Michael Kosok

[Balder]

I recently learned about the work of Michael Kosok (via a discussion in Bonnie's Magellan course).  I've only cursorily reviewed his website this morning, but his work certainly looks worth a gander.  He touches on a good number of themes that we have explored on this forum (intersubjectivity, paradox, embodiment, the myth/metaphysics of identity, quantum theory, post-Marxist social theory, etc).  Given the nature and scope of his work, and the early date of his writings (some of this stuff dates back to 1975), I'm surprised I haven't come across references to him in Wilber's writings (that I recall).

 

The New Dialectics (Introduction)

 

 

[Balder]

Recall what Kosok says:

The main point here is that light as an electro-magnetic phenomenon cannot be regarded as a universal or abstract process — which in turn makes relativistic quantum mechanics into a specific theory of electro-magnetically conditioned space time (wave lengths and frequencies): it is maintained that space time changes “in general” are abstract and have no meaning. Space and time, are qualities of energy interaction and when made dependent upon a specific quantity (the velocity of light) which comes only from one quality (electro-magnetic light energy on the electronic level of relations) this must leave room for other kinds of possible space and time transformations — i.e. other kinds of relativity and quantum mechanics. Thus one can enlarge the syntactical structure of quantum mechanics and relativity by showing that its specific semantical localizations can produce an indefinite number of different kinds of relativity and quantum mechanics, each dependent upon the type of energy-exchange units present...

Have you heard anything recently about the supposed violations of light speed in the recent Opera/CERN experiments?  Think that has any bearing on Kosok's suggestion above?

[Balder]

Here's an essay on Kosok's dialectical phenomenology that I came across this morning.  According to the opening comments, apparently Kosok mysteriously disappeared years ago and is presumed dead.

[Balder]

Maybe Wilber knocked him off and took over his job...

[Balder]

I've been dipping into a number of his essays, and have a number of things to say about many of his ideas, but I'll start here:

 

Once again, however, the same kind of limitations are visible in this classical formulation. And the counterpart to Goedel’s undecidability theorem in logic is the indeterminacy principles of physics which declare the impossibility of clearly defining the boundary of any one object to begin with, let alone the nature of internal boundaries. In addition, precisely because of this actual boundary indeterminacy, a non-linear mechanics going beyond Newton’s three laws is now in the process of evolution in physics, retaining, however, Newton’s three laws as the ideal form for a simple cycle of relation. Thus, all objects are now regarded in terms of fields which extend through all of space, and one cannot therefore clearly indicate where one element ends and another begins. This is the paradox of physical boundedness, and the wave-particle paradox in physics is but one such example, for each element is both unlocalized and a wave-effect while also being localized or a particle-effect. Furthermore, within any one material system, no clear-cut conservation of energy (or even momentum) follows from the presence of indeterminacies involving internal boundaries. Only with the presence of well defined particles and well defined elastic collisions (setting aside the additional difficulties involved when talking about photon-photon interrelation) does a well determined system having all the classical theorems of conservation of energy and momentum exist.

Finally, it must be pointed out that in modern physics, the space, universe or whole within which particles exist is not abstract or absolute, and neither are the particles or parts making up the whole. Thus, whole and part — just as unity and diversity — mutually condition each other, and we have a non-linear physical universe in which each particle reflects the whole space-time structure within which it exists relative to its own conditions. This gives us the theory of relativity, and conversely, the whole of space is in turn a function of each of the particles that appear within it — which gives us the theory of quantum mechanics. In relativity, no absolute whole exists, for the whole is mirrored into every part in its own way, while in quantum mechanics no absolute part exists, for each part is mirrored out into the entire universe. What makes these two theories difficult to understand in themselves is their basic paradoxical non-linearity. What makes it difficult to conceive of the unity of the deterministic and whole-oriented relativity and the indeterministic and part-oriented quantum mechanics, is the fact that they are opposite aspects of the same paradoxical non-linearity. Moreover, one can even state that relativity and quantum mechanics as presently set up still suffer from un-necessary classical linear assumptions. Thus, relativity bases its determinate geometry of relativity on the absolute nature of the speed of a particular element, the photon of light, which is not defined in context with the rest of the relative universe; while quantum mechanics bases its indeterminacy relations for the universe on the determined properties of the same element, i.e., light, and thus limits the type of indeterminacies capable of being present to a fixed structure. Classical physics had its absolute atom, and modern physics is still quite attached to the photon as an absolute. God may have said “let there be light”, but the modern physicist definitely says “let there be photons” . . . and too often rests the whole week long instead of only on Sunday. It is because of this categorical barrier of the photon (taken out of context from the rest of the universe) that the complete non-linear and complementary natures between relativity and quantum mechanics — which do not have to be photon based — are masked. (Once freed of such limitation, present day relativity can be derived from electro-magnetism, and, present day quantum mechanics then appears as a necessary co-relative aspect to the dynamics of the electromagnetic field. This leaves room for the development of relativity and quantum mechanics in terms of particles or energies not dependent upon the speed of electro-magnetic light, e.g., for sub-electronic or sub-photonic interactions.) The categorical limitations of Goedel’s theorems in logic, and the categorical confusions which quantum mechanics and relativity give to physics, can only be definitively resolved within a context of paradox and genuine non-linearity, i.e., a dialectical phenomenology of the sciences, such that no contradiction can appear to any unnecessarily fixed diction or identity, since no such abstractions will be made in the first place. The same will also be true for the classical categories in psychology, to which we now turn.

This is interesting to me for several of its implications for a few of the topics we've discussed here recently.  One, I get from this a sense of wholeness as unbounded, indefinite, and ambiguous, which I've discussed in Bon Dzogchen and enactive contexts -- a challenge to the notion of a fixed and final assholon, in Ed's terms.  Two, Kosok seems to be identifying light, or the photon, as a modern "idol" in Finkelstein's sense of the term.  Third, this formulation -- particularly when considered in the context of a number of his other writings -- poses a challenge to OOO's objects, if by object we mean something definite (definitively bounded) that is absolutely withdrawn from all other objects (a la Harman).  On the other hand, this indefiniteness or "receding quality" -- which I discussed elsewhere in terms of infinite reducibility -- could be seen as a kind of analogue to the notion of objects as withdrawing, as eschewing or exceeding attempts to definitively grasp them (though without necessitating belief in object-in-itselfness).

[Balder]

Tom:  Notice where he says that all objects are regarded in terms of fields.  That statement places him squarely in Einstein's camp.  And fwiw, that view is not the view of quantum physics where both field and particle are required for a complete description in the Gödel sense of completion.

I read several of his essays today -- well, dipped into some and read others in their entirety -- and I recall he was careful in several places to emphasize both particle and field views simultaneously, so I don't think he's really squarely in Einstein's camp there.  But I will need to poke around to find some examples.  (In the passage above, I think he is giving a narrative of the evolution of views, and so I think the "now regarded" describes the movement out of a Newtonian view and into Einsteinian relativity; but such movement falls short of the fuller, paradoxical view he is attempting to present).

Kosok:  Thus, whole and part — just as unity and diversity — mutually condition each other, and we have a non-linear physical universe in which each particle reflects the whole space-time structure within which it exists relative to its own conditions.

Tom:  This notion of the mutuality of duals misses the critical point that duals are asymmetrically related, and more importantly reiterates a causal, linear view.  What can be said about one dual cannot be said, without qualification, about the other, and any whole that is conditionable is not a whole but a part.  Kosok's whole, in the passage above, is a counterfeit whole.

Yes, there were several places in that passage where I also noticed possible suggestions of a symmetrical interpretation.  However, given he says non-linear right there in the sentence you quoted, and since elsewhere he makes a pretty good case that he understands what non-linear means, I am hesitant to say flatly that he's presenting the linear model you're saying he is.  For instance, when he says that whole and part mutually condition each other, this doesn't rule out an asymmetrical relationship; it is possible for asymmetrically related poles to both influence each other, without that influence being equal or identical in both directions.  When you say, "without qualification," I think you are saying as much; you aren't saying we can't speak of two-way relation at all, are you? 

Tom:  Thus any true whole requires for its perception the presence of any two or more parts---it matters not how many or which parts, as wholeness inheres in the partness of any and all parts whatever.

1) What do you mean when you say "any true whole"?  Can you speak of "a" whole or "any" whole and avoid falling prey to creating a counterfeit whole?   2)  My impression is that he also sees "wholeness inhering in the partness of any and all parts whenever," as when he says:  "When you dip into any object or state, you dip into the whole damn universe… including yourself‑within‑that‑universe."

Tom:  The whole he there names---space---must be external to particles to be a function of them...

I don't follow this.  Why must it be external to particles if it is a function of particles?  In his overall presentation, again, no, I do not get a container-like model from him.  Here are two quotes which are not suggestive, to me, of this sort of "container" view:

In a paradoxical logic, the very opposition between either an indenumerable or a denumerable infinity… or continuous vs. discrete — whole vs parts — becomes transcended into contiguous states of coupled infinities, all infinities becoming mapped out by the dialectic matrix of transitivities that has no beginning or ultimate set of all sets that can be posited or denied, being instead the very process of relation and not simply any one product… any one + or ‑ phase. Non‑linear set‑theory is an open‑field texture of relations which transcends hier­archical structures that rest on a sub‑structure or point to a super­structure that is itself not part of the texture...


Only by seeing the functionally inverse‑complementary ways in which relativity and quantum mechanics express a singular non­-linearity between whole and part, field and particle… only by seeing in a singular formulation how any particle localization and its field of non-localised interaction simultaneously condition-and-are-conditioned by each other through a two‑way relation of mutuality, will the indeterminism of the “part” orientation of quantum mechanics, and the determinacy of the “whole” orientation of relativity be redefined in terms of a whole­-through‑its‑parts self‑determination state. In such a universe, the whole, or field, neither simply converges deterministically upon each part, nor does each part merely diverge indeterministically as a proba­bility distribution of effects over the whole, but rather parts and whole, particles and fields trans‑verge through each other, everything being both a universal state of inseparable co‑relation that is unlocalizable and a particular distinct element which manifests this totality through it as a unique and particular kind of totality.

[Balder]

I don't really know Kosok's work well enough to take a solid stand behind him, but for the sake of this discussion (and my own inquiry and learning), I'm going to take his side and defend him against some of your criticisms (since I haven't seen some of the shortcomings in him that you are pointing to).

 

Tom:  "Influence" is the realm of part, distinction, etc.  Part cannot "influence" whole.  Whole is always already implied by part, so is not "caused" (influenced).  Interinfluence = symmetrical.

For me, this is a bit confusing because I use (perhaps inconsistently) "whole" in two different ways (and it appears you may as well, or at least I don't completely follow your use(s)).  I refer to Bortoft's authentic whole as "wholeness" but then I also view things holonically, where, say, a body can be the whole of which organs and bones are parts (while body can, of course, also be part to greater wholes).  Something going wrong in one part (a vital organ) can influence the overall functioning of the whole organism, in widely distributed, non-linear ways.  Do you disagree with this, or do you regard it as incorrect to conceive of the body as a "whole"? 

Also, can you differentiate what you are saying above, about part having no whole-influence, and what you said earlier in the thread regarding electron change (which I quote below)?

I think that electron example is philosophically pregnant, as it intelligibly illustrates change as whole-change.  When one moves, all move.  It is that kind of movement-wholeness that the quantum in quantum physics implies, that spooky action at a distance.  Many naturally think quantum means particulate, some or another theory of particles, which in a sense it does.  But it more importantly means wholeness of the relational sort illustrated by the electron example. 

 

Bruce: Can you speak of "a" whole or "any" whole and avoid falling prey to creating a counterfeit whole?

Tom:  Yes, fractally, where a subwhole has wholeness status respecting that which [is] partial respecting it.  But that whole is itself a part within a more encompassing whole.  This is to remain asymmetrical.

This is the holonic view.  When you say that the whole is the realm of non-influence (and therefore non-relation?), are you saying that what happens in/to subholons has no bearing on the status of greater (asymmetrically related) holons?

Bruce: My impression is that he also sees "wholeness inhering in the partness of any and all parts whenever," as when he says:  "When you dip into any object or state, you dip into the whole damn universe… including yourself‑within‑that‑universe."

Tom:  "Within" the universe (within wholeness)?  That's a container whole.  We're not "within" the universe, or any whole.  We or any part are it.

I read that differently.  Just because he talks about you-within-the-universe, I don't see him as relying on a container view of wholeness (you can still hold a non-container view of wholeness and say things like he's in the house, he's in this country, he's in this galaxy, he's in the universe, etc).  Here, I see him saying that when we encounter or explore any object or state, we are encountering universe in/as that whole, which includes you (the observer) as well.

Tom:  Btw, this is pure Einsteinian, pre-paradox flattening that leads to infinite regress (Kosok's "open-fieldness"):

Kosok:  Non‑linear set‑theory is an open‑field texture of relations which transcends hier­archical structures that rest on a sub‑structure or point to a super­structure that is itself not part of the texture...

To be a bit more charitable, and reading his comments in context to a greater extent than you appear to be, he is speaking here of transcendence, and he also presents a model of developing stages of cognition and world-perception, so I don't think he's rejecting non-linear, hierarchical relationships altogether.  It seems to me, rather, he is speaking of a move towards a non-foundationalist holarchical view (a transcendence which, just as you say, involves a move to subtler and more refined way of viewing).

As for the validity of his views on physics, I obviously am not qualified to make a very informed assessment.  You argue that quantum mechanics represents a developmental advance over relativity, and I think you make a pretty good case for that (although obviously there are many competing theories -- more than 7, I believe).  But if it is a developmental advance, perhaps he didn't recognize that; it seems not many folks do.

[Balder]

Not exactly, in my view, but SD does posit something like that, in the polar swing from part- to whole- orientations with each dialectical unfolding.

[Balder]

Tom:  Yes, parts influence parts, per your example, including other parts of the body, which I take to be a whole.  What influence does any change in any part, for better or worse, have on the unity that is the source of the parts' partness?  That unity, for me, is an other-referred process whereby, for instance, a bone cell became a bone cell because other cells were what they were, any such cell being but a small modification of the originary cell from and respect of which all others develop.  The resulting overall unity---the resulting bodily person---remains unified whether it has two arms or one.  I don't see any influence on that unity.  I wouldn't myself consider the "whole body" to be whole in respect of an enumeration of parts.  That's container wholeness.

 

Okay, thank you -- I believe I follow your meaning better now, and if so, this is in fairly close accord with my preferred distinction between wholeness and holons/wholes.  I agree, wholeness -- not as a container whole, but as radical interdependence/inseparability or what I believe you call internal relatedness -- is not "changed" or influenced by changes in parts, but any resultant unity (holon), which of course is part-and-whole, can be impacted by changes in parts.  In other words, diseases or traumas can impact a whole (such as a body), including its own internal systemic dynamics and functioning and even its systemic cohesion (let's think big: disintegration by neutron bomb), but from this view, internal relatedness or co-referral (or differance) as a metaphysical fact of existence is not "itself" impacted.  Is this close to what you mean?