https://gsnv.substack.com/p/gsnv-considers-the-ontogenetic-alternative
1) Key claims/topics in Jackson’s talk (timestamp-anchored)
Metaphysics is unavoidable in science; the job is to surface it and critique it rather than pretend it isn’t there. (0:10–0:28)
Core proposal: an “ontogenetic method” (via Simondon) as an alternative to mathematical Platonism, substantialism, and hylomorphism—aimed at making genesis/individuation the primary explanatory target. (1:00–1:40; 6:35–10:34; 57:04–58:14)
Anti-substantialist starting point: the “first principle” can’t be a determinate being-with-properties; the primal must be indefinite/boundaryless (apeiron) and operational. (2:46–3:54)
Peircean twist: even “Platonic forms” (and time/logic) are evolutionary in origin; chance/spontaneity is fundamental. Also, “law as postulate” is not self-justifying. (4:00–5:12)
Whitehead/Deleuze line: universals don’t explain—they must be explained (the abstract must be derived from the concrete). (5:12–6:12)
Simondon’s critique: both substantialism (stuff-first) and hylomorphism (form imposed on matter) secretly assume a principle of individuation prior to individuation, which is question-begging. Individuation is an event/operation in a reality “richer than the individual.” (6:35–10:34)
Platonism needs careful definition; don’t “end up in the math department” when solving morphogenesis. Math is a powerful mediator/diagrammatic method, but it can conceal as much as it reveals. (10:39–12:20)
Reclaim Plato’s khōra: beyond “forms,” Plato had the receptacle/matrix (devoid of character) with wandering causes, non-equilibrium motion, and endogenous coarse-graining—i.e., not pure form-first. Jackson calls this “choric materialism.” (20:17–24:06)
Hylomorphism as technical (artisanal) paradigm: good for bricks/computers, not for life. The mold “limits and stabilizes” rather than imposes; prepared matter + materialized form + energy + technique are missing from the simplistic form/matter split. (24:18–28:52)
Critique of physicalism via “effective theory”: effective theories coarse-grain reality into predefined state spaces; they explain variation via invariants but externalize the genesis of form into initial conditions/laws chosen by a theorizer. Laplace’s demon is the apotheosis of this artisanal, closure-hungry picture. (29:49–37:31)
Alterity is ineliminable: any “closed” model of total evolution must assume external parameters it cannot generate; there is no unitary, complete effective theory of the cosmos or creative evolution. (41:47–43:55)
Why platonism keeps returning: formal systems always point beyond themselves (Gödel/incompleteness); nesting systems yields infinite regress; “the outside” remains. So we should treat underdetermination as generativity, not failure. (44:07–47:36)
Darwin reframed: Darwin’s deep move is variation-first (overproduction of difference) prior to form/species/selection; modern genetic determinism is portrayed as a regression to hylomorphism (genes as form; bodies as matter). (50:32–53:26)
Vital vs physical individuation (Simondon): physical individuation “resolves” quickly; living systems defer completion (neoteny), maintaining a charge of the pre-individual—hence multiple teloi and ongoing openness. (53:37–54:19)
Individuation as elicitation: organisms have constitutive internal variation; encounters with external alterity elicit/select subsets; “life is individuation.” (55:08–56:25)
Closing example (snake): perception fails when constrained by preformed representations; the “here-and-now” event (haecceity/exity) matters, and hylomorphic perception-talk can obstruct real encounter. (1:07:18–1:08:22)
2) Similarities + problems from a GSNV lens
Where Jackson is strongly GSNV-aligned
Genesis over givens: GSNV’s insistence that “laws/structures” are stabilized outcomes of deeper processes matches his “universals explain nothing; explain the abstract from the concrete.” (5:12–6:12; 58:14–59:30)
Anti-reification of spaces: His warning about predefined state spaces and “ending up in the math department” lines up with a GSNV caution: spaces are useful, but only if tethered to how systems enact them. (10:39–12:20; 34:09–35:21)
Open-ended individuation: His “life defers complete individuation” resonates with GSNV’s stratified becoming: higher-level agency is continuously negotiated, not fixed. (53:37–54:19; 55:08–56:25)
Alterity as ontologically real: His non-closure argument overlaps with GSNV’s view that stable regularities are negotiated, local, and contingent in wider possibility—never “God’s-eye complete.” (41:47–43:55)
The biggest GSNV pushbacks (useful “problems,” not gotchas)
Variation isn’t enough; you need an evaluative manifold
Jackson makes indefiniteness/variation foundational (apeiron, chance, overproduction). GSNV agrees—but adds: what makes variation become directed is an evaluative gradient array (value/valence/selectivity) that is not merely “external selection” and not merely stochasticity.
In other words: GSNV wants the normative dimension (better/worse; viable/non-viable; satisfying/unsatisfying) to be explicit, not smuggled in as “selection.”
Fields + structural coupling are underplayed relative to alterity
Jackson emphasizes “alterity” (outside-ness) and elicitation. GSNV would ask for a clearer account of field effects and structural couplings: what persistent coupling structures the encounter so that elicitation is not arbitrary?
Without that, “alterity” risks becoming a metaphysical solvent that dissolves the very regularities we’re trying to explain.
Periodicity is missing as a stabilizer
GSNV leans on periodicity (multi-scale rhythms, cycles, attractor recurrences) as a concrete way stable forms arise without eternal forms.
Jackson nods to dynamics/coarse-graining but doesn’t foreground periodic stabilization as one of the engines of persistence (which is central if we’re translating to Levin’s “morphospace” talk).
“No effective theory of life” is too strong unless scoped
GSNV can happily grant: no complete, closed, totalizing effective theory.
But it will also say: there are robust, locally valid effective descriptions because some co-variances are extraordinarily stable (your “co-variants of constants” idea).So the refinement is: no final closure, yes layered, domain-limited invariants—and the interesting scientific work is mapping how new invariants are made.
Darwin/Neo-Darwinism framing: a GSNV nuance
His “neo-Darwinism is hylomorphic” critique is directionally compatible with GSNV’s anti-gene-primacy stance, but GSNV would tighten it:
genes are not “form” in the artisan sense; they’re one constraint/evaluative potential among many (bioelectric, mechanical, ecological, developmental memory).
The deeper target is single-level explanatory privilege, not “genes = form” per se.
Net: Jackson gives you an excellent negative metaphysics (anti-closure, anti-form-first, anti-artisanal projection). GSNV’s contribution is to add the positive machinery: evaluative fields + coupling + periodic stabilization that make “open-endedness” scientifically tractable rather than only philosophically necessary.
3) Conference-style GSNV follow-up presentation (responding directly to his frame)
Title: From Alterity to Attunement: How Living Systems Build Real Possibility Spaces Without Eternal Forms
Abstract (what I’d say in the program):
Jackson shows why closure fails: effective theories externalize genesis and smuggle an artisan into nature. I agree. I’ll add a constructive complement: living systems don’t just face alterity; they attune to it through evaluative gradients, field effects, structural coupling, and periodic stabilization—thereby enacting real “spaces of possibility” that are neither mere mathematics nor Platonic eternals.
1 — What Jackson gets exactly right
Metaphysics is always present; make it explicit.
Hylomorphism is a technical paradigm; it misleads in biology.
Closure dreams (Laplace) externalize creativity.
2 — The key move: replace “form imposed” with “evaluation enacted”
In living systems, “form” is not a blueprint.
It is a stabilized resolution within a manifold of possibilities.
The stabilizer is not only constraint—it’s valuation: the system treats some states as preferable/repairable/viable.
3 — Four engines that make possibility spaces real (GSNV core)
Field effects: global-to-local influences (bioelectric, mechanical, chemical, ecological).
Structural coupling: persistent mutual constraints between organism and milieu.
Normative dimension: success/failure isn’t observer poetry; it’s implemented as error-correction, setpoints, satisficing.
Periodicity: rhythmic recurrences stabilize trajectories and make “memory” physically real.
(This is the “positive package” missing from a pure alterity story.)
4 — Reframing “Platonic space”
The question is not “Platonic or not.”
The question is: is the space merely our diagram, or is it enacted by the system’s control architecture?
In morphogenesis, there is strong evidence for enacted spaces (goal-directed repair, modular re-targeting, etc.).
5 — Khōra upgraded: from receptacle to evaluative manifold
Jackson’s retrieval of khōra is gold: a characterless matrix with wandering cause.
GSNV adds: khōra is not only receptive; it is gradiented.
It has directions of better/worse that make some actualizations more likely and more stable.
6 — Against “no effective theory of life” (the constructive version)
Agree: no totalizing closure.
Add: living systems generate local closures (temporary unitarities) that behave lawfully.
These are stable co-variances—“promises” the world keeps long enough for agency to exist.
7 — Darwin’s variation-first, but completed
Variation-first is necessary.
Not sufficient: without evaluative gradients, variation doesn’t become organized persistence.
Selection is not just external filtering; it is also internal: tissues/organs enact norms of repair, completion, and coherence.
8 — What this predicts/clarifies in Levin’s domain
If morphogenetic “spaces” are real, we should find:
control variables that index the evaluative manifold (bioelectric setpoints, boundary conditions, error signals),
topological invariants of repair (what the system preserves across perturbations),
periodic signatures of stabilization (rhythms that correlate with successful re-patterning),
and coupling laws between levels (cell ↔ tissue ↔ organ) that are asymmetric but reliable.
9 — A friendly challenge back to Jackson
“Alterity is ineliminable” — yes.
But for biology we need a theory of attunement: how organisms convert alterity into new stable covariances without external designers.
That requires taking normativity and fielded coupling as first-class, not derivative.
10 — Closing
The world is not a closed machine.
But neither is it pure abyss.
Life is the craft of making partial closures inside openness—and those closures are the living reality behind “spaces.”
No comments:
Post a Comment