Mike McCullough Self Organizing of Growing and Perceiving Gendlin-Aristotle with comments in relation to S. Kauffman and R.D. Ellis

Help for Helpers ~ August 1, 2022 ~ 8:15am Eastern (1.5 hour)

“Patience is not only tender, respectful
and loving, it is quietly defiant; it knows
how to hold its own ground. It has a calm,
silent authority that insists by example
what must change. It empathizes with pain
and suffering but provides a way of going
beyond mere endurance. You can trust its
strength and wisdom. It moves slowly but
at the right pace; it’s always there, right
behind you, offering you just the help you
need. Its power is felt by others; it changes
them, too.”
 –– Mary Jennings, The Tricycle Effect – please click for notes
The Focusing Connection, November 2007

A Complexity Theory of Power

Authors:
Michael F. McCullough at City University of New York - Brooklyn College

Abstract

A complexity theory of power combines power theory and complexity theory in an effort to develop a framework for the empirical analysis of political power conflicts. The proposed theory correlates the power to dominate (Dahl, 1957; Lukes, 1974) with disorganized complexity (Weaver, 1948) and the power to collaborate (Arendt, 1969, 1986; Parsons, 1963) with self-organized complexity. In this view, power exercised by one party to dominate another is a disorganizing process and power exercised by different parties to collaborate with one another is a self-organizing process. This perspective makes it possible to interpret a wide variety of power conflicts as instances of political complexity. Empirical examples of power clashes I touch upon here include a mugging, struggles over the expansion and contraction of suffrage in the United States, the Montgomery bus boycott, the authoritarian breakdown of democratic regimes, and transitions from authoritarian to more open political systems.

The proposed theory correlates the

POWER TO DOMINATE (Dahl, 1957; Lukes, 1974)
with DISORGANIZED COMPLEXITY (Weaver, 1948)

and
the POWER TO COLLABORATE
(Arendt, 1969, 1986; Parsons, 1963)
with SELF-ORGANIZED COMPLEXITY

______________________________________

A complexity theory of power combines power theory and complexity theory in an effort to develop a framework for the empirical analysis of political power conflicts. The proposed theory correlates the power to dominate (Dahl, 1957; Lukes, 1974) with disorganized complexity (Weaver, 1948) and the power to collaborate (Arendt, 1969, 1986; Parsons, 1963) with self-organized complexity. In this view, power exercised by one party to dominate another is a disorganizing process and power exercised by different parties to collaborate with one another is a self-organizing process. This perspective makes it possible to interpret a wide variety of power conflicts as instances of political complexity. Empirical examples of power clashes I touch upon here include a mugging, struggles over the expansion and contraction of suffrage in the United States, the Montgomery bus boycott, the authoritarian breakdown of democratic regimes, and transitions from authoritarian to more open political systems.

The concept of power

Abstract

What is “power”? Most people have an intuitive notion of what it means. But scientists have not yet formulated a statement of the concept of power that is rigorous enough to be of use in the systematic study of this important social phenomenon. Power is here defined in terms of a relation between people, and is expressed in simple symbolic notation. From this definition is developed a statement of power comparability, or the relative degree of power held by two or more persons. With these concepts it is possible for example, to rank members of the United States Senate according to their “power” over legislation on foreign policy and on tax and fiscal policy.

Steven Lukes
Power: a radical view
Author: Steven Lukes
Publisher: London ; New York : Macmillan, 1974.
Series: Studies in sociology (Macmillan Press)
https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Power-A-Radical-View-Steven-Lukes.pdf

Warren Weaver.
Originally published as Weaver, W. (1948). “Science and complexity,” in American Scientist, 36: 536-544.

Hannah Arendt
Journal of International Affairs Vol. 23, No. 1, 1969 Reflections on Violence (pp. 1-35)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24356590

The origins of totalitarianism
Publisher:London: André Deutsch, 1986.

Talcott Parsons, 1963
On the Concept of Influence
The Public Opinion Quarterly
Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1963), pp. 37-62 (26 pages)
Published By: Oxford University Press
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2747290

Collected references A Complexity Theory of Power Mike McCullough December 2018

Dahl, 1957
by RA Dahl · 1957 · Cited by 8762 — The concept of power. Citation. Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2, 201–215.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830020303
___________________
Steven Lukes, 1974
Power: a radical view
Author: Steven Lukes
Publisher: London ; New York : Macmillan, 1974.
Series: Studies in sociology (Macmillan Press)
https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Power-A-Radical-View-Steven-Lukes.pdf
___________________
Weaver, 1948
by W Weaver · Cited by 2594 — Science and complexity. Warren Weaver.
Originally published as Weaver, W. (1948). “Science and complexity,” in American Scientist, 36: 536-544.
___________________
Hannah Arendt, 1969, 1986
Journal of International Affairs Vol. 23, No. 1, 1969 Reflections on Violence (pp. 1-35)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24356590

1986 The origins of totalitarianism
Author: Hannah Arendt
Publisher:London : André Deutsch, 1986.
___________________

Talcott Parsons, 1963
On the Concept of Influence
The Public Opinion Quarterly
Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1963), pp. 37-62 (26 pages)
Published By: Oxford University Press
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2747290

REFERENCES ~ EndNote 30

Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, USA.

Kauffman, S. A. (2015). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Lightning Source UK. Ltd.

A Preview at https://www.google.ca/books/edition/The_Origins_of_Order/lZcSpRJz0dgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

__________________________________________________

Ellis, R. D., & Newton, N. (2000). The caldron of consciousness: Motivation, affect and self-organization. J. Benjamins. an Anthology by Ralph D. Ellis (Editor), Natika Newton (Editor)
With Table of Contents  – an excellent collection including Gene Gendlin
https://benjamins.com/catalog/aicr.16

__________________________________________________

(CITATIONS from https://www.citationmachine.net/)

Ellis ‘Cauldron of Consciousness’

Jun 23, 2022, preliminary reading and discussion of Book Two Chapter Two, EndNote 30 “… on the self-organizing of growing and perceiving…”

Informal notes: **

KATARINA

We are reading Book Two Chapter Two, ‘EndNote 30. On the Self Organizing of Growing and Perceiving’  page 255  Line by Line Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima Eugene T. Gendlin, Ph.D. University of Chicago Copyright © 2012 by Eugene T. Gendlin Published by the Focusing Institute
Introduction, Books I and II [PDF] http://previous.focusing.org/aristotle/Ae_Bk_1-2.p…

CHARLES

So that is Gene:
PARAGRAPH 1 “Aristotle greatly changes the meaning of “form.” It doesn’t mean what it means for Plato, or in common English. We see this best right here. The form is an inner forming-activity which accounts for the living thing’s form-of-body as well as its observable motions and activities..” EndNote 30  page 255 first paragraph (emphasis added)

Okay. So it is an inner-forming activity. I like that. I just want to sit with it, an inner-forming activity. The form is an inner forming. 

I think that in one of the chapters Gene spoke on, maybe the next to last one, he talks about people becoming the creators of new forms … or patterns. I do not know if it is patterns or forms, or both.

That is part of the sort of creativity that allows for new social structures and forms to emerge. This seems to be in line with that. The form is an inner forming activity… I very much like that…which accounts for the living thing’s form of the body.

Now that is a little stretch here. 

KATARINA

Structure .. matter … formed-by-the soul.
GENE: “The body is an organism’s matter-formed-by the soul.”
– EndNote 6. On Why There Are No Pathe Peculiar to the Soul As Such page 225  Line by Line Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima Eugene T. Gendlin, Ph.D. University of Chicago Copyright © 2012 by Eugene T. Gendlin Published by the Focusing Institute
Introduction, Books I and II [PDF] http://previous.focusing.org/aristotle/Ae_Bk_1-2.p…


CHARLES

Was that next?  But, see, I am still with that one sentence.

KATARINA

Yes. We have come across that again and again in Gene’s commentary on Aristotle.

CHARLES

which accounts for the living thing’s form-of-body ” That is like one word  ‘form-of-body’…  ” as well as its observable motions and activities.” 

Okay, so does he mean there the way the actual form of our physical body, like the organs, the way the body is formed? Because he does talk about how…

KATARINA

We have been so enthralled by Gene’s “The body is an organism’s matter-formed-by the soul.” from EndNote 6 On Why There Are No Pathe Peculiar to the Soul As Such. page 225 first paragraph

CHARLES

Okay.  All right.  So the inner forming activity sounds almost like the soul. 

Let us move down a little bit.

PARAGRAPH 2 “In Aristotle’s Physics, the kind of motion which defines a body is due to the internal activity (heat) which holds the body together and maintains the proportion of its elements. In natural bodies the formal defining cause of a body also determines its motion. “EndNote 30. second paragraph (emphasis added)

That is very different from the inner bodies of [Newton’s] physics.

KATARINA

As I hold this warm cup of water the heat is coming into my hands. The comfort is tangible.

CHARLES

Now, is he talking about that or is he talking about living bodies? Not sure.

KATARINA

Perhaps he is relating to heat which holds the body together.

CHARLES

Maintains the proportion of its elements.” I thought he was talking about the heat of a living body, the internal activity. Is Aristotle’s physics about objects, like steel balls, or is it about living bodies? I am not sure.

KATARINA

Aristotle has made that distinction before between natural bodies and artificial bodies.

CHARLES

Right, he talked about the ax that just drops because there is nothing for it to press on. That is a different kind of motion from the motion of a body that has its own inner movement. 

KATARINA

PARAGRAPH 3 “Knowledge/soul and health/body are analogous to how sensation and nutrition are active soul-forms-of the body. Aristotle will show in the coming chapters how he can study sensation not just as a reception of outward forms, but as an internal form-and-efficient cause, an internally active forming in the sense-organs and in the sensitive flesh. And nutrition is the internal formation of the body from an embryo.” EndNote 30. third paragraph (emphasis added)

He is very keen on the nutritive aspect of defining some natural bodies. 

CHARLES

I think Aristotle is too.  Okay, so knowledge, soul, health, body are analogous to how sensation and nutrition are active soul forms of the body.”

I can sort of see that. I mean, you know, soil in and of itself does nothing until there is a living plant that can take it and bind it with water and so forth to make up a living organism. So it is the soul of the living body that transforms nutrition. Nutrition is a soul activity. Right? Otherwise, you just have dirt or soil. It is the soul activity of the body that transforms the soil into a plant. 

So I can see that nutrition is actually a soul activity. Does that make sense?

KATARINA

Yes.

CHARLES

Without the soul there is no such nutrition. This just happens. It is not a mechanical process, it is an organic living process, which is what I think Aristotle means by a soul. 

Okay, I can live with that.

KATARINA

“Aristotle will show in the coming chapters how he can study sensation, not just as the reception of outward form but as an internal form and efficient cause, and internally active forming in the sense organs and the sensitive blood.  And nutrition is the internal formation of the body of an embryo.” paragraph 3

CHARLES

That is cool, pretty straightforward in a way.

KATARINA

We can be happy that Mike chose this EndNote 30.

PARAGRAPH 4 “To understand Aristotle we need to see in what specific way his approach differs. In modern science the living activities such as desire, perception, and nutrition are explained as passive effects of chemicals and molecules that are moved in certain ways. These passive and separable molecules are taken to be “the body.” There are no concepts for how the complex life-functions organize the body. Since there are no concepts about this higher organizing, we encounter it as a host of “anomalies.” For example, in the development of an embryo a certain molecule stretches out into a long string, so as to effect a certain development into some organ or later body-part. The mechanics of this is taken to be the embryonic process. Then it becomes a puzzle why this stretching out and other such events are “controlled” by a neighboring molecule which is otherwise simple and chemically well-defined. If that innocent seeming molecule is moved, these processes do not occur. ( Pattee ). Such unanswered questions concern higher organizing activities which seem to determine chemical and mechanical formations, but cannot be studied within the kind of concepts of current biology.

CHARLES

Yes, that seems pretty clear. I get it, no problem. Do you?

Okay. “To understand Aristotle we need to see in what specific way his approach differs. In modern science the living activities such as desire, perception and nutrition are explained as passive effects of chemicals and molecules that are moved in certain ways. These passive and separable molecules are taken to be the body. There are no concepts for how that the complex life functions organize the body.”

So here we have a concept of self-organization. There is a way in which somehow.. Yes, the standard modern medicine one is there is no soul.  Right, no soul. Just some chemicals somehow doing stuff somehow, but no real anything about how. It is just chemicals doing stuff but we do not know how or what makes them do it or why it is a living active process. None of that is there. It is all just passive chemicals.

So he is saying that Aristotle does not think that way. He thinks of the organism as actively forming, taking nutrition, creating from precious elements, and forming from an embryo a fully formed body.

Am I making sense?

So since there are no concepts about this higher organizing, modern science encounters it as a host of anomalies.  “For example, in the development of an embryo a certain molecule stretches out into a long string, so as to effect a certain development into some organ or later body-part.”

“The mechanics of this is taken to be the embryonic process. Then it becomes a puzzle why this stretching out and other such evens are controlled by a neighbouring molecule, which is otherwise simply chemically or well defined. If that innocent seeming molecule is moved, these processes do not occur. Such unanswered questions concerning higher organizing activities…”

It is interesting. My brother was a molecular biologist and he was interested in genetics and what triggers… You know, you have DNA in a fly – he was talking about, studying, fruit flies – and said okay something happens which makes this particular cell become a wing. It has the same DNA as the part of the fly that makes a leg, but something – and this is the mystery – something makes this molecule or cell become a wing or a leg or an eye or whatever.  

The whole puzzle there is why? What makes this particular aspect of the DNA activated in such a way that a cell becomes a wing or a leg?

Aristotle would say there is something like an inner-forming process which he is calling the soul that kind of determines this whole unfolding, developing, forming of the fly.

I do not know if he answers the question either. It is still a mystery.

KATARINA

He said, “unanswered questions concerning higher organizing activity seem to determine mechanical formation but…”

CHARLES

“…cannot be studied within the concepts of current biology.”

I think that makes sense. I have this ongoing debate. I do not know where my brother stands on this now, but he said we are just chemicals. And I said how is that, what determines how these chemicals form? I was even saying who is it that creates the thought of these chemicals. They are just a concept but who creates the concept?

He did not get what I was getting at.

KATARINA

“Aristotle’s strategies are still of interest, despite our vastly greater knowledge. For example, they may be useful in the current attempt to restore ‘self-organizing’ as a concept in biology.”

PARAGRAPH 5 Aristotle’s strategies are still of interest, despite our vastly greater knowledge. For example, they may become useful in the current attempts to restore “self-organizing” as a concept in biology (Kaufman, Ellis)

Now we have reference to Kauffman and Ellis.

CHARLES

So far we have talked about Kauffman. But who is Ellis? Does Gene have specific books that he refers to.

KATARINA

We have them in another box on this page,  for EndNote 30.

CHARLES

“In our passage here the basic strategy of Aristotle’s life sense is to consider higher order active self-organizing processes as functions and material formation. That appears to be the meeting of a formal cause that is also an internal moving cause.”

So form and movement are not separated for Aristotle. Form is not something finished, like for Plato. Form is forming. It is a process of something forming. that is how I understand it. 

Whereas Plato tends to think this is a finished ideal thing, and this is the ideal, and this is what it is.

And Aristotle says no things are forming, not finished, not formed.

I do not know, that is me talking.

KATARINA

“Self-organizing processes as functionings and material formations”.

CHARLES

Formations. so there is something that is forming. This becomes a formation. It becomes a noun but is really a verb. Functionings is clearly a verb.

Okay, well I think it is good. I would like to get the references. I will see if I can find Kaufman on Amazon.  

KATARINA

That is in the chat and we can look at the preview together. Very good.

CHARLES

The Origins of Order

KATARINA

Stuart A Kaufman.  “Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution”

CHARLES

So Mike is going to refer to the ….

KATARINA

To both Ellis and Kaufman. 

CHARLES

Privileging {?} observed the emergence of complexity even in prebiotic molecular forms where molecules… Let’s see. I will let my …. the origins of order…

Here it is, Kaufman, only $76/77.  Okay, there’s a paperback for $14. I am going to download a sample of this.

Then the other one is Ellis.

KATARINA

The Caldron of Consciousness. And Gene has a chapter in that anthology.

CHARLES

There is something called The Spiritual Theory of Everything by Frank Ellis. That is not it.  Okay, I see. R.D. Ellis.

KATARINA

Studies by prominent neuroscientists, psychologists and philosophers work towards a coherent framework for understanding motion and to the functioning of consciousness in general as an aspect of self-organizing, distinguishing how consciousness from unconscious information processing hinges on the role of motivating motion in all conscious modalities and how emotional brain processes interact with these traditionally associated with cognitive function. 

CHARLES

Wow. Okay, motivation, affect and self-organization.

KATARINA

First chapter in Ellis is physiological and phenomenological dimensions of affect and emotion.

CHARLES

We have a lot to work on here.

KATARINA

We have Gendlin’s chapter ‘Mind/Body Problem and First Person Processes – Three Types of Concepts’ right here in this anthology.

So there is much to explore in this anthology.

CHARLES

I cannot find on Amazon. It does not want to come up. So I will just search the internet.

KATARINA

We have a chapter in here, ‘Conscious Emotion in Dynamic Systems – How Can I Know How I Think’.  

“Dynamic model of brain mechanisms of consciousness offers more comprehensive solutions than the traditional Cartesian model to many parts as a puzzle in philosophy of mind. One of these is self awareness. How is it possible for a conscious being to be reflexively aware of its own consciousness.

In this chapter I discuss specific ways this question can be treated using a dynamic model. The discussion has two parts: First, I propose in general terms a way in which familiar aspects of conscious emotional states can be viewed as elements of a dynamic call system aware of one’s own emotion.”

CHARLES

So it comes up under Journal of Consciousness Studies. I don’t know… Caldron of Consciousness. I will send it to myself in an email and then put it in the chat.

KATARINA

Put in the link I put in earlier.  

CHARLES

Oh, you already put it in.  So if anybody wants to look for the book, okay. All right. Well, I think we can stop for now.  

KATARINA

We can work on Mike’s paper next week and whatever else we want and also some notes from today.

CHARLES

Okay. Very good. We did good use.

KATARINA

Be well.

CHARLES

Take care.  Good-bye. 

___________________________________

PARAGRAPH 1 “Aristotle greatly changes the meaning of “form.” It doesn’t mean what it means for Plato, or in common English. We see this best right here. The form is an inner forming-activity which accounts for the living thing’s form-of-body as well as its observable motions and activities..” EndNote 30  page 255 first paragraph (emphasis added)

PARAGRAPH 2 “In Aristotle’s Physics, the kind of motion which defines a body is due to the internal activity (heat) which holds the body together and maintains the proportion of its elements. In natural bodies the formal defining cause of a body also determines its motion. “EndNote 30. second paragraph (emphasis added)

PARAGRAPH 3 “Knowledge/soul and health/body are analogous to how sensation and nutrition are active soul-forms-of the body. Aristotle will show in the coming chapters how he can study sensation not just as a reception of outward forms, but as an internal form-and-efficient cause, an internally active forming in the sense-organs and in the sensitive flesh. And nutrition is the internal formation of the body from an embryo.” EndNote 30. third paragraph (emphasis added)

PARAGRAPH 4 “To understand Aristotle we need to see in what specific way his approach differs. In modern science the living activities such as desire, perception, and nutrition are explained as passive effects of chemicals and molecules that are moved in certain ways. These passive and separable molecules are taken to be “the body.” There are no concepts for how the complex life-functions organize the body. Since there are no concepts about this higher organizing, we encounter it as a host of “anomalies.” For example, in the development of an embryo a certain molecule stretches out into a long string, so as to effect a certain development into some organ or later body-part. The mechanics of this is taken to be the embryonic process. Then it becomes a puzzle why this stretching out and other such events are “controlled” by a neighboring molecule which is otherwise simple and chemically well-defined. If that innocent seeming molecule is moved, these processes do not occur. ( Pattee ). Such unanswered questions concern higher organizing activities which seem to determine chemical and mechanical formations, but cannot be studied within the kind of concepts of current biology.

PARAGRAPH 5 Aristotle’s strategies are still of interest, despite our vastly greater knowledge. For example, they may become useful in the current attempts to restore “self-organizing” as a concept in biology (Kaufman, Ellis)

PARAGRAPH 6 In our passage here the basic strategy of Aristotle’s life science is to consider higher order active self-organizing processes as functionings and material formations. That appears to be the meaning of “a formal cause that is also an internal moving cause.” (Gendlin’s emphasis)

Kauffman, S. A. (1993).

Kauffman, S. A. (2015).

Patee

REGISTRATION LINK for August 1, 2022, at Help for Helpers, Corona Plaza Life

If the link is still not active when you wish to register, please contact Katarina: [email protected], 1-604-263-9123

NOTES ABOUT HELP FOR HELPERS:

This group is a weekly gathering to empower, hearten and encourage therapists, counselors, teachers and helpers of all kinds. It is a way to begin our week by accompanying each other, with embodied listening and connection, to meet the profound challenges of this time.

We will start the meetings with a brief reflection on how focusing can nurture, inspire and steady us, so that we can be present for others. A focusing conversation will emerge from what ever is present for us in the moment.

Book II Chapter 2
~ Line by Line Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima Eugene T. Gendlin, Ph.D (2012)

Endnote 30. On the Self Organizing of Growing and Perceiving Aristotle greatly changes the meaning of form.

Self Organizing of Growing and Perceiving’

TEXT
Line by Line Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima Eugene T. Gendlin, Ph.D. University of Chicago Copyright © 2012 by Eugene T. Gendlin Published by the Focusing Institute
Gene’
s Introduction, Books I and II [PDF]
http://previous.focusing.org/aristotle/Ae_Bk_1-2.p…

TOC improved format ~ Table of Endnotes Line by Line Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima Eugene T. Gendlin,

“Endnote 30. On the Self Organizing of Growing and Perceiving Aristotle greatly changes the meaning of “form.” It doesn’t mean what it means for Plato, or in common English. We see this best right here. The form is an inner forming-activity which accounts for the living thing’s form-of-body as well as its observable motions and activities. 

In Aristotle’s Physics the kind of motion which defines a body is due to the internal activity (heat) which holds the body together and maintains the proportion of its elements. In natural bodies the formal defining cause of a body also determines its motion.

 Knowledge/soul and health/body are analogous to how sensation and nutrition are active soul-forms-of the body. Aristotle will show in the coming chapters how he can study sensation not just as a reception of outward forms, but as an internal form-and-efficient cause, an internally active forming in the sense-organs and in the sensitive flesh. And nutrition is the internal formation of the body from an embryo.

 To understand Aristotle we need to see in what specific way his approach differs. In modern science the living activities such as desire, perception, and nutrition are explained as passive effects of chemicals and molecules that are moved in certain ways. These passive and separable molecules are taken to be “the body.” There are no concepts for how the complex life-functions organize the body. Since there are no concepts about this higher organizing, we encounter it as a host of “anomalies.” For example, in the development of an embryo a certain molecule stretches out into a long string, so as to effect a certain development into some organ or later body-part. The mechanics of this is taken to be the embryonic process. Then it becomes a puzzle why this stretching out and other such events are “controlled” by a 

page – 41 – 

neighboring molecule which is otherwise simple and chemically well-defined. If that innocent seeming molecule is moved, these processes do not occur. ( Pattee ). Such unanswered questions concern higher organizing activities which seem to determine chemical and mechanical formations, but cannot be studied within the kind of concepts of current biology. 

Aristotle’s strategies are still of interest, despite our vastly greater knowledge. For example, they may become useful in the current attempts to restore “self-organizing” as a concept in biology (Kaufman, Ellis). 

In our passage here the basic strategy of Aristotle’s life science is to consider higher order active self-organizing processes as functionings and material formations. That appears to be the meaning of “a formal cause that is also an internal moving cause.”

(emphasis in the original, Gene Gendlin’s emphasis)

REFERENCES ~ EndNote 30

Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press, USA.

Kauffman, S. A. (2015). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Lightning Source UK. Ltd.

A Preview at https://www.google.ca/books/edition/The_Origins_of_Order/lZcSpRJz0dgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover

__________________________________________________

Ellis, R. D., & Newton, N. (2000). The caldron of consciousness: Motivation, affect and self-organization. J. Benjamins. an Anthology by Ralph D. Ellis (Editor), Natika Newton (Editor)
With Table of Contents  – an excellent collection including Gene Gendlin
https://benjamins.com/catalog/aicr.16

__________________________________________________

(CITATIONS from https://www.citationmachine.net/)

Posts copied from the blog

Gendlin-Aristotle with comments in relation to Kauffman and Ellis https://thinkinginmovement.ca/mike-mccullough-self-organizing-of-growing-and-perceiving-2022/

Project: A Complexity Theory of Power A complexity theory of power combines power theory and complexity theory in an effort to develop a framework for the empirical analysis of political power conflicts. The proposed theory correlates the power to dominate (Dahl, 1957; Lukes, 1974) with disorganized complexity (Weaver, 1948) and the power to collaborate (Arendt, 1969, 1986; Parsons, 1963) with self-organized complexity. In this view, power exercised by one party to dominate another is a disorganizing process and power exercised by different parties to collaborate with one another is a self-organizing process.

https://www.researchgate.net/project/A-Complexity-Theory-of-Power
The proposed theory correlates the

POWER TO DOMINATE (Dahl, 1957; Lukes, 1974)
with DISORGANIZED COMPLEXITY (Weaver, 1948)

and
the POWER TO COLLABORATE
(Arendt, 1969, 1986; Parsons, 1963)
with SELF-ORGANIZED COMPLEXITY

Homologous, in biology, is defined as having similar or corresponding features and share a common evolutionary origin. Analogous, in biology, is defined as having the same or corresponding roles (function) but do not share a common evolutionary origin / Homologous structures occur in organisms that have the same shared ancestor, and the structures may have different functions. Analogous structures serve similar functions but arise in organisms that are not closely related and don’t share the same ancestor.

Read more: Difference Between Homologous and Analogous Structures | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/difference-between-homologous-and-analogous-structures/#ixzz

“The use of complexity theory breaks from traditional social and political science because it builds upon concepts from physical dynamics that, in evolutionary terms, precede life. It has only been possible to proceed in this analytical direction in recent decades with identification of a self-organizing dynamic within matter by scientists like Prigogine (1977 winner of the Nobel Prize in chemistry).” https://navigatingcomplexity.net/2016/12/19/the-complexity-revolution-at-the-hairdressers/

2 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Discussion pages where we continue to update the references and writing~ welcoming your comments and questions!

____________________

Noting Help for Helpers hosted by the studio; 

* July 4, 2022, The Concept of Life with Gisela Uhl
Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ura2IO33LWc
Discussion page
https://thinkinginmovement.ca/gisela-uhl-life-aristotle-gendlin-2022/

* July 11, 2022, Liberation Focusing with Dave Young
Video  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBo6D4r7qN0
Discussion page https://thinkinginmovement.ca/dave-young-liberation-focusing-2022/

* August 1, 2022, Mike McCullough  “Self Organizing of Growing and Perceiving” Gendlin-Aristotle /A Complexity Theory of Power
Discussion page 
https://thinkinginmovement.ca/mike-mccullough-self-organizing-of-growing-and-perceiving-2022/

____________________

TEXT
Line by Line Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima Eugene T. Gendlin, Ph.D. University of Chicago Copyright © 2012 by Eugene T. Gendlin Published by the Focusing Institute
Gene’s Introduction, Books I and II [PDF] http://previous.focusing.org/aristotle/Ae_Bk_1-2.p…
TOC improved format ~ Table of Endnotes Line by Line Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima Eugene T. Gendlin,

_______________________

NOTES ABOUT ‘HELP FOR HELPERS’:

“This group is a weekly gathering to empower, hearten and encourage therapists, counselors, teachers, and helpers of all kinds. It is a way to begin our week by accompanying each other, with embodied listening and connection, to meet the profound challenges of this time.

We will start the meetings with a brief reflection on how focusing can nurture, inspire and steady us, so that we can be present for others. A focusing conversation will emerge from whatever is present for us in the moment.”