00:49:38,990 --> 00:49:41,059
are the law of
non-contradiction is

1160
00:49:41,059 --> 00:49:45,230
a fundamental aspect of
propositional logic.

1161
00:49:45,230 --> 00:49:49,789
And either the
disregard or the,

1162
00:49:49,789 --> 00:49:52,489
or the misunderstanding of

1163
00:49:52,489 --> 00:49:54,785
the concept of totality.

1164
00:49:54,785 --> 00:49:57,859
In Hegel, which doesn't
necessarily mean

1165
00:49:57,859 --> 00:49:59,149
having to accept
the Hegel's

1166
00:49:59,149 --> 00:50:00,874
notion of the absolute.

1167
00:50:00,874 --> 00:50:03,635
I think general systems
theory or what?

1168
00:50:03,635 --> 00:50:05,630
I read some of
the Australian.

1169
00:50:05,630 --> 00:50:06,049
So you used

1170
00:50:06,049 --> 00:50:08,885
the phrase dynamic
systems theory.

1171
00:50:08,885 --> 00:50:11,090
And you mentioned the

1172
00:50:11,090 --> 00:50:13,895
dynamic rather than
static aspect of it.

1173
00:50:13,895 --> 00:50:16,175
For me, that's
very important.

1174
00:50:16,175 --> 00:50:18,080
I think there
is a connection

1175
00:50:18,080 --> 00:50:19,939
between that and the
Marxist tradition.

1176
00:50:19,939 --> 00:50:21,649
If you take the
Marxist tradition to

1177
00:50:21,649 --> 00:50:25,504
be involved with
systemic thinking,

1178
00:50:25,504 --> 00:50:27,079
which I think it is, yeah,

1179
00:50:27,079 --> 00:50:29,524
relation to the
relational thinking

1180
00:50:29,524 --> 00:50:31,804
and not with Entity,

1181
00:50:31,804 --> 00:50:36,709
Entity energy type of
thinking exclusively.

1182
00:50:36,709 --> 00:50:38,750
All of that is
an aspect of

1183
00:50:38,750 --> 00:50:40,759
what I learned
from Tony Wieland.

1184
00:50:40,759 --> 00:50:42,170
I think his book,

1185
00:50:42,170 --> 00:50:43,249
which was
published first in

1186
00:50:43,249 --> 00:50:45,499
1970 and revise the 1980s,

1187
00:50:45,499 --> 00:50:46,700
hardly known, which is

1188
00:50:46,700 --> 00:50:51,635
really phenomenal
burden, Anthony.

1189
00:50:51,635 --> 00:50:53,750
Anthony well-done. Yeah.

1190
00:50:53,750 --> 00:50:57,259
That book for me
was formative.

1191
00:50:57,259 --> 00:50:59,210
And when I tried to give

1192
00:50:59,210 --> 00:51:00,920
some selections from it

1193
00:51:00,920 --> 00:51:02,975
to philosophers to read,

1194
00:51:02,975 --> 00:51:04,504
I either get a kinda,

1195
00:51:04,504 --> 00:51:05,779
they either don't get

1196
00:51:05,779 --> 00:51:07,504
it or they don't
want to get it.

1197
00:51:07,504 --> 00:51:09,110
And I'm sorry
for saying that,

1198
00:51:09,110 --> 00:51:09,905
but I've been doing,

1199
00:51:09,905 --> 00:51:11,029
I've been meeting now with

1200
00:51:11,029 --> 00:51:12,379
some local philosophers

1201
00:51:12,379 --> 00:51:15,844
since 1992, since 2019.

1202
00:51:15,844 --> 00:51:17,420
And I feel like I'm
banging my head

1203
00:51:17,420 --> 00:51:19,324
against the wall
most of the time.

1204
00:51:19,324 --> 00:51:21,049
I don't mean
this personally.

1205
00:51:21,049 --> 00:51:22,909
I mean, they're
wonderful. I got

1206
00:51:22,909 --> 00:51:24,965
the nature of philosophy.

1207
00:51:24,965 --> 00:51:26,779
Well, I think it's
the nature of

1208
00:51:26,779 --> 00:51:28,219
the philosophy
to be constantly

1209
00:51:28,219 --> 00:51:31,190
interrogating fundamentally
is demolished.

1210
00:51:31,190 --> 00:51:35,299
And I'll give
you an example.

1211
00:51:35,299 --> 00:51:37,190
I was talking about an
issue and ethics and

1212
00:51:37,190 --> 00:51:39,379
somebody was asking for

1213
00:51:39,379 --> 00:51:42,200
the basis of the
notion of the moral

1214
00:51:42,200 --> 00:51:45,965
was in this
person's arguments.

1215
00:51:45,965 --> 00:51:48,529
And I said before,

1216
00:51:48,529 --> 00:51:50,000
you can even talk
about ethics.

1217
00:51:50,000 --> 00:51:51,649
I think you have to
talk about what is

1218
00:51:51,649 --> 00:51:55,070
the underlying notion
of the moral that

1219
00:51:55,070 --> 00:51:57,499
you're making
claims that are

1220
00:51:57,499 --> 00:52:00,500
guaranteed by some kind

1221
00:52:00,500 --> 00:52:03,049
of a categorical
imperative.

1222
00:52:03,049 --> 00:52:05,120
And the person

1223
00:52:05,120 --> 00:52:06,350
responded, responded
to me, well,

1224
00:52:06,350 --> 00:52:07,640
you need to talk
to somebody who is

1225
00:52:07,640 --> 00:52:10,354
a specialist in
metaethics about that.

1226
00:52:10,354 --> 00:52:12,049
And I said, well,
that's like

1227
00:52:12,049 --> 00:52:13,399
I'm talking to
a physicist.

1228
00:52:13,399 --> 00:52:14,989
Physicist says if I asked

1229
00:52:14,989 --> 00:52:17,630
a question about
Newtonian,

1230
00:52:17,630 --> 00:52:21,559
about Newtonian physics,

1231
00:52:21,559 --> 00:52:23,090
that I have to
talk to somebody

1232
00:52:23,090 --> 00:52:24,260
who's amid a physicist,

1233
00:52:24,260 --> 00:52:25,520
except that word
has already

1234
00:52:25,520 --> 00:52:28,654
been appropriated by
the philosophers.

1235
00:52:28,654 --> 00:52:31,520
So I, I'm sorry

1236
00:52:31,520 --> 00:52:34,010
if I'm trying to
do this rapidly,

1237
00:52:34,010 --> 00:52:35,299
but it is a source of

1238
00:52:35,299 --> 00:52:36,440
enormous frustration

1239
00:52:36,440 --> 00:52:38,224
over a long
period of time.

1240
00:52:38,224 --> 00:52:39,410
And you guys seem to

1241
00:52:39,410 --> 00:52:41,564
understand a lot
that I think.

1242
00:52:41,564 --> 00:52:44,770
It's important and
interesting to me.

1243
00:52:44,770 --> 00:52:46,344
You know, thank you.

1244
00:52:46,344 --> 00:52:47,755
I thank you.

1245
00:52:47,755 --> 00:52:52,090
I I know the book,
The Anthony Wilson.

1246
00:52:52,090 --> 00:52:53,994
How do you
pronounce his name?

1247
00:52:53,994 --> 00:52:55,300
Yeah.

1248
00:52:55,300 --> 00:52:57,970
And I was fascinated by

1249
00:52:57,970 --> 00:53:00,775
it and struggled with it.

1250
00:53:00,775 --> 00:53:03,474
And, you know, there's

1251
00:53:03,474 --> 00:53:06,340
the literature
that relates

1252
00:53:06,340 --> 00:53:09,084
to systems thinking
is so vast.

1253
00:53:09,084 --> 00:53:13,270
And I really can't
do justice even to

1254
00:53:13,270 --> 00:53:15,460
cite all the
various things

1255
00:53:15,460 --> 00:53:16,540
that I've come across that

1256
00:53:16,540 --> 00:53:17,590
I think are interesting.

1257
00:53:17,590 --> 00:53:19,000
And that book that you're

1258
00:53:19,000 --> 00:53:21,325
talking about is
very interesting.

1259
00:53:21,325 --> 00:53:23,859
And I wish you would give

1260
00:53:23,859 --> 00:53:27,349
a talk summarizing the,

1261
00:53:27,349 --> 00:53:29,104
the gist of what
he's saying.

1262
00:53:29,104 --> 00:53:31,040
I don t think I

1263
00:53:31,040 --> 00:53:33,530
was able to get
the gist of it.

1264
00:53:33,530 --> 00:53:35,870
It's like if I if I
feel that if I read

1265
00:53:35,870 --> 00:53:38,284
something and I can't
say it in my own words,

1266
00:53:38,284 --> 00:53:40,609
what's he really arguing?

1267
00:53:40,609 --> 00:53:42,230
I I couldn't do it,

1268
00:53:42,230 --> 00:53:44,825
but I would be very
interested in hearing

1269
00:53:44,825 --> 00:53:47,344
a presentation that made

1270
00:53:47,344 --> 00:53:49,864
that book
accessible to me,

1271
00:53:49,864 --> 00:53:51,890
which it hasn't
been in the past.

1272
00:53:51,890 --> 00:53:53,645
I haven't looked
at it for years.

1273
00:53:53,645 --> 00:53:55,924
But what would you
think about that?

1274
00:53:55,924 --> 00:53:57,409
I would think
about it, yes.

1275
00:53:57,409 --> 00:53:58,969
I also think that book is,

1276
00:53:58,969 --> 00:54:00,414
one of these
instances have

1277
00:54:00,414 --> 00:54:02,835
a great failure,
but a very, very,

1278
00:54:02,835 --> 00:54:06,779
very important I think,

1279
00:54:08,680 --> 00:54:11,750
correct in certain ways.

1280
00:54:11,750 --> 00:54:13,055
Failure.

1281
00:54:13,055 --> 00:54:13,969
Well, thank you.

1282
00:54:13,969 --> 00:54:15,709
So enormous that it's

1283
00:54:15,709 --> 00:54:18,080
along the lines of
what Percy was saying.

1284
00:54:18,080 --> 00:54:20,840
Could you type your
contact information

1285
00:54:20,840 --> 00:54:23,764
into the chat so we
could capture that?

1286
00:54:23,764 --> 00:54:25,325
Sure.

1287
00:54:25,325 --> 00:54:26,509
Thank you.

1288
00:54:26,509 --> 00:54:27,114
Yeah.

1289
00:54:27,114 --> 00:54:28,220
Hit the chat
button down at

1290
00:54:28,220 --> 00:54:29,509
the bottom there
and just type

1291
00:54:29,509 --> 00:54:31,189
whatever an email or

1292
00:54:31,189 --> 00:54:33,725
whatever is it useful
contact method.

1293
00:54:33,725 --> 00:54:35,569
That would be great.

1294
00:54:35,569 --> 00:54:36,919
Other questions we're

1295
00:54:36,919 --> 00:54:37,969
going to wrap up
here in a minute.

1296
00:54:37,969 --> 00:54:38,600
I just wanted to make

1297
00:54:38,600 --> 00:54:39,650
sure others had a chance

1298
00:54:39,650 --> 00:54:42,480
to raise questions
if they had them.

1299
00:54:44,500 --> 00:54:50,120
Is there a sort of
summary of the fit of

1300
00:54:50,120 --> 00:54:52,700
speculative realism to

1301
00:54:52,700 --> 00:54:55,490
the systems theory
perspective.

1302
00:54:55,490 --> 00:54:56,299
You said there
were a couple of

1303
00:54:56,299 --> 00:54:57,425
things that you didn't,

1304
00:54:57,425 --> 00:54:59,945
you didn't like the
way that they fit.

1305
00:54:59,945 --> 00:55:01,565
Specifically.

1306
00:55:01,565 --> 00:55:05,539
Where, you know, the
this talk that I read,

1307
00:55:05,539 --> 00:55:08,210
It's on my Selected
Works Cited

1308
00:55:08,210 --> 00:55:09,470
so you could download it.

1309
00:55:09,470 --> 00:55:11,870
And you can see where
there are few places

1310
00:55:11,870 --> 00:55:14,374
where I say here
I disagree.

1311
00:55:14,374 --> 00:55:17,509
Okay. But I wouldn't

1312
00:55:17,509 --> 00:55:19,489
say I've done it
that systematically,

1313
00:55:19,489 --> 00:55:21,830
but I'm actually writing

1314
00:55:21,830 --> 00:55:25,834
a bigger paper, you know,

1315
00:55:25,834 --> 00:55:27,530
more inclusive that I'll

1316
00:55:27,530 --> 00:55:29,420
submit in some journal at

1317
00:55:29,420 --> 00:55:34,220
some point when I
have free time.

1318
00:55:34,220 --> 00:55:36,620
And it doesn't look

1319
00:55:36,620 --> 00:55:38,975
like I'm going to have
free time for awhile,

1320
00:55:38,975 --> 00:55:41,000
but but so all I have

1321
00:55:41,000 --> 00:55:43,369
right now is just
what I read.

1322
00:55:43,369 --> 00:55:44,839
I skipped some things and

1323
00:55:44,839 --> 00:55:46,374
what I read, I
skipped footnote.

1324
00:55:46,374 --> 00:55:49,354
So some of the criticisms

1325
00:55:49,354 --> 00:55:52,909
of speculative realism
is in this paper,

1326
00:55:52,909 --> 00:55:55,475
like I think the loses

1327
00:55:55,475 --> 00:55:57,994
off in many ways,
in some ways.

1328
00:55:57,994 --> 00:56:01,140
But interesting,
in other words,

1329
00:56:01,690 --> 00:56:03,949
the person that I haven't,

1330
00:56:03,949 --> 00:56:05,840
I haven't read this book

1331
00:56:05,840 --> 00:56:10,924
by This guy named the
lambda d, LAN D a.

1332
00:56:10,924 --> 00:56:13,235
And I know that
he wrote a book

1333
00:56:13,235 --> 00:56:15,589
on complex systems
and I think Rajesh

1334
00:56:15,589 --> 00:56:18,305
is gonna be using
that book as

1335
00:56:18,305 --> 00:56:22,399
a text in his Systems
Theory cores.

1336
00:56:22,399 --> 00:56:24,320
And Dylan does article

1337
00:56:24,320 --> 00:56:25,910
in that first book that

1338
00:56:25,910 --> 00:56:29,465
I mentioned is
about emergence.

1339
00:56:29,465 --> 00:56:31,069
And so he's clearly,

1340
00:56:31,069 --> 00:56:32,809
he's clearly
familiar with,

1341
00:56:32,809 --> 00:56:36,394
with some aspects of
the system literature.

1342
00:56:36,394 --> 00:56:39,094
So I think that book,

1343
00:56:39,094 --> 00:56:42,215
if you look at the article

1344
00:56:42,215 --> 00:56:44,059
that you know which

1345
00:56:44,059 --> 00:56:46,174
Howard just
pasted a summary

1346
00:56:46,174 --> 00:56:50,040
of high level summary
of that in chat.

1347
00:56:50,130 --> 00:56:53,199
Who did? Oh,
Howard, Great.

1348
00:56:53,199 --> 00:56:54,144
Yeah.

1349
00:56:54,144 --> 00:56:55,029
You bet.

1350
00:56:55,029 --> 00:56:56,050
I can't resist.

1351
00:56:56,050 --> 00:56:59,049
You mentioned oh, sorry,
howard. Go ahead.

1352
00:56:59,049 --> 00:57:00,620
While jumping
with a question

1353
00:57:00,620 --> 00:57:01,584
if but if I might,

1354
00:57:01,584 --> 00:57:03,129
I also need to leave.

1355
00:57:03,129 --> 00:57:05,589
This. This is a
fascinating Marty.

1356
00:57:05,589 --> 00:57:06,759
You're reminding me again,

1357
00:57:06,759 --> 00:57:07,900
but I really
wanted to take

1358
00:57:07,900 --> 00:57:10,039
your class one day.

1359
00:57:11,130 --> 00:57:13,509
I'm more familiar with

1360
00:57:13,509 --> 00:57:15,489
the lender than Duluth.

1361
00:57:15,489 --> 00:57:19,000
This book
assemblage theory.

1362
00:57:19,000 --> 00:57:21,999
And one of the things that

1363
00:57:21,999 --> 00:57:24,955
I've found useful
in his language

1364
00:57:24,955 --> 00:57:31,209
is the way he
distinguishes a firm,

1365
00:57:31,209 --> 00:57:34,010
an assemblage or so

1366
00:57:34,010 --> 00:57:36,095
he uses the word
hole as, you know,

1367
00:57:36,095 --> 00:57:38,570
maybe, maybe the
way Maturana

1368
00:57:38,570 --> 00:57:41,210
uses the word unity or
something like that.

1369
00:57:41,210 --> 00:57:43,264
And so that, that,

1370
00:57:43,264 --> 00:57:46,535
that kind of
distinction and

1371
00:57:46,535 --> 00:57:50,525
the term system I've
found very useful.

1372
00:57:50,525 --> 00:57:56,930
So I pasted like that
key reference there,

1373
00:57:56,930 --> 00:57:58,489
that quotation there where

1374
00:57:58,489 --> 00:58:00,649
he makes this distinction

1375
00:58:00,649 --> 00:58:05,705
and that is that real.

1376
00:58:05,705 --> 00:58:07,399
I didn't catch
a, you know,

1377
00:58:07,399 --> 00:58:09,349
you're still using
the word system

1378
00:58:09,349 --> 00:58:10,729
in a way that seems

1379
00:58:10,729 --> 00:58:14,389
to incorporate both
what he called it.

1380
00:58:14,389 --> 00:58:16,160
And then
assemblage. Is that

1381
00:58:16,160 --> 00:58:17,719
right or how or how

1382
00:58:17,719 --> 00:58:19,205
does this relate to

1383
00:58:19,205 --> 00:58:21,515
what you're
describing here?

1384
00:58:21,515 --> 00:58:24,364
Does he use the
word assemblage

1385
00:58:24,364 --> 00:58:28,190
to mean a whole,

1386
00:58:28,190 --> 00:58:30,455
a unity or is it
the opposite?

1387
00:58:30,455 --> 00:58:31,924
Is it may eat.

1388
00:58:31,924 --> 00:58:34,819
Yeah, and so,
um, let me see.

1389
00:58:34,819 --> 00:58:37,579
The sociologist
Howard Becker uses

1390
00:58:37,579 --> 00:58:39,575
the word package or

1391
00:58:39,575 --> 00:58:43,115
the resilient folks
use the word regime.

1392
00:58:43,115 --> 00:58:45,980
Those are more
similar to how he

1393
00:58:45,980 --> 00:58:48,799
uses the term assemblage.

1394
00:58:48,799 --> 00:58:56,224
And so it is coming
from a constructivist.

1395
00:58:56,224 --> 00:59:03,469
So I would say it's an
observer or organism.

1396
00:59:03,469 --> 00:59:08,270
D limited boundary of,

1397
00:59:08,270 --> 00:59:12,290
of, of, of unities.

1398
00:59:12,290 --> 00:59:15,004
And so the classic example

1399
00:59:15,004 --> 00:59:18,424
in Duluth is the
archer, right?

1400
00:59:18,424 --> 00:59:25,669
The archer comprises
both the burden

1401
00:59:25,669 --> 00:59:27,799
on the horse as well as
the skill of training

1402
00:59:27,799 --> 00:59:29,045
the horse and the scale-up

1403
00:59:29,045 --> 00:59:30,530
performing the
archery, right.

1404
00:59:30,530 --> 00:59:34,924
And so that's the
assemblage which,

1405
00:59:34,924 --> 00:59:36,799
which consisted
of separate unit

1406
00:59:36,799 --> 00:59:38,525
is that the
person, the horse,

1407
00:59:38,525 --> 00:59:43,234
and the target perhaps.

1408
00:59:43,234 --> 00:59:45,499
You see, you
know, a part of

1409
00:59:45,499 --> 00:59:46,879
my problem is that

1410
00:59:46,879 --> 00:59:48,964
when I hear the
word assemblage,

1411
00:59:48,964 --> 00:59:53,000
the natural association
that I have with

1412
00:59:53,000 --> 00:59:55,864
that word is
that it's like

1413
00:59:55,864 --> 00:59:59,450
a heap as opposed
to assist them.

1414
00:59:59,450 --> 01:00:02,929
But it now it
sounds like that,

1415
01:00:02,929 --> 01:00:06,305
that the assemblage
is used,

1416
01:00:06,305 --> 01:00:10,205
that word is used to
imply a kind of unity.

1417
01:00:10,205 --> 01:00:12,334
That it's not
simply a heap,

1418
01:00:12,334 --> 01:00:13,819
that it's more like

1419
01:00:13,819 --> 01:00:16,459
an ecosystem as opposed
to an organism.

1420
01:00:16,459 --> 01:00:20,554
And that's an interesting
arc, a dichotomy.

1421
01:00:20,554 --> 01:00:22,370
Kenneth Bolding was very

1422
01:00:22,370 --> 01:00:25,145
clear in talking about,

1423
01:00:25,145 --> 01:00:27,230
what about root metaphors?

1424
01:00:27,230 --> 01:00:29,389
It's like when you
use the word system,

1425
01:00:29,389 --> 01:00:30,349
what is, what do you have

1426
01:00:30,349 --> 01:00:31,339
in the back of your mind?

1427
01:00:31,339 --> 01:00:33,035
What is your
root metaphor?

1428
01:00:33,035 --> 01:00:35,449
And bolding said that

1429
01:00:35,449 --> 01:00:37,460
there were two
root metaphors,

1430
01:00:37,460 --> 01:00:39,529
and one is organism,

1431
01:00:39,529 --> 01:00:41,540
the other is ecosystem.

1432
01:00:41,540 --> 01:00:43,189
And so when a person uses

1433
01:00:43,189 --> 01:00:47,240
the word system in the
back of their mind,

1434
01:00:47,240 --> 01:00:48,979
they're either thinking
of something tightly

1435
01:00:48,979 --> 01:00:51,170
organized like an
Oregon organism,

1436
01:00:51,170 --> 01:00:54,739
relatively tightly,
or an organization.

1437
01:00:54,739 --> 01:00:56,419
Or they have
in the back of

1438
01:00:56,419 --> 01:00:58,504
their mind an ecosystem,

1439
01:00:58,504 --> 01:01:01,129
or in economy or
a market system,

1440
01:01:01,129 --> 01:01:03,004
which is more like,

1441
01:01:03,004 --> 01:01:06,649
I am the feeling that
maybe assemblage

1442
01:01:06,649 --> 01:01:09,579
is more like an
ecosystem archetype,

1443
01:01:09,579 --> 01:01:10,969
more like that.

1444
01:01:10,969 --> 01:01:12,919
Is that fair?
Is that true?

1445
01:01:12,919 --> 01:01:15,485
That sounds fair and
true to me, yeah.

1446
01:01:15,485 --> 01:01:16,910
Okay. Yeah.

1447
01:01:16,910 --> 01:01:20,030
So I think, you know,

1448
01:01:20,030 --> 01:01:24,110
most systems
people tend to

1449
01:01:24,110 --> 01:01:25,700
have the organism as

1450
01:01:25,700 --> 01:01:28,580
a root metaphor in the
back of their minds.

1451
01:01:28,580 --> 01:01:30,739
But bolding didn't.

1452
01:01:30,739 --> 01:01:32,734
Bolding had an ecosystem

1453
01:01:32,734 --> 01:01:34,549
as his root metaphor.

1454
01:01:34,549 --> 01:01:38,630
And that gets
to, you know,

1455
01:01:38,630 --> 01:01:41,435
there's this interesting
book by this guy

1456
01:01:41,435 --> 01:01:45,079
Miller called
living systems.

1457
01:01:45,079 --> 01:01:48,605
I have very severe
criticisms of it.

1458
01:01:48,605 --> 01:01:50,960
And Miller had
this notion,

1459
01:01:50,960 --> 01:01:53,434
every system has
a quote decider.

1460
01:01:53,434 --> 01:01:55,219
This is quite funny.

1461
01:01:55,219 --> 01:01:58,819
So, you know, so
you can imagine

1462
01:01:58,819 --> 01:02:00,380
that an organism might

1463
01:02:00,380 --> 01:02:02,869
have a decider
substance them.

1464
01:02:02,869 --> 01:02:04,609
And you can imagine that

1465
01:02:04,609 --> 01:02:06,049
an organization might

1466
01:02:06,049 --> 01:02:08,944
have a decider
substance them, maybe.

1467
01:02:08,944 --> 01:02:10,999
But an ecosystem doesn't

1468
01:02:10,999 --> 01:02:13,204
have any decide
or subsystem.

1469
01:02:13,204 --> 01:02:14,719
A market system doesn't

1470
01:02:14,719 --> 01:02:16,775
have any deciders
subsystem.

1471
01:02:16,775 --> 01:02:20,059
So that reveals that what

1472
01:02:20,059 --> 01:02:21,905
Miller had in the
back of his mind

1473
01:02:21,905 --> 01:02:24,079
was this organism
metaphor.

1474
01:02:24,079 --> 01:02:25,700
And what's also
interesting

1475
01:02:25,700 --> 01:02:28,549
historically is
that this book,

1476
01:02:28,549 --> 01:02:30,560
Miller wrote this
very thick book,

1477
01:02:30,560 --> 01:02:38,149
living systems, which
doesn't merit its size.

1478
01:02:38,149 --> 01:02:41,015
And it was adopted by,

1479
01:02:41,015 --> 01:02:42,619
I think, by
Pentagon people.

1480
01:02:42,619 --> 01:02:46,760
I think that the language
of the decider got

1481
01:02:46,760 --> 01:02:50,000
borrowed by
Pentagon thinkers

1482
01:02:50,000 --> 01:02:51,784
talking about the decider.

1483
01:02:51,784 --> 01:02:54,360
And I think what
was his name?

1484
01:02:54,670 --> 01:02:59,045
I forget his name or
suppressing the Bush,

1485
01:02:59,045 --> 01:03:00,289
wasn't it talked
about being

1486
01:03:00,289 --> 01:03:01,954
the decider, right?
Right, right.

1487
01:03:01,954 --> 01:03:06,529
And unknown unknowns
and unknown unknowns.

1488
01:03:06,529 --> 01:03:11,344
Rumsfeld, I think
Rumsfeld might have also.

1489
01:03:11,344 --> 01:03:14,899
I think Bush probably
got this designer from

1490
01:03:14,899 --> 01:03:16,460
Rumsfeld who
probably got it

1491
01:03:16,460 --> 01:03:19,410
from living systems,
I'm speculating.

1492
01:03:19,570 --> 01:03:23,929
But, but
basically, I think

1493
01:03:23,929 --> 01:03:27,680
the living systems
book is interesting.

1494
01:03:27,680 --> 01:03:30,604
It has some value
and some virtue,

1495
01:03:30,604 --> 01:03:32,509
but it's not really

1496
01:03:32,509 --> 01:03:35,810
deep and it's,
it's, it's week.

1497
01:03:35,810 --> 01:03:39,229
So I mean, basically
what this guy God is.

1498
01:03:39,229 --> 01:03:40,759
He had a kind of framework

1499
01:03:40,759 --> 01:03:42,409
and he got an army of

1500
01:03:42,409 --> 01:03:44,569
graduate students to find

1501
01:03:44,569 --> 01:03:45,830
examples of all of

1502
01:03:45,830 --> 01:03:48,079
his quote, critical
sub-systems.

1503
01:03:48,079 --> 01:03:51,440
And it's, It's not
deeply organized.

1504
01:03:51,440 --> 01:03:53,389
It's, it's, it's not

1505
01:03:53,389 --> 01:03:55,009
a major intellectual
achievement,

1506
01:03:55,009 --> 01:03:57,275
but it is a partial
achievement.

1507
01:03:57,275 --> 01:03:59,780
I say it's, it
has some value,

1508
01:03:59,780 --> 01:04:01,460
but it's not as

1509
01:04:01,460 --> 01:04:04,144
as valuable as he
thought it was.

1510
01:04:04,144 --> 01:04:05,569
You know, on that note,

1511
01:04:05,569 --> 01:04:06,710
I'm going to
say thank you.

1512
01:04:06,710 --> 01:04:08,884
Let's say thanks to
Marty for his talk.

1513
01:04:08,884 --> 01:04:10,339
I think it's
great. And I'll

1514
01:04:10,339 --> 01:04:11,569
turn off the recorder.

1515
01:04:11,569 --> 01:04:13,160
People are welcome to
hang around a little

1516
01:04:13,160 --> 01:04:15,599
bit longer if
you have time.