Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance - 49th Weekly Meeting - CHANGE OF TOPIC

Dear all

We learn that unfortunately Mr Axenov will not be able to give his talk as he could not obtain the visa. While hoping that he will visit us in the near future we revert to Descartes.

At the 49th session of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance on Friday 16 April 2010, from 6.00 to 8.00pm, in room 5.16, 309 Regent Street (University of Westminster), we will read further from the Discourse on Method (http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/descartes/descartes1.htm ) with Joe’s insight: “The Cogito is Entirely Impersonal”.

Descartes' meta-method outside inventing analytical geometry is to provide us with a via negativa. We eliminate the implausible, the impossible, and the uncertain, and look for that which we cannot deny. We can deny our schooling, our teachers, books, cultures, chat and cant but this effort of elimination cannot itself be denied. The cogito ergo sum ("I think therefore I am") is not a positive statement about the being (Dasein) but a reflection on the noninvertibility of the pattern of thought, which cannot itself be denied. It is a statement of three compact assertions: (1) the personal act of thinking, (2) the assertion of personal being, and (3) the assertion of the linkage between the act of thinking and the sense of personal being. This holy trinity of assertions is unmeaningful to those who have not themselves undertaken the process of elimination--to strip naked and pay back all that is borrowed. What we have left after the process, after the method, is the austere design. Is this the trivial equivalence--the obvious given duality of mind and body--or is this a version of the surprising "many is one" argument? That the List of infinite particular thoughts are equivalent to one Property of existence? As we have said before such rationalistic analytical assertions are better read as hypotheticals of what we could be. The cogito is not about you in the particular--it is about what cannot be denied about you without denying the existence in the particular that is you.

At 8pm we – bodies, minds, many in one, whatever you think – will aim to Vapiano (19-21 Great Portland Street, W1W 8QB)

See you on Friday!
Joe and Laura

Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance - 49th Weekly Meeting - CHANGE OF TOPIC

Proceedings from the 48th meeting (9 April) of the Philiosophical Foundations of Law and Finance

Dear all

Follow the proceedings from Friday 9 April meeting of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance: "Prescribing a Goal for Physical Science”.

1. At the 48th session of Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance, we continued to read out loud and comment on Descartes' Discourse on Method.

2. The meetings are a rare opportunity to read together outstanding texts and have a jolly about wherever they take us.

3. 12 people attended, of which 7 PhD candidates and 4 Masters students.

4. We discussed how Descartes' introduction to the Discourse on Method could be seen in terms of a strategic marketing matrix where the essential four propositions are: (1) "I = You" Identification; (2) "Believe me" Authoritative; (3) "Participate in my image" Iconic; and (4) "Let's explore together" Adventure.

5. We agreed Descartes is substantively definitely not Iconic, but a bit of (1), (4) and then (2).

6. We also reviewed a recent metaphysical argument of what must be the goal of physical sciences. We don't have a name for this argument and, provisionally, Joe dubs it the "Uniqueness Theorem".

7. The Uniqueness Theorem (informally) goes like this: (1) Everywhere we observe around us things (a,b) combine to form other unique things (ab); (2) if (1) is assumed true then there is nothing to prevent us from imagining this state of affairs all the way back to the very beginning of any and all things; (3) similarly, nothing prevents us from imagining the same state of affairs to the very end of things; (4) note that (1) to (3) can be translated to say that each and every thing that ever was, is and will be have unique identification (eg, imagine each thing having a "bar code"); and (5) since (4) is entirely metaphysical (that is, non-physical and hypothetical), the goal of physical science is to prove the physicality of (4).

8. Not only does the Uniqueness Theorem tell us what science "must do" it also helps us understand the nature of value and money in the broadest metaphysical sense.

9. For example, Picasso was once asked by an art dealer, "Do you ever worry about money?" Picasso then took the art dealer's serviette (napkin), signed it and handed it back to the man, saying, "Now, get some money."

10. Joe also thinks the Uniqueness Theorem has applications in human rights and the development of cooking, but these matters will come in other notes or through the good works of students practicing their culinary arts on this most willing experimental subject.

See you next Friday!
Best, Joe and Laura

Proceedings from the 48th meeting (9 April) of the Philiosophical Foundations of Law and Finance

Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance - 46th Weekly Meeting

Dear All

At the 46th gathering of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance, on Friday 26 March 2010, from 6.00 to 8.00pm, in room 5.16, 309 Regent Street (University of Westminster) we will explore the concept of the groupoid and Descartes.

For those who hate vague thoughts, the groupoid allows for the specification and intra-convertibility of the singular general principle and the plural instantiation of things. The groupoid is the concept that sits between the generality of the Set and the symmetric specification of the Group, and provides us a way to think systematically without having to bother with every little detail. The groupoid is a form of strategic thinking par excellence. Even if you hate generalities, you might fall in love with the groupoid.

Joe will present a brief talk on "Risk as Non-Invertibility for 7 Year Olds" which is part of a project on "A Group Theory of Law: A Logico-Empirical Philosophical Investigation of Laws". He will introduce a cyclic-hierarchic conceptual structure and by analogy, pay homage to Plotinus, 2nd century neo-Platonist, who attempted to synthesize Platonic static ideals with the dynamic potentiality-actuality of Aristotle. We will review some concepts that help us to think (and calculate) symmetrically, i.e. groupoid, list of elements, property, binary operation, associative operation, identity, invertibility, subgroup, coset, simple group. These infantile concepts amazingly give us a way to "count" the symmetry of things and to speak precisely like aliens from physics departments in other universes – just kidding, of course. This abstraction should take us about half an hour.

The rest of the time we will read together and comment on passages of the greatest methodological work of the modern period: Descartes’ Discourse on Method (http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/descartes/descartes1.htm). Descartes' Discourse links algebra to geometry explicitly thereby linking two different functions of the brain together for the first time! Some neuro-physiologists theorize that the brain is a "futures simulator". This vision is not possible without Descartes Method and after the Method, we start to see answers to particular problems as specific pathways in coordinate systems.

If the Discourse gets too heavy, we will reflect in the "baker's oven" with Descartes incomparably beautiful and moving Meditations (http://www.wright.edu/cola/descartes/mede.html).

After so much fluffy abstract structure, we will need the sustenance of real food and drink at Vapiano (19-21 Great Portland Street, W1W 8QB) from 8.00pm onwards.

See you on Friday!
Joe and Laura

Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance - 46th Weekly Meeting

Proceedings from the 43rd meeting (26 February 2010) of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance seminar

Dear all,

Follow the proceedings from the 43rd meeting of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance seminar:

1. For those who still fear and tremble before the factual uniqueness of death, and don't believe philosophy will offer them any consolation, then Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling is for you.

2. Kierkegaard is the genuine heir not only of Socratic irony but also of Aristotelian rhetoric and metaphysic.

3. The premise to (attempting to) understanding Kierkegaard is understanding ‘irony’. K.’s irony is the most legitimate heir of Socrates’ irony. It is a pretension of ignorance which shows the interlocutor that she does not really know what she thought she knew. Thus, it reveals an openness, the imperfection of the received wisdom.

4. His contribution to philosophical theology like the fixed solitary interiority of Descartes is to protect (which of course, needs no protection at all!) a protonic core, called faith, which is completely uncoupled to any (rational) system of thought.

5. We started by reading the preface of ‘Fear and Tremble’. K. writes under pseudonyms and ironically criticises himself as a writer who has not understood the ‘System’, the convention…

6. We then approached the Prelude, where K. narrates the sacrifice of Isaac. From Fear and Tremble, Prelude, I: "And God tempted Abraham and said unto him, Take Isaac, Mine only son, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a burnt offering upon the mountain which I will show thee."
It was early in the morning, Abraham arose betimes, he had the asses saddled, left his tent, and Isaac with him, but Sarah looked out of the window after them until they had passed down the valley and she could see them no more. They rode in silence for three days. On the morning of the fourth day Abraham said never a word, but he lifted up his eyes and saw Mount Moriah afar off. He left the young men behind and went on alone with Isaac beside him up to the mountain. But Abraham said to himself, "I will not conceal from Isaac whither this course leads him." He stood still, he laid his hand upon the head of Isaac in benediction, and Isaac bowed to receive the blessing. And Abraham’s face was fatherliness, his look was mild, his speech encouraging. But Isaac was unable to understand him, his soul could not be exalted; he embraced Abraham’s knees, he fell at his feet imploringly, he begged for his young life, for the fair hope of his future, he called to mind the joy in Abraham’s house, he called to mind the sorrow and loneliness. Then Abraham lifted up the boy, he walked with him by his side, and his talk was full of comfort and exhortation. But Isaac could not understand him. He climbed Mount Moriah, but Isaac understood him not. Then for an instant he turned away from him, and when Isaac again saw Abraham’s face it was changed, his glance was wild, his form was horror. He seized Isaac by the throat, threw him to the ground, and said, "Stupid boy, dost thou then suppose that I am thy father? I am an idolater. Dost thou suppose that this is God’s bidding? No, it is my desire." Then Isaac trembled and cried out in his terror, "O God in heaven, have compassion upon me. God of Abraham, have compassion upon me. If I have no father upon earth, be Thou my father!" But Abraham in a low voice said to himself, "O Lord in heaven, I thank Thee. After all it is better for him to believe that I am a monster, rather than that he should lose faith in Thee."

When the child must be weaned, the mother blackens her breast, it would indeed be a shame that the breast should look delicious when the child must not have it. So the child believes that the breast has changed, but the mother is the same, her glance is as loving and tender as ever. Happy the person who had no need of more dreadful expedients for weaning the child!

7. K. gives us a pathetic account of the story, whereby Isaac pleads for his life whereas Abraham, hardened, silences his child. The close reading leaves us puzzled. What is faith? Why obeying God is he orders to do the most horrible thing one can imagine? Indeed why would you be religious? Competing arguments were presented by the atheists/ agnostics amongst us. Namely, that the community, the church brainwash man to go against his humanity, imposing control and neuroses. Or, that one embraces religion out of implicit calculation giving some liberty but getting something in return. Would you embrace a manifestly contemptible religion? Death and killing are the most heinous deeds man can do. Why indeed do they continuously occur? Is that a betrayal of humanity? Passion or deliberation, can any motive explain death? Thought rapidly runs to war – and other types of terrorism.

8. But K. presents four different readings of the tale!

9. When Kierkegaard was a boy, his father would force him to walk round and round the frontroom of the house imagining what it would be like to be outside.

10. This is his essential technique.

11. K. de-couples you with acts of the imagination that put you in situations which carry no home-spun truth, no simple conclusions, bringing you back against whatever apriori you might have espoused but leading you to a state of aporia (wonderment). A million intepretations of what Abraham and Issac are about, but none of them satisfy any system. This is the irony of faith. There is no cogito, no ergo, and certainly, no sum.

12. K. is captivating, his contorted mind a blast of lucidity. We shall read more from ‘Fear and Tremble’ next Friday.

13. Of course… honour to our group of brave philosophers! The participation of Daniela, Fiona, Cameron, Chiara, Omar, Francisco, Giuseppe, Marco, Giordano and Laura was absolutely passionate.

See you next Friday!
Joe and Laura

Painting: 'The Binding Of Isaac (The Akedah)' 2002 by Alan Falk

Proceedings from the 43rd meeting (26 February 2010) of the Philosophical Foundations of Law and Finance seminar