Re: formal cause and time

[Ayten Aydin <***>]

Dear David,

I am new to you and you are new to me. I've been away from the list for several months but not from its spirits always kept immortal thanks to Judith.

You think that your posting is a bit off subject, but it has attracted my attention and motivated me to return to the list after a longish absence. (To attract more vivid attention please use a larger font, perhaps 12 instead of 10).

Now turning to your query on the formal cause. I agree with your position. Could the disagreement with that someone you were talking about this concept stem from the basic difference in mental process of the contenders: one represents a project approach where the formal cause at the edge and represents a fixed plan to be materialized to reach a fixed objective, the other (You and I for that matter) represent a process approach which stretches the boundary of the formal cause makes it flexible and links it with the final cause as a light house to move towards. In a way the main difference between the machine without life-force and complex living system. I am sure Judith will give you many supporting definitions to prove that you and that someone you talked to were coming from two different grounds. As Whitehead's philosophy  implies 'Process is the reality'. Process may, however, implement many projects on the way. Process entails 'time' as its internal element and may move to any direction together with the whole whereas 'project' follows one-directional time - another big difference between the two. 

I am sure I am not saying anything new to you and to all others in this list who are in the process of learning, re-learning from ancient philosophies, more specifically Aristotle's as well as recent ones such as the late Whitehead and Robert Rosen ( though immortalized by Judith Rosen) in our case and each making her/his own sense out of all these.

My best,
Ayten




On Nov 11, 2005, at 6:58 PM, David Macy wrote:

> Hey guys,
>  
>     I don't feel that I've been thinking very clearly here of late, so perhaps this isn't the best time to be posting.  It's also perhaps a bit off subject given the discussion recently.  However I wanted to throw some things out there for you guys to peruse.
>  
> I was talking with someone the other day about formal causation. I told this person that I had for the longest time associated time with formal cause.  They said that formal cause was associated with "the instructions for building something."  So a question such as, "why a house?", could be answered with, "because of the blueprints."  I pointed out that home builders also have detailed schedules about what things could be done simultaneously and what things had to be done sequentially and thus my association of time with formal cause.
>  
> I suppose in this view the house is viewed less as an object than as a consequence of plethora of tasks.  The process by which the same house is built is itself open to design.  It could be stated in the form of conditionals.  If such and such a task or tasks is/are completed then such and such a task or tasks can begin.  Time then is not some interval on an absolute scale but something rather different.
>  
> Just some thoughts (not necessarily clear thoughts).
>  
> David
>  
>  
> P.S. Curmudgeon - noun; a surly, ill-mannered, bad-tempered person; cantankerous fellow.