You can also download and read or share a .pdf of the complete text of this essay HERE.
The Neo-Organicist Turn: Explanatory Inversion and Creative Control
1. Since 1900, the predominant worldview has been the mechanistic worldview, centered on the root metaphor of the machine (for example, a steam engine or a digital computer) which says that everything in the world is fundamentally either a formal automaton or a natural automaton, operating according to Turing-computable algorithms and/or time-reversible or time-symmetric deterministic or indeterministic laws of nature, especially the Conservation Laws (including the 1st Law of Thermodynamics) and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which also imposes always-increasing entropy—i.e., the always-increasing unavailability of any system’s thermal energy for conversion into mechanical action or work—on all natural mechanisms, until a total equilibrium state of the natural universe is finally reached (see Hanna and Paans, 2020; Hanna, 2022a: esp. chs. 1-2 and 4).
The mechanistic worldview, in turn, is undergirded by the modern-classical metaphysics and ontology of materialism or physicalism, which says that all biological facts, properties, or states, all mental facts/properties/states, and all normative or value-facts/properties/states logically or naturally/nomologically strongly supervene on fundamentally physical facts/properties/states[i] where whatever is “fundamentally physical” is understood to be identical to whatever flows from the Big Bang singularity, such that its basic quantities are fixed by Turing-computable algorithms and time-reversible or time-symmetric deterministic or indeterministic laws of nature, especially the Conservation Laws (including the 1st Law of Thermodynamics) and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, hence are also fixed by always-increasing entropy unto the inevitable heat-death of the natural universe.
In short, if the mechanistic worldview is true, then we’re nothing but moist robots.[ii]
2. Diametrically opposed to the the mechanistic worldview is the neo-organicist worldview, centered on the root metaphor of the living organism (for example, a plant or an animal), which says that everything in the world is essentially or fundamentally uncomputable, processual, purposive, self-organizing, time-irreversible or time–asymmetric, non-equilibrium thermodynamic, and negentropic, and that there is a basic metaphysical and ontological continuity, running from the Big Bang singularity to uncomputable, time-asymmetric, non-equilibrium thermodynamic energy flows, to living organisms, to conscious minded animals, to rational, self-conscious minded animals with free will and practical agency, and finally to social institutions of all kinds (Torday, Miller Jr, and Hanna, 2020; Hanna, 2022a).
In short, if the neo-organicist worldview is true, then we’re no less than real persons who are innately endowed with conscious, rational, self-conscious rational animal minds and free agency, and not moist robots.
3. In my opinion, the mechanistic worldview is damnably false and the neo-organicist worldview is decisively true; and the revolutionary individual and social comprehension of this worldshaking dual fact is what I call the neo-organicist turn away from the mechanistic worldview, or for short, the neo-organicist turn.
4. The neo-organicist turn, whether in philosophy, the formal and natural sciences, the fine and applied arts, religion and spirituality, or morality and sociopolitics, has two basic parts.
Fully recognizing, understanding, and indeed internalizing the two basic parts of the neo-organicist turn is the key to the genuine progress and salvation of humankind, of the Earth including all its ecosystems and living organismic systems, and of the rest of the larger and all-encompassing natural universe, aka the cosmos.
5. The first part of the neo-organicist turn, which I’ll call the explanatory inversion thesis, is the conceptual and theoretical flip of the modern-classical materialist or physicalist metaphysics and ontology of the mechanistic worldview, a flip according to which all mechanical systems whatsoever, whether formal or natural, (i) are nothing but systematic abstractions from fundamentally organic systems (Hanna, 2022: esp. ch. 4 and Appendices 1-4), and (ii) are essentially embedded within a larger dignitarian rational human and cosmic moral framework (Hanna, 2021; Hanna 2022a: esp. section 4.5), which in turn requires weak transcendental idealism and a moderate anthropic principle (Hanna, 2022a: esp. section 4.4).
Otherwise put, the explanatory inversion thesis says that all mechanical systems whatsoever are nothing but limiting cases within the fundamentally organic cosmos, and do not capture the fundamental informational or representational and causal structure of the cosmos (Hanna, 2022a: esp. ch. 4 and Appendices 1-4).
By saying that all mechnical systems are “systematic abstractions” from fundamentally organic systems, I mean more specifically that all mechanical systems whatsoever are either logically or naturally/nomologically strongly supervenient on fundamentally organic systems.
In turn, the logical or natural/nomological strong supervenience of mechanical systems on fundamentally organic systems entails that all mechanical systems, in and of themselves, are informationally/representationally and causally inert, i.e., informationally/representationally and causally epiphenomenal, with no rich informational/representational powers or efficacious causal powers of their own, because all rich informational/representational content and causal efficacy in the cosmos ultimately derives from and is inherited from organic systems: hence all mechanical systems are informational/representational and causal parasites or informational/representational and causal shadows of fundamentally organic systems.
Correspondingly, all authentic knowledge (i.e., true and sufficiently justified belief) about mechanical systems consists in our (i) insightfully grasping the only-denumerable, recursive, entropic, deterministic/indeterministic, time-reversible or time-symmetric, equilibrium thermodynamic, and informationally/representationally-&-causally parasitic character of such systems, and their inherent limits, and then (ii) systematically embedding them within the essentially richer domains of organic systems.
This authentic knowledge is what Otto Paans and I call creative piety (Hanna, 2022a: esp. sections 0.2 and 3.7; Hanna and Paans, 2021, 2022).
6. Here is a cognitively, emotionally, and practically emancipatory three-part root analogy: as (i) the neo-organicist worldview is to the mechanistic worldview, and also as (ii) the living organism is to the machine, so too (iii) humankind is to technology.
7. In view of this emancipatory three-part root analogy, then the second part of the neo-organicist turn, which I call the creative control thesis, says that all technology—especially including digital technology—is nothing more and nothing less than a tool for the cultivation and flourishing of humankind, of the Earth including all its ecosystems and living organismic systems, and of the larger natural universe, and not our or its master (Hanna and Kazim, 2021; Hanna, 2022a: ch. 5).
Now, humankind devises and deploys technology in order to shape the world according to human needs; but in so doing, technology also shapes us, by partially causally determining, forming, and normatively guiding our minds and lives.
Nevertheless, the paramount fact is that we produce technology; hence all technology is contingent upon us and our human needs, and can be changed by us if we freely resolve to do so and then freely act on that resolution.
In other words, we have creative control over all technology, and therefore we are not the slaves of any kind of technology, unless of course we voluntarily enslave ourselves to that technology.
Nevertheless, short of that voluntary self-enslavement, no kind of technology—especially including digital technology—is necessary, immutable, inevitable, sacrosanct, or untouchable.
If any kind of—but especially digital—technology is good for us, good for the Earth including all its ecosystems and organismic living systems, and good for the cosmos too, then that’s just fine and dandy: we not only can but should design, develop, and use it.
But if any kind of technology is either bad for us—i.e., if it frustrates or warps true human needs, or if it violates the universal obligation always to treat everyone with sufficient respect for their innate human dignity—bad for the Earth including all its ecosystems and living organismic systems, or bad for the cosmos, then we not only can but should modify it, disable it, dismantle it, or simply turn it off, whether temporarily or forever: to hell with it.
Perfect examples of this malign technology are (i) weapons technology, especially including nuclear weapons and guns (Hanna, 2015, 2022b, 2022c), (ii) the ecodestructive technology that damages the Earth’s ecosystems or its living organismic systems and drives harmful climate change, and (iii) the psychopathological and sociopathological digital technology that shapes our minds and lives in destructive, deforming, and constrictive ways (Hanna, 2022a: section 5.5).
Therefore, we must exert our creative control over all technology, and especially digital technology (Hanna and Kazim, 2021; Hanna, 2022a: ch. 5), so that this shaping is always and only constructive, enabling, organic, generative, and above all universally sufficiently dignity-respecting, and never destructive, deforming, mechanical, constrictive, and dignity-disrespecting or dignity-violating, whether it disrespects or violates rational human dignity, or disrespects or violates the proto-dignity of the cosmos.
One crucial aspect of our exerting creative control over all technology in such a way that it’s always and only constructive, enabling, organic, generative, and above all universally sufficiently dignity-respecting, is the ongoing, and indeed lifelong, self-cultivation and self-development of our various innate capacities and natural abilities for cognition, emotion, and action, altogether independently of any digital, otherwise electronic, and especially digital-electronic-prosthetic, enhancement or extension (Hanna, 2022d): for example, reading and/or studying physical texts; creative, expository, narrative, philosophical, or scientific/theoretical thinking by means of composing sentences in one’s head or writing them out by hand; practicing creative piety (Hanna, 2022a: esp. sections 0.2 and 3.7; Hanna and Paans, 2021, 2022); doing simple or more complex mathematics in one’s head or by writing it out longhand, doing mathematical or logical puzzles for pleasure, or playing amateur card games or board games requiring significant mathematical concentration; telling or listening to stories; looking at or drawing pictures, doodling, painting, or sculpting; gardening and flower-arranging; playing music on handheld or otherwise physical instruments or listening to such music, whistling, humming, or singing; dancing or other rythmic exercises accompanied or unaccompanied by music; amateur bodily sports of all kinds; walking, running, swimming, or climbing; aesthetically-planned cooking, eating, or drinking; exploring episodic memories of one’s earlier life; semantic memorization exercises of all kinds; imaginative exercises of all kinds; and hypnagogic musing and meditation.
Perhaps not too surprisingly, all of these kinds of self-cultivation and self-development of our various innate capacities and natural abilities fall under the Kantian moral duty to oneself whose fulfillment consists in “enlarging and improving [one’s] fortunate natural predispositions” or “natural gifts,” because
as a rational [animal] being [one] necessarily wills that all the capacities in [oneself] be developed, since they serve [oneself] and are given to [oneself] for all sorts of possible purposes. (Kant, 1996: pp. 74-75, Ak 4: 423)
8. So to summarize by way of conclusion, the revolutionary and worldshaking two-part neo-organicist turn is:
first, the explanatory inversion of the modern-classical metaphysics and ontology of materialism or physicalism, and
second, humankind’s creative control over technology, especially including the ongoing and lifelong self-cultivation and self-development of our various innate capacities and natural abilities for cognition, emotion, and action, altogether independently of any digital, otherwise electronic, and especially digital-electronic-prosthetic, enhancement or extension.
It should be self-evident by now that directly contrary to the mind-manacling ideology of the mechanistic worldview, this two-part neo-organicist turn is neither anti-scientific, nor Luddite, nor “bonkers,” “crazy,” “like voting for unicorns,” “wacko,” “woo-woo,” etc., etc.
Instead, and in a fully emancipatory and rationally hopeful spirit, the neo-organicist turn is robustly pro-(authentic)scientific, pro-(good)technology, and above all, eminently mentally, bodily, and socially healthy and soberly sane.[iii]
NOTES
[i] For the record, strong supervenience (Horgan, 1993; Kim, 1993: esp. part 1; Chalmers, 1996: chs. 1-3) is a necessary determination-relation between sets of facts, properties, or states of different ontological “levels,” a relation that is weaker than strict fact/property/state-identity, and is usually taken to be asymmetric, although two-way or bilateral supervenience is also possible. But assuming for the purposes of simpler exposition that strong supervenience is asymmetric, then, more precisely, B-facts/properties/states (= the higher level facts/properties/states) strongly supervene on A-facts/properties/states (= the lower-level facts/properties/states) if and only if, (i) for any fact/property/state F among the A-facts/properties/states had by something X, F necessitates X’s also having fact/property/state G among the B-facts/properties/states (upwards necessitation), and (ii) there cannot be a change in any of X’s B-facts/properties/states without a corresponding change in X’s A-facts/properties/states (necessary co-variation). It follows from strong supervenience that any two things X and Y share all their A-facts/properties/states in common only if they share all their B-facts/properties/states in common (indiscriminability). In turn, logical strong supervenience is a super-strong version of strong supervenience which says that the necessitation relations between the B-facts/properties/states and the A-facts/properties/states are logical and a priori. Or more simply put: The B-facts/properties/states are “nothing more than” and “nothing over and above” the A-facts/properties/states. If logical strong supervenience holds, then if there were such a being as an all-powerful and all-knowing creator God, and if They were to create and/or know all the A-facts/properties/states, then They would have nothing more to do in order to create and/or know all the B-facts/properties/states. By contrast to logical strong supervenience, natural or nomological strong supervenience is a modally weaker notion which says that the necessitation relations between the B-facts/properties/states and the A-facts/properties/states are determined by laws of nature, and hold in all and only the worlds in which those natural laws obtain. It’s crucial to recognize that no matter what its level of modal strength, strong supervenience specifies at best a set of extrinsic modal properties and relations (namely, upwards necessitation, necessary co-variation, and indiscriminability) between a thing’s A-facts/properties/states and its B-facts/properties/states, or between any two things’ A-facts/properties/states and B-facts/properties/states. Hence strong supervenience is also a systematic abstraction of something’s or any two things’ B-facts/properties/states from its or their A-facts/properties/states.
[ii] “Moist robots” is Daniel Dennett’s deflationary epithet for humankind, borrowed from the comic strip Dilbert. See (Schuessler, 2013).
[iii] I’m grateful to Scott Heftler and Otto Paans for thought-provoking conversations and correspondence on and around the topics of this essay.
REFERENCES
(Chalmers, 1996). Chalmers, D., The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
(Hanna, 2021). Hanna, R. “A Theory of Human Dignity.” Unpublished MS. Available online HERE.
(Hanna, 2022a). Hanna, R. The Philosophy of the Future: Uniscience and the Modern World. Unpublished MS. Available online HERE.
(Hanna, 2022b). Hanna, R. “Gun Crazy: A Moral Argument For Gun Abolitionism.” Unpublished MS. Available online HERE.
(Hanna, 2022c). Hanna, R. “The Weapons Effect and The Banksy Effect: The Social-Psychological Problem of Guns and Gun Violence, and A Proposed Solution.” Unpublished MS. Available online HERE.
(Hanna, 2022d). Hanna, R. “Turing, Strong AI, and The Fantasy of Transhumanist Spiritualism.” Unpublished MS. Available online HERE.
(Hanna and Kazim, 2021). Hanna, R. and Kazim, E. “Philosophical Foundations for Digital Ethics and AI Ethics: A Dignitarian Approach.” AI and Ethics. 26 February. Available online at URL = <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43681-021-00040-9>.
(Hanna and Paans, 2020). Hanna, R. and Paans, O. “This is the Way the World Ends: A Philosophy of Civilization Since 1900, and A Philosophy of the Future.” Cosmos & History 16, 2 (2020): 1-53. Available online at URL = <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/viewFile/865/1510>.
(Hanna and Paans, 2021). Hanna, R. and Paans, O. “Thought-Shapers.” Cosmos & History 17, 1: 1-72. Available online at URL = <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/923>.
(Hanna and Paans, 2022). Hanna, R. and Paans, O. “Creative Piety and Neo-Utopianism: Cultivating Our Global Garden.” Unpublished MS. Available online HERE.
(Horgan, 1993). Horgan, T. “From Supervenience to Superdupervenience: Meeting the Demands of a Material World.” Mind 102: 555-586.
(Kant, 1996). Kant, I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. M. Gregor. In I. Kant, Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Pp. 41-108. [1785, Ak 4: 385-463]
(Kim, 1993a). Kim, J. Supervenience and Mind. Cambridge MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.
(Schuessler, 2013). Schuessler, J. “Philosophy That Stirs the Waters,” New York Times. 29 April. Available online at URL = <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/books/daniel-dennett-author-of-intuition-pumps-and-other-tools-for-thinking.html?emc=eta1&_r=0>.
(Torday, Miller Jr, and Hanna, 2020). Torday, J.S., Miller, W.B. Jr, and Hanna, R. “Singularity, Life, and Mind: New Wave Organicism.” In J.S. Torday and W.B. Miller Jr, The Singularity of Nature: A Convergence of Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2020. Ch. 20, pp. 206-246.
Against Professional Philosophy is a sub-project of the online mega-project Philosophy Without Borders, which is home-based on Patreon here.
Please consider becoming a patron!
