September 20, 2014 § 4 Comments
In my last two talks, I began to lay the groundwork for a philosophical ecology. Such a philosophy engages traditional philosophical categories—e.g, appearance and reality, ontology and epistemology, and the empirical and the transcendental—in a new light informed by an evolutionary and ecological framework. Below I summarize the ways in which each of these categories are transformed by the ecological insights of Alva Noë, Jacob von Uexküll, and Alfred North Whitehead. There’s much more work to be done in this area, but this at least gives us a sketch for how ecology will continue to transform philosophy in the coming years.
First, appearance and reality. Noë, von Uexküll, and Whitehead all deal in this distinction, albeit in slightly different ways. Noë deals in the phenomenological distinction between presence and absence. That which can be made present for Noë is related to the style or mode of access by which something can be made to appear. Similarly, von Uexküll follows the traditional Kantian distinction between appearing phenomena and inaccessible noumena, the latter of which serve as the cause for every appearance. We saw that Whitehead also plays in the language of appearance and reality, but also that he places this distinction in the context of evolutionary process. Each account thus opens out, in its own way, into an ecological zone that allows us to see that the distinction between what is present and what is absent cannot be fixed. Ecological philosophy means that, when we include evolutionary process, there is an ongoing breakdown between presence and absence, between appearance and reality.
Second, ontology and epistemology. If we accept Noë’s and von Uexküll’s ecological argument that embodiment and understanding are intimately linked, then we also encounter another breakdown or complication between ontology, the study of what is, and epistemology, the study of how we come to know what is. For if knowing and bodies are to a significant degree the same thing, then we are obliged to say that what a being can know is also the same thing as what a being can be. However, this does not amount to a full collapse of ontology into epistemology, as in the Kantian gesture we saw Whitehead reject earlier, nor does it result in a collapse of epistemology into ontology, as we see in what is sometimes called the “new materialism.” Instead it means that ontology and epistemology are linked, recursively, within the concept of ethology. In other words, in order for a being to know otherwise it must also become otherwise. The concept of ethology thus allows us to accept that knowing and being are closely linked, but it also allows us to maintain what I see as a crucial division between what is known about the cosmos and what escapes translation into knowledge or experience.
Third, the empirical and the transcendental. Von Uexküll’s ethology and Whitehead’s philosophy of organism give the lie to Kant’s transcendental schema. For Kant, the transcendental refers to those structures of the human being that are a priori or that are independent of experience and that work to organize the in-flow of all empirical events. The transcendental in Kant’s formulation is a universal structure within which particular empirical occasions are shaped and unfold as contents of lived experience. However, from the ecological view, it is the transcendental structures themselves, or more precisely what Kant called the transcendental ego, that must be given a genetic account in terms of a more primary and ecological cosmogenesis.
If ecology is to become a new ground for philosophy, then the transcendental and the empirical need to be re-thought as relational and evolving categories: What is transcendental structure for one organism is empirical datum for another, and what is given as a structure that affords certain appearances is neither fixed nor universal; it is rather developed, multispecies, and plastic. In other words, if lived experience is grounded in a certain kind of cognitive structure that allows empirical content to emerge in a certain way, then it is also the case that the structure of the transcendental is itself grounded in an external ecology of actuality and circumstance. Thus if we can speak of an upwelling of a stream of consciousness within the empty, form-giving space of the mind, then we can also speaking of an inwelling stream of external activity, that, over historical and evolutionary time periods, gives shape to the organizing structure itself.
In the view of a philosophical ecology, then, the transcendental is not an empty, universal space within which phenomena can emerge in a particular way but is instead a historically saturated medium, a medium filled with the tributaries of achieved conceptual understanding along which flows of thought constellate themselves as partial organizers of experience and which allow the growth of new kinds of experience. Mind is just such an intersection of rivers and tributaries; not a dialogic of easily opposed terms (e.g., “empirical” and “transcendental”) but an ecologic, a creative multiplicity of convergent events preserved over time.
Along the lines of grounding the empirical and the transcendental within a larger ecology of being, Peter Sloterdijk writes of, “the one earth, which serves as the bearer of world formations,” and that the “[earth] is now the transcendental star that comes into play as the locational condition for all self-reflections,” a star that “carries flora, fauna, and cultures” and that is, “the exemplary hybrid in which the empirical is unified with the transcendental.” Thus in the ecological view it is the transcendental which is attached to and dependent on the terrestrial. In this geocentric account—in many ways an inversion of Kant’s so-called Copernican Revolution—it is the geological conditions of the Earth that closely entangle, ground, and enable the activity called philosophy.
To conclude, then, a philosophical ecology complicates relations between appearance and reality, between ontology and epistemology, and between the empirical and the transcendental. Stated in general terms, philosophical ecology sees an ongoing breakdown between structure and content, between matter and meaning. Appearance and reality are not fixed domains but are ecologically entangled and reversing territories. Knowing and being are not two separate activities but are deeply linked capacities driven by the concerns, values, and decisions of organisms. Space and time are not fixed containers within which events unfold but are rather emergent features abstracted from the adventures of entities themselves. This means that ecology is not about organisms in environments—surrounded by them, situated by them, and so on—but that ecology is an event much more ambiguous in nature; the possibility space is itself ecological, evolving, and recursive. Reality in this sense has something like an ecological structure, and the cosmos is something like an ecological event.
 Cf. Karen Barad’s Meeting the Universe Halfway (Durham: Duke University Press, 2007).
 Sloterdijk, In the World Interior of Capital (Malden, MA: Polity Press 2013), 10.
 Ibid., 25.
 Ibid., 29.
 Ibid., 250.
September 15, 2014 § 3 Comments
Just a quick update on some speaking events. This Friday, September 19, I’ll be speaking on a panel in San Francisco at the California Institute of Integral Studies. This talk will largely be a repeat of the panel presentation on Cosmopolitics we gave at the IBHA conference this past August—though this time with more Cosmopolitics and less Big History. If you live in the Bay Area feel free to stop by. The event is free and runs from 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.
Further down the road, I’ll be participating in a number of ways at the 10th International Whitehead Conference to be held at Pomona College in June of 2015. In terms of speaking, I’ll be presenting on two panels: “Late-Modernity and its Reductive Monism” and “The Universe Story and Inclusive History as the Context of Meaning.” Outlines for both tracks are available here.
For the first talk I plan on exploring Vicki Bell’s ecologies of concern in the context of my own research on concepts (see here and here). The second talk will again focus on Cosmopolitics. I haven’t sketched out the details yet, and there’s still a ways to go before the event, so I am anticipating that my thinking will evolve between now and then. I do have a sense though that the first talk will center specifically on human beings, focusing on epistemology, critical philosophy, and politics, and that the second talk will focus more on cosmology and speculative philosophy. No doubt many of my notes for both talks will appear in some form on Knowledge Ecology.
Lastly, in addition to the panel presentations, I’ll also be doing some footwork helping to assemble the track on Whitehead and eco-politics.
August 8, 2014 § 14 Comments
[Image: Edward Burtynsky]
Earlier today I delivered a talk on ethology, ecology, and aesthetics as part of a panel on Cosmopolitics at the International Big History Conference held in San Rafael, CA. I am posting my talk below, which you can also find in .pdf form here.
Histories of Lived Experience: Intertwining Ethology, Ecology, And Aesthetics
Adam Robbert, San Francisco, CA
Paper presented at the International Big History Conference, Dominican University, San Rafael, CA, August 8.
What is the significance of meaning in Big History? There is a great diversity of opinion on this issue. For example, Eric Chaisson, one of the original board members of the IBHA, holds that Big History must let go of concepts such as intentionality, subjectivity, and, presumably, meaning, in order to understand evolution objectively. Conversely, the focus of my talk is that an understanding of meaning is necessary for an understanding of evolution at its most fundamental level. A central claim of my talk is that we have to understand that which is meaningful to organisms if ever we hope to comprehend the history of evolution on Earth. My talk thus offers a non-anthropocentric and aesthetic account of meaning in the context of geological history. Ecology from this view is an ongoing entanglement of meanings, concerns, and decisions, and it marks the space where the division between matter and meaning breaks down. « Read the rest of this entry »
June 11, 2014 § 7 Comments
[Image: Hannah Imlach]
Last week I posted a short essay on the question of meaning, style, and aesthetics in the ecological theories of Alva Noë and Jacob von Uexküll. The post resulted in a long and in-depth discussion with science fiction novelist and central architect of the Blind Brain Theory (BBT) of cognition, R. Scott Bakker. Our conversation waded through multiple topics including phenomenology, the limits of transcendental arguments, enactivism, eliminativism, meaning, aesthetics, pluralism, intentionality, first-person experience, and more. So impressed was I with Bakker’s adept ability to wade through the issues — across disciplines, perspectives, and controversies — despite my protests that I felt it worth excerpting our dialogue as a record of the exchange and as a resource for others interested in these debates. Whatever your views on the philosophy of mind, Bakker’s unique position is one you should familiarize yourself with — if only, like me, so that you can find better ways to dispute its unsettling consequences. To provide a little context to the dialogue I am re-stating my central claim and concluding paragraph from the earlier post: « Read the rest of this entry »
April 16, 2014 § 6 Comments
[Image: Vincent Fournier]
I’ll be speaking with some of the usual suspects at the International Big History Association Conference this August at Dominican University in San Rafael, California. Our Panel description and abstracts can be found below.
Panel Title: Cosmopolitics and the Big Journey: Resolving Nature-Culture Dualisms
Abstract: In its research and teaching programs, Big History facilitates the integration of human and natural history into a multidimensional collective history. There is still much work that remains to be done to articulate collective history without falling back into longstanding dualisms that separate humans from nature. Along those lines, Big History can benefit from a dialogical encounter with others who are oriented toward overcoming the human/nature dualism, including those involved in the Journey of the Universe project and, in a very different vein, philosophers like Isabelle Stengers, Bruno Latour, and others associated with a theoretical movement called “cosmopolitics,” which aims to overcome the separation between the natural world (kosmos) and the constitution of human civilization (politikos). Initially developed by Stengers following her work with Ilya Prigogine, cosmopolitics aims to articulate a collective history that affirms the intertwining of human societies with the evolutionary unfolding of the cosmos. Cosmopolitics draws more explicitly than Big History on philosophical concepts useful for overcoming the dualisms separating a realm of humans (subjects, values) from a realm of nature (objects, facts), including concepts associated with process philosophy (Alfred North Whitehead), philosophical biology (Jakob von Uexküll), and French post-structuralist philosophy (Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida). This panel introduces the idea of cosmopolitics and situates it in relationship to similar approaches to collective history (e.g., Big History, Journey of the Universe), drawing particular attention to the importance of accounting for the axiological dimensions (e.g., ethics, aesthetics, and spirituality) of our collective history. « Read the rest of this entry »
October 9, 2013 § 46 Comments
[Photo: Casey Cripe]
Alva Noë recently posted a short commentary on the entanglement of science and values. I think readers will be interested in it. At first blush Noë’s point is fairly straight forward: Science and values are always entangled because the very characteristics science depends on — reason, consistency, coherence, plausibility, and replicability — are themselves values. Without some kind of agreement that these are the values that best serve the creation of scientific facts there would be no foundation upon which the sciences could maintain consistency. Science depends on a set of extra-scientific decisions, and we need to pursue and cultivate these decisions in order for the possibility of science to emerge in the first place. Simple enough. « Read the rest of this entry »
May 21, 2013 § 5 Comments