This week, I did not get to writing at my intended block mid-week - but that isn’t to say I haven’t been thinking and writing!
In particular, Formscapes’ video Post-Scientific Naturalism; Part One took me down the path of philosophical discussion paths and critiques against the mainstream physicalist worldview and it’s reliance on reductionism, and a mechanist, atomisitc ontology that is largely ignorant of historical context and the roles of formal and final causation.
I am by no means a philosopher by trade or training, but I am predisposed to the so called “big think” from time-to-time, and Kehlan’s work in Formscapes has been a mainstay in providing a hungry brain some food for thought. As the ideas in this video are quite heavy and admittedly beyond my grasp, I am writing this weeks blog with an intent to concretize some of what I had heard and attempt to extrapolate some of the implications of the arguments made in the video into my own world - primarily in my day to day work in working within and designing business systems with tools such as machine learning and artificial intelligence.
I can save that latter exploration for next week.. I think for this week it will be enough to lay down some foundations.
What is Causation?
At its simplest, causation answers “Why is something the way it is? What explains it existence or behaviour?”
In Western thinking, we credit Aristotle for recognizing that this one question can be answered in radically different ways:
- Material Causation - “Why is the sculpture the way it is?” Because it is made of out of marble
- Efficient Causation - “Why did the vase break?” Because I dropped it (past event pushing forward present effect)
- Formal Causation - “Why is it a vase and not a bowl?” Because of its form/pattern
- Final Causation - “Why does the acorn grow into an oak?” Because that is its purpose/end (future goal that directs present development)
In the aforementioned video, Morgan explicates the issue with modern science is that it chose to privilege only efficient and material cause. This has proven itself immensely valuable in matters of prediction and control, but this deliberate narrowing misses the full story, and has huge implications with regards to how we interface with the world
Why it matters
We might chalk much of this up to philisophers obsessing over semantics, but this understanding of causation forms the baselines behind how we think, view the world, and act.
It Determines What You Think is Real
If we only look through efficient causes (mechanical push and pull) then
- purpose is an illusion (projected from us onto mindless matter)
- meaning is subjective (not in the world itself)
- consciousness is a biproduct and not causal
- Free will is impossible
If formal and final cause are incorporated then
- Pattern and meaning are objective features of reality
- Living things genuinely aim at their ends
- Consciousness might be a genuine cause
- Purpose isn’t imposed but inherent
It Determines What Counts as an Explanation
Are you who you say you are because of some combination of efficient causes e.g. your genes, your biological makeup, your environment? Or is there something about what is formal or final that determines it - patterns, harmonies, structures and resonances that speak to you specifically.
The modern scientific worldview abandons the latter as unscientific, fanciful, or artistic - it relegates it to something “unreal” as it is not verifiable. Formscapes’ argument is that this is a revelation of science’s boundary - and that this boundary was well understood by pioneers of science such as Newton, who’s private writings spend much more time examining formal and final causes than efficient ones
It Determines How You Understand yourself
James Hillman’s Souls Code asks: Are you the product of your past (your trauma, your genes) or are you being pulled towards your destiny (via your calling, or daimon)?
The answer? Probably a bit of both! And in all likelihood, we carry the beacon of formal and final cause with us in the art we enjoy - regardless of what science thinks.
The Practical Question
Where this discussion gets particularly interesting to me is whether systems designed within a limited scientific worldview create predictable blind spots - and whether recognizing formal and final causation offers us a way to see them.
Consider human motivation: When we limit our understanding to statistical patterns and measurable metrics, we implicitly assume that knowing the efficient causes (genes, environment, dopamine levels) is sufficient to explain behavior. But this misses the formal dimension - what resonates, the patterns and harmonies that speak to us specifically. It misses the final dimension - what calls us, the sense of purpose and direction that animates choice.
The consequences compound in systems we’re now designing. When we architect automation rooted solely in efficient and material causes, we create systems with:
- No concept of form: Pattern recognition without understanding meaning
- No concept of finality: Optimization without purpose beyond their programmed goals
- No way to ask: “Is this aligned with what things are actually for?”
This isn’t a reason to reject science or modern technology. Newton himself didn’t. Instead, it’s an invitation to ask: What if we designed our systems - our technology, our organizations, our institutions - with awareness of all four causes? How could we? What if efficiency wasn’t the only measure? What if we built in recognition of formal patterns and human purpose? Do we truly understand ourselves well enough to extrapolate those externally?
The philosophical point isn’t academic. It’s practical. In a world increasingly shaped by systems that only see efficient causation, recovering formal and final cause becomes an act of reclamation of what gives our work meaning, what our creations are actually for.
And here’s what I suspect: in the work we do designing systems and automating processes, we’re often running on assumptions we’ve never examined. We assume efficiency is enough. We treat meaning and purpose as nice-to-haves, not load-bearing walls. But what if they’re not? What if systems that ignore formal and final causation aren’t just incomplete - they’re actually fragile, unsustainable, and bound to collapse - because they’ve severed themselves from the very things that make humans want to use them, work within them, and trust them?
Media Consumption
I watched Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey this week. I have many thoughts which might come out in a future blog, but overall I am pleased with the film and happy to see one of my favourite myths alive and working its way through our collective psyche.
Else, I spent a bit less time with John Vervaeke this week, as the work which prompted the thinking above by Formscapes took up much of my watch time.
I also got really into Channel 5’s interview with Louis Theroux, which I would highly recommend to anyone with any inkling of interest in journalism and current world events.
I intend to get back to my reading of James Hillman’s Soul’s Code, but like many a good work it’s sticking with me even when not front and center!
Sonic Exploration
This piece fell together midweek one evening as I got back into replicating sounds and feelings from the synthwave/chillsynth current. Sometimes music comes together very easily, other times it is an uphill battle. This one fell into the former and feels quite nice.
In this form as a demo there’s still quite a bit I’d tweak to really call a finish product, but in the spirit of continuous sharing (see 001 - Watering the Garden) - here we are!