8 replies to this topic

[cerob]

Test 1

[cerob]

Test 2

[Aaron Clinton]

you still have a close bracket for color

[Aaron Clinton]

Windows 2003 server with 24 CAL’s $4000

Exchange 2003 enterprise - $4000, no CAL’s, $67 each

Red Hat 9 approx - $2500

Studio MX - $999

Cold Fusion mx 6.1 - $1,299

Office XP pro - $499 retail, $199 for academic

XP Pro - $199

Check Point Express – (1 site up to 50 users) $3,500

Check Point VPN Express Gateways - (25 users) $2,000

Smart Defense Service - (1 site) $1000

[Aaron Clinton]

eclipse graphic

[Aaron Clinton]

isabel

[Aaron Clinton]

[Aaron Clinton]

Lanah Clinton
October 14, 2003
Parts and Wholes
When Aristotle suggests “...that the body as a whole has been constituted for the sake of a certain manifold action,” (Parts of Animals 645b16), he seems to mean that the whole body has a purpose, a function which defines it and all its interworking parts that somehow contribute to the whole. We must first consider ”the cause for-the-sake-of-which“ and ”the out-of-necessity,“ the reason why something must be, and why it must be as it is. Aristotle gives an example which he then relates to the body:
For just as it is necessary that an axe be sturdy, since one must split wood with it, and if it is to be sturdy, it is necessary that it be of bronze or iron, so too, since the body is an instrument (for each of its parts is for the sake of something, and likewise the body as a whole), it is therefore necessary that it be such a thing and out of such things, if it will be that. (642a10)
Here the axe’s ”cause for-the-sake-of-which“ is that it must be able to split wood and its ”out-of-necessity“ is that it must be made of bronze or iron because, since it must be able to split wood, it must also be sturdy. So in the case of the body its ”cause for-the-sake-of-which“ is something related to the soul and its ”out-of-necessity“ is that is must be made of wet, dry, hot, cold, and parts such as flesh and bone; for if the body is to carry out the will of the soul it must be made of materials and parts which will allow the body to do so, materials and parts which will allow the body to acquire nutrients, reproduce, and sometimes perceive, or travel. And in relation to the opening quote and paragraph, the ”certain manifold action“ would be the ”cause for-the-sake-of-which,“ what I described as purpose or function, and the ”out-of-necessity“ would be how the ”interworking parts somehow contribute to the whole,“ why the parts are as they are.
This way of organizing one’s thoughts and looking at bodies, axes, houses, what have you, provides us with a template to ask ourselves many questions about parts and wholes. Looking at each part we attempt to figure out its purpose and function, its sake- of-being-which. Ideally all parts would have a certain function which conveys their role in the whole and hopefully the cooperation and coexistence of all these parts would give one some idea of the whole’s purpose and function. We may then study the relationship between the parts and the whole. How does one contribute to the other? Are all parts necessary for the whole to work properly? For example, tonsils are not necessary for survival nor do they have a clear function, and in fact they are often removed, while one could, by no means, say the same of the heart. It is an essential part of the body, and could only be removed if it was going to be replaced. And yet another question presents itself-are some parts more important than others? How does the removal or transplant of one part affect the work of the parts around that part?
But, we do know that each part has a sake or a reason to be, because ”nature does all things for the sake of something,“ (641b12). If each part has a sake, a purpose, a function, then each of these parts add up to the body, and influence and contribute to the body’s sake, which in turn must be related to the sake of the soul. This leads us to ask what then is the purpose of our soul? By layering parts upon parts, and wholes which we see are then part of greater wholes, we see that everything is interconnected. If we were to stack all the parts up vertically and then shroud them with the cloak of the body, and crown this figure with a soul, would we then say that only the soul completes the body? And is the soul part of some other whole? Are all our souls together part of something? The skill of ”zooming“ in and out makes us able to see how closely related the parts and wholes are--neither can be studied alone. One could not just study the parts without glancing at the wholes, because how could one ever accurately come to a conclusion as to what the part is without seeing how it fits in with the whole? For example, what is one knee? One would need to look at the leg. The knee is a joint, an intersection of the thigh and the shin. The knee allows the leg to bend and straighten. What could a body do with two such bending and straightening legs? It could be capable of a variety of motions and actions: sitting, standing, running, walking.
A part and whole analysis cannot be merely the discussion of the relationship between part and whole, but it is also necessary that the part and whole be looked at separately. One must spend time looking at the detail of each part, remarking upon its compostition and form. Compositition and form indirectly affect the whole in that they play a part in how the whole will look, but then again I think we must ask why the composition and form are as they are? Is the body, for example, shaped in such a way for a certain reason?
I mentioned previously that ”nature does all things for the sake of something.“ So perhaps to accomplish a ”certain manifold action“ nature must create something, a body for instance, to complete that action, that cause for-the-sake-of-which. This is much like an Euclidean constuction. If we take Aristotle’s example of a saw towards the end of 645b10, our given action is that the item we create must be able to do the action of cutting through wood, but not as the axe does, for this item must, more specifically, saw through wood. And so the construction we do, and the product we finally produce is a saw, a metal, sharp-toothed object that can cut wood in half...being what was required to do.
So in this way we see that when nature creates it has an action in mind, or an intent it is working toward. To successfully create an object to complete the objectives and tasks, to complete its action, requires nature to contemplate not only the whole, but the parts. How will the parts contribute to the whole so that it may do its work? In many ways it is easier to continue the analogies using hand tools because the tools are fairly simple. The axe, for example, has only two parts: the metal head and the wooden handle. Animals, and bodies in general, tend to have many parts which are difficult to see and difficult, at times, to interpret, concerning the action and purpose. Nonetheless, nature has not created waste and each part, we must remember, has a use and a sake.
Part and whole analysis is a flexible approach to studying bodies and it provides one with a way to question and observe why beings are as they are. Why they are constructed as such, why they do what they ar compelled to do, and why they might exist in the first place? What part do these wholes play in the whole of the ecosystem, the world? And so it is important to ask ourselves these questions, even if this is a detour through more philosophical aspects, but how do we contribute to our community and our world, being that each of us are merely a whole of parts in an even greater whole of parts, and so on...

[KickinAudio]

testing 1 2..