Continuity across reality does not require sameness across reality.
Generative Relational Realism has now developed a vocabulary broad enough to raise an unavoidable question. We have spoken of relation across physical, biological, ecological, conscious, social, and historical realities. We have spoken of organization, coherence, embodiment, persistence, participation, inheritance, possibility, and generativity across similarly different domains.
But do these words mean precisely the same thing wherever they are used?
They should not.
If GRR is to become a philosophy of reality rather than a vocabulary imposed upon reality, it must recognize continuity without eliminating difference.
The architecture developed through the preceding essays is intentionally broad:
Relation → Becoming → Differentiation → Organization → Coherence → Embodiment → Persistence → Participation → Altered Conditions → Inherited Possibility → Further Becoming ↺
The architecture proposes that these movements belong together. But it does not propose that they occur identically everywhere.
A molecule does not cohere as an organism coheres.
An organism does not participate as a conscious person participates.
A society does not persist as a mountain persists.
Geological retention is not biological memory.
Biological memory is not conscious recollection.
Physical consequence is not intentional agency.
And the generativity of stellar evolution need not operate through the same mechanisms as biological evolution, human imagination, cultural inheritance, or technological innovation.
Thought the architecture travels - its expressions differ:
GRR proposes continuity across reality without requiring sameness across reality.
This follows from generativity itself.
For if relational becoming can produce genuinely differentiated realities, then reality should not be expected to look the same at every scale.
Relation Across ScalesDifference across scales is not a problem for generative relational reality. It is one of the things generative relational reality should be capable of producing.
Relation provides the clearest place to begin.
GRR proposes relation as constitutive. Nothing becomes entirely from itself or by itself.
But constitutive relation does not require every kind of relation to be identical.
Physical relations may involve forces, fields, exchanges, spatial configurations, chemical bonds, or other interactions described by the physical sciences. Living relations involve these physical conditions while also exhibiting forms of organization associated with metabolism, regulation, development, reproduction, and environmental responsiveness. Conscious relations can involve perception, experience, memory, anticipation, and interpretation. Human social relations can additionally involve language, institutions, power, obligation, symbolic meaning, law, tradition, and culture.
To call all of these relational is not to claim that they operate through the same mechanisms.
It is to make a more basic philosophical proposal:
What realities are and can become cannot be understood adequately by treating them as absolutely independent from the relations through which they become, persist, and participate.
That proposition can remain continuous even while the relations themselves become increasingly differentiated.
This also clarifies GRR's claim that relation is ontologically prior.
Ontological priority does not mean explanatory sufficiency.
To say that relation is constitutive does not mean that the word relation explains chemistry, biology, consciousness, or society by itself. Those realities require the explanatory resources appropriate to them.
Relation provides an ontological orientation.
It does not replace disciplinary explanation.
GRR's contribution is therefore not to tell the sciences what they must discover. It asks whether their discoveries may be understood within a reality in which relational constitution is fundamental while the forms produced through that constitution become increasingly differentiated.
Organization and the Emergence of DifferenceIf GRR is correct about generativity, we should expect such difference.
Organization becomes particularly important here.
Relations can become organized. Organization constrains. Constraint makes some configurations possible while excluding others. Some organized configurations acquire sufficient coherence to become consequential as differentiated realities. Some become embodied. Some persist. Through persistence, some acquire histories that matter to what follows.
As organization changes, capacities can change with it.
A living cell possesses capacities unavailable to its component molecules considered separately. A multicellular organism possesses capacities unavailable to an isolated cell. Conscious participants possess capacities for experience, memory, imagination, and anticipation that need not be projected backward onto every reality from which consciousness eventually emerged. Human symbolic language produces still other possibilities.
The point is not that reality follows a single evolutionary ladder toward humanity.
It is simpler:
Different organizations can make different capacities possible.
Generative relational reality therefore allows qualitative difference to be real.
A later capacity need not have been secretly present in fully developed form within everything preceding it. Nor must it have been inserted from outside relational reality when it appeared.
It can emerge through new forms of relational organization.
This is what we have called:
emergent relational continuity with qualitative difference.
Continuity preserves relation.
Emergence preserves novelty.
Qualitative difference prevents us from reducing what emerges to descriptions adequate only to earlier forms of organization.
If consciousness emerges within relational reality, GRR need not make every relation conscious.
If agency emerges, every causal reality need not become an agent.
If intentionality emerges, all responsiveness need not become intentional.
If responsibility emerges, all participation need not become morally answerable.
Generativity allows reality to become capable of capacities that were not
previously actual in the same form.
The Same Architecture, Different ExpressionsThat is one of the philosophical strengths of the G.
The architecture can therefore recur across scales without becoming an identically imposed formula upon them.
Consider persistence.
A mountain persists through geological processes. An organism persists through ongoing biological regulation. A person persists through embodied continuity while undergoing physiological, psychological, relational, and interpretive change. A community may persist through practices, institutions, narratives, memories, and continuing participation.
The word persistence identifies a common philosophical problem:
How can something remain sufficiently continuous to become historically consequential while continuing to change?
But the answer differs according to what is persisting.
The same is true of retention.
A geological formation can retain consequences of prior physical events. DNA can carry biological inheritance. A person can remember. A culture can preserve and reinterpret histories through language, texts, institutions, technologies, and practices.
These are not merely different quantities of one thing called memory.
They are qualitatively different forms through which prior becoming can remain consequential.
That is why we distinguished retention from memory.
Retention names the broader relational phenomenon.
Memory names richer forms of retention arising within particular kinds of organized reality.
Again:
continuity without identity.
The same principle applies to participation.
Physical realities can become consequential within wider relational conditions. Living organisms can respond actively to environments. Conscious participants can interpret their worlds. Intentional participants can imagine possibilities and act toward them. Responsible participants can become aware that their actions may alter possibilities inherited by others.
The G Across ScalesParticipation becomes richer as the capacities of participants become richer.
GRR need not use one mechanism to explain them all.
Generativity must be treated with the same care.
If generativity belongs to reality's constitutive makeup, this does not mean that everything generates in the same manner.
The G is not a universal mechanism but a universal trait.
It names a metaphysical character of consequential becoming.
Generativity is the consequential capacity of becoming to alter becoming.
That capacity can be expressed differently according to scale, organization, embodiment, and history.
Physical becoming can alter material conditions. Biological becoming can produce organisms that modify environments and establish new ecological conditions. Conscious becoming can produce memory, interpretation, imagination, and anticipation. Social becoming can produce institutions, traditions, technologies, and cultures that alter possibilities inherited by subsequent participants.
The G remains continuous at the level of the metaphysical claim:
What becomes can matter to what can become.
Its expressions need not be continuous in mechanism.
This is why GRR should resist both reduction and inflation.
Reduction would insist that richer forms of reality are adequately described by categories sufficient for simpler forms.
Inflation would project categories appropriate to richer forms backward onto everything else.
GRR requires neither.
A conscious person is physically embodied without being adequately described only through physics. A biological organism is chemically constituted without biology becoming merely chemistry. A social institution depends upon embodied human participants without becoming reducible to any individual participant.
Conversely, the fact that persons possess agency does not make atoms agents. The fact that human beings remember does not require cosmic memory. The fact that human participants deliberate about purposes does not establish that every relation possesses purpose.
A generative relational philosophy should expect qualitative novelty because generativity means that reality can acquire capacities through becoming.
Scalar CoherenceIf nothing genuinely different could emerge, the G would become strangely unnecessary.
This brings us back to scalar coherence.
Scalar coherence does not mean that every scale mirrors every other scale.
It means that differentiated scales can belong within a continuing relational reality without being collapsed into one another.
The physical remains relevant to the biological. The biological remains relevant to the conscious. The conscious remains relevant to the social. And consequences can travel in other directions as well.
Human technologies alter atmospheres. Social institutions alter landscapes. Ecological changes transform social worlds. Physical events can destroy institutions and possibilities accumulated over centuries.
Scales interpenetrate without becoming identical.
Reality may therefore be better understood not as a simple ladder but as nested, overlapping, and recursively interacting relational organizations.
What emerges within one scale can become consequential within others.
GRR does not require a single privileged scale from which all reality becomes intelligible. It requires relational continuity sufficient to understand how differentiated realities remain embedded within wider conditions and how consequences can cross the boundaries through which those realities remain differentiated.
Reality can be relationally continuous without being ontologically flat.
A relational ontology need not produce a flattened universe.
A generative relational ontology should help explain how genuine differentiation becomes possible within relational continuity.
Difference is not what relation fails to overcome.
Difference is something relation can generate.
And that prepares us for the question that has accompanied this entire sequence.
If GRR shares relation, becoming, emergence, organization, constraint, embodiment, participation, inheritance, and generativity with many philosophical relatives, what, if anything, has become distinctive about GRR itself?
Here we enter the final important section of our inquiry into GRR, where we can now answer this question with greater confidence than we could at the beginning of Essays 32 and 33. The answer, however, is not that GRR has discovered concepts no one else has previously imagined. Our comparisons with other philosophies have shown that reality, relation, becoming, persistence, causation, emergence, possibility, identity, organization, embodiment, participation, and generativity all possess substantial histories across philosophy and the sciences.
GRR cannot establish its identity by pretending itself to be singular in this regard.
Nor should it want to.
No philosophy becomes alone.
The question of distinctiveness must therefore be asked differently.
Not:
Which concepts belong exclusively to GRR?
But:
What happens when GRR's commitments are understood together?
From Collection to ArchitectureThe answer increasingly appears to lie in architecture.
A collection places ideas beside one another.
An architecture establishes relations among them.
GRR did not arrive at relation, becoming, coherence, embodiment, persistence, participation, inheritance, possibility, and generativity merely as a list of philosophical commitments.
Each increasingly required the others.
If relation is constitutive, differentiation must be explained. Differentiation raises questions of organization and coherence. Coherence can acquire embodiment. Embodied realities can persist. Persistence allows histories to accumulate. Persistent realities participate within wider relational worlds. Participation can alter conditions. Altered conditions can be inherited. Inheritance reshapes possibility. And changed possibilities become conditions of further becoming.
The architecture therefore became recursive:
Relation → Becoming → Differentiation → Organization → Coherence → Embodiment → Persistence → Participation → Altered Conditions → Inherited Possibility → Further Becoming ↺
But the decisive insight of the preceding essay was that generativity does not appear at the end of the sequence.
But that the G is involved throughout.
Relation can generate differentiation.
Organization can generate capacities.
Coherence can generate consequential unity.
Embodiment can generate situated possibilities and limitations.
Persistence can generate historical consequence.
Participation can generate altered conditions.
Inheritance can generate changed possibilities.
And changed possibilities can become conditions for further generative becoming.
GRR is therefore not simply a relational realism to which generativity has been added.
The generative is not appended to the relational.
Generativity names the consequential character through which relational becoming can alter the conditions of further relational becoming.
This brings the three terms of GRR into relation with one another.
Real, Relational, GenerativeGRR is realist because the reality it investigates exists independently of GRR's descriptions of it.
Reality preceded the philosophy.
Reality exceeds the philosophy.
The patterns GRR describes are proposed as features of reality rather than merely structures of language or interpretation.
Reality is real independently of our descriptions of it.
GRR is relational because realities do not first become fully what they are in absolute independence and only afterward enter relations.
Relations participate constitutively in becoming.
Yet constitutive relation does not dissolve relata.
Relation constitutes difference without requiring difference to disappear back into relation.
Differentiated realities can acquire organization, embodiment, persistence, capacities, histories, and boundaries. Once differentiated, they can become genuine participants within further relations.
GRR therefore resists both isolation and absorption.
Difference can be one of relation's achievements.
GRR is generative because relational becoming can become consequential beyond the immediate actuality of an event.
What becomes can persist.
What persists can participate.
What participates can alter conditions.
Altered conditions can be inherited.
What is inherited can reshape possibilities.
And those possibilities can become actualities that become consequential in turn.
Generativity is the consequential capacity of becoming to alter becoming.
Or more simply:
What becomes can become part of how further becoming becomes possible.
The three terms can therefore be stated together:
The Distinctiveness of the WholeReality is real, relationally constituted, and generatively becoming - such that what becomes can participate in constituting what can become.
We can now offer a stronger answer to the question with which systematic comparison began.
GRR's distinctiveness lies not primarily in possessing concepts unavailable elsewhere, but in the architecture through which it understands reality as constitutively relational and generatively becoming, such that relational achievements can become differentiated, embodied, persistent, and consequential participants in the conditions and possibilities of further becoming.
This should not be treated as a declaration of philosophical uniqueness. Other philosophies may overlap substantially with it. Future scholarship may reveal still closer relatives. Existing traditions may contain resources GRR has not yet adequately understood.
The question is whether the relations among these commitments perform enough philosophical work together to justify continuing to develop GRR as a recognizable philosophy of reality.
At this stage, the answer appears to be yes.
Provisionally.
Positively.
Without requiring exclusivity.
GRR has become more than a convenient label for unrelated ideas. Its concepts increasingly depend upon one another.
Remove constitutive relation and the architecture changes.
Remove differentiation and relational reality risks absorption.
Remove embodiment and relational achievements lack determinate situated form.
Remove persistence and becoming struggles to acquire history.
Remove participation and differentiated realities cannot enter the account as consequential participants.
Remove inheritance and prior becoming cannot adequately enter future conditions.
Remove openness and possibility collapses toward determination.
Remove generativity and the recursive movement loses the principle explaining how what becomes can matter to what can become.
This does not prove GRR true.
But it does show that GRR has acquired internal philosophical integration.
Distinctive Without IsolationIts concepts are doing work for one another.
That is what transforms a collection into an architecture.
And perhaps that is enough distinctiveness for now.
There is another aspect of GRR's identity that should not be overlooked. GRR discovered itself within a crowded philosophical family. At first this raised a question. If so much of what GRR was saying had relatives elsewhere, did GRR need to exist at all? Systematic comparison gradually changed the question.
Similarity did not require disappearance.
Inheritance did not require absorption.
A relational philosophy, of all philosophies, should be able to understand identity without requiring isolation.
GRR's identity can itself be understood relationally.
It has ancestors. It has relatives. It has debts. It has disagreements. It has concepts sharpened through encounter. And it has an architecture whose particular configuration has become increasingly recognizable through those relations.
This is precisely what GRR says differentiated realities do.
They become through relations without becoming reducible to those relations. Their identity emerges relationally. They remain open to further relation. And what they become can alter what becomes possible afterward.
Perhaps GRR should expect no different history for itself.
Its philosophical identity need not consist in standing alone.
It can consist in becoming sufficiently coherent to participate.
That may be the most appropriate kind of distinctiveness for a philosophy called Generative Relational Realism..
We began with a question.
What is reality?
Not:
What philosophical system should we construct?
Not:
How can we make reality conform to a relational metaphysics?
Instead, we began with reality.
More specifically, the question, What Is Reality?
The inquiry drew us toward process because reality appeared dynamic.
Process drew us more deeply toward relation because becoming could not be understood adequately apart from the relations through which realities arise, change, differentiate, persist, and become consequential.
Relation gradually became an ontological beginning.
But relation alone was not enough.
If reality is relational, why are there differentiated realities?
If reality becomes, how does anything persist?
How do relational realities acquire organization, coherence, embodiment, histories, and capacities?
How do they participate within wider worlds?
How can their participation alter what subsequent realities inherit?
And if what becomes can alter what can become, what kind of reality have we been describing?
Those questions naturally led from Embodied Relational Reality toward the Open and Relational Process Metaphysics of Becoming.
Eventually we stepped back and recognized something larger taking shape.
Reality appeared not merely real and relational, but generatively becoming.
What becomes can matter.
What matters can persist.
Consequences can be carried forward.
What is carried forward can alter conditions.
Altered conditions can reshape possibilities.
And what becomes from those possibilities can become consequential again.
We gave that developing philosophy a name:
Generative Relational Realism.
The name came after the inquiry.
What Comparison ChangedThat order of becoming thus remains important.
Essays 32 and 33 asked where GRR belonged. We discovered that much of the territory was already inhabited.
Process philosophy had explored becoming and relation. Realist traditions had investigated mind-independent reality, emergence, powers, structures, and mechanisms. Relational philosophies had challenged the primacy of isolated substances. Systems approaches had investigated organization, constraint, boundaries, and emergence. Biology and ecology had demonstrated inheritance, adaptation, organism-environment relations, and nested dependence.
GRR had relatives everywhere.
That discovery clarified rather than dissolved the project.
The question was no longer whether GRR possessed ideas no one had ever possessed before.
The question became whether those ideas had acquired a sufficiently integrated architecture to continue developing together.
Essays 34-37 have tried to answer that question.
And in doing so, they have changed GRR.
They sharpened relation, constraint, coherence, embodiment, persistence, participation, inheritance, possibility, and generativity.
Most importantly, they revealed that the G was not waiting at the end of the architecture.
The G in BecomingThe G was there all along.
Relation can generate differentiation. Organization can generate capacities. Coherence can allow relational organization to matter as differentiated reality. Embodiment can establish situated possibilities and limitations. Persistence can give becoming historical consequence. Participation can alter relational conditions. Inheritance can carry consequences into what becomes next. Changed conditions can reshape possibility. And further becoming can produce realities that themselves become generatively consequential.
Generativity belongs to the consequential character of relational becoming itself.
Yet generativity must remain modest. It does not guarantee progress, complexity, consciousness, agency, goodness, cosmic purpose, or predetermined destination. It says something simultaneously simpler and more fundamental:
What becomes can alter what can become.
Perhaps that is enough.
A Reality With a Past and a FutureGRR therefore describes a reality in which the past matters without completely possessing the future.
Reality inherits.
But inheritance is transformed through further becoming.
Possibilities are conditioned.
But conditioned possibility need not become predetermined actuality.
The future emerges from a reality already altered by what has become.
Inheritance gives becoming a past.
Openness gives becoming a future.
Generativity joins them through consequential possibility.
This gives reality forwardness without requiring progress. Direction without predetermined destination. History without closure. And within such a reality, extraordinary things have become possible: stars, planets, chemistry, life, organisms, consciousness, memory, language, imagination, cultures, knowledge, love, cruelty, responsibility, and hope.
None need be inevitable. None need be metaphysically disconnected from the reality from which they emerged. They are among the things this reality has become capable of becoming. And some have become capable of asking what reality is. We are among those realities.
GRR as ParticipantThat fact changes philosophical inquiry. We do not investigate reality from outside it. We are realities within reality attempting to understand the reality through which we ourselves have become.
Our philosophies therefore also participate.
They inherit. They interpret. They alter conversations. They open and close possibilities. They become consequential. And they remain fallible.
Generative Relational Realism should therefore understand itself as a participant rather than as a final description. It has inherited concepts from philosophy and discoveries from the sciences. It has been shaped through encounter with traditions that preceded it. Future encounters may expose inadequacies, require new distinctions, or alter the architecture itself.
That should not trouble a relational philosophy.
It should be expected.
GRR does not need philosophical sovereignty. It seeks sufficient coherence to become a meaningful conversation partner wherever questions arise about relation, becoming, differentiation, embodiment, participation, inheritance, possibility, and the worlds our becoming helps to shape.
It can enter those conversations carrying a simple proposal:
Reality is real.
Reality becomes relationally.
What becomes can matter.
What matters can alter what becomes possible.
What becomes possible can become consequential in turn.
Others can ask what those propositions mean within physics, biology, ecology, consciousness, society, ethics, politics, religion, or theology.
GRR need not provide every answer.
It wishes to establish a foundation. An architecture.
One that is real, relational, and generative.
Its task is to make the architecture sufficiently clear that others can test what, if anything, it helps them see.
Returning to RealityAnd so we return to where we began -
What is reality?
We still do not possess reality. We have not escaped the fog. We have not reached a final vantage point from which the whole can be seen without remainder. We have simply constructed an interpretation from within the reality being interpreted.
That interpretation now has a name. It has an ontology. It has a metaphysical grammar. It has an architecture. It has philosophical relatives. It has boundaries. And it has questions it cannot yet answer.
But underneath that complexity remains something remarkably simple:
Reality becomes.
What becomes can matter.
What matters can alter what becomes possible.
Perhaps philosophy sometimes advances not by escaping such simple statements, but by discovering how much reality they contain.
Relation lies within them. Difference lies within them. History lies within them. Possibility lies within them. Participation lies within them. And generativity runs through them.
GRR is our present attempt to understand how those movements belong together.
No more should be claimed.
But neither need less be said.
We began with reality. We followed where the inquiry seemed to lead. Process opened the road. Relation deepened it. Relational reality gave it ontological form. Open relational becoming gave it metaphysical movement. Generativity revealed why what becomes can matter beyond itself. And Generative Relational Realism became the name for the architecture that emerged.
Whether that architecture ultimately proves adequate remains an open question.
Nevertheless, it's investigation should remain open.
For the philosophy must never become more important than the reality it seeks to understand.
Reality remains prior to every interpretation of reality, including GRR.
We did not begin with GRR and ask reality to conform to it.
We began with reality, and GRR is what the inquiry has so far become.
And because reality continues to become,
a philosophy faithful to reality must remain capable of becoming with it.
Cobb, John B., Jr., and David Ray Griffin. Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition. Westminster Press, 1976.
Hartshorne, Charles. The Divine Relativity: A Social Conception of God. Yale University Press, 1948.
Rescher, Nicholas. Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy. State University of New York Press, 1996.
Sherburne, Donald W. A Key to Whitehead's Process and Reality. University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Adventures of Ideas. Macmillan, 1933.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Modes of Thought. Macmillan, 1938.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Corrected ed. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. Free Press, 1978.
Whitehead, Alfred North. Science and the Modern World. Macmillan, 1925.
Realism, Structure, and EmergenceBhaskar, Roy. A Realist Theory of Science. Routledge, 2008. Originally published 1975.
Bhaskar, Roy. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. 3rd ed. Routledge, 1998.
Elder-Vass, Dave. The Causal Power of Social Structures: Emergence, Structure and Agency. Cambridge University Press, 2010.
Ladyman, James. “What Is Structural Realism?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 29, no. 3 (1998): 409-424.
Ladyman, James, Don Ross, David Spurrett, and John Collier. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford University Press, 2007.
Psillos, Stathis. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. Routledge, 1999.
Relational Realism, Agency, and MaterialityBarad, Karen. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press, 2007.
Bennett, Jane. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Duke University Press, 2010.
DeLanda, Manuel. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. Continuum, 2006.
Donati, Pierpaolo. Relational Sociology: A New Paradigm for the Social Sciences. Routledge, 2011.
Emirbayer, Mustafa. “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 103, no. 2 (1997): 281-317.
Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press, 2005.
Organization, Constraint, and Complex SystemsCapra, Fritjof. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. Anchor Books, 1996.
Capra, Fritjof, and Pier Luigi Luisi. The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
Deacon, Terrence W. Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. W. W. Norton, 2011.
Holland, John H. Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Addison-Wesley, 1995.
Juarrero, Alicia. Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System. MIT Press, 1999.
Kauffman, Stuart A. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press, 1993.
Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers. Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. Bantam Books, 1984.
Embodiment, Enactivism, and Ecological RelationGibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco J. Varela. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. D. Reidel, 1980.
Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco J. Varela. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. New Science Library, 1987.
Thompson, Evan. Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007.
Varela, Francisco J., Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience. MIT Press, 1991.
Evolution, Generativity, and the History of BecomingDarwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. John Murray, 1859.
Deacon, Terrence W. The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. W. W. Norton, 1997.
Gould, Stephen Jay. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2002.
Jablonka, Eva, and Marion J. Lamb. Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Revised ed. MIT Press, 2014.
Mayr, Ernst. What Evolution Is. Basic Books, 2001.
Oyama, Susan. The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution. 2nd ed. Duke University Press, 2000.
Selected Works in Wider Philosophical ConversationDeleuze, Gilles. Difference and Repetition. Translated by Paul Patton. Columbia University Press, 1994.
Dewey, John. Experience and Nature. 2nd ed. Open Court, 1929.
James, William. A Pluralistic Universe: Hibbert Lectures at Manchester College on the Present Situation in Philosophy. Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909.
Nagarjuna. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika. Translated and with commentary by Jay L. Garfield. Oxford University Press, 1995.
Spinoza, Benedict de. A Spinoza Reader: The Ethics and Other Works. Edited and translated by Edwin Curley. Princeton University Press, 1994.
Author's Related WorksSlater, R. E. Reality & Cosmology Series. Relevancy22.blogspot.com, 2025-2026.
Slater, R. E. Reality & Metaphysics Series. Relevancy22.blogspot.com, 2026.
Slater, R. E. A Manifesto of Embodied Relational Reality: An Ontological Inquiry into an Open and Relational Universe. Relevancy22.blogspot.com, 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment