Comments for LONERGAN.ORG Blog http://lonergan.org/blog For conversations that ascend to the intelligible, the true, and the good. Wed, 23 Jul 2008 19:23:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 Comment on When does the human person begin to exist? Part 1: To Be Distinct by David Fleischacker http://lonergan.org/blog/2007/12/22/when-does-the-human-person-begin-to-exist-part-1/#comment-11 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:02:16 +0000 http://lonergan.org/blog/2007/12/22/when-does-the-human-person-begin-to-exist-part-1/#comment-11 I will sort out my response into the following points:  <blockquote>1. I would argue that whenever a self-mediating developing entity begins to exist that has an orientation to unfolding as a human being does--toward self-transcendence--then the human being begins to exist.</blockquote> <blockquote>2. Thus, a zygote and the first number of cell divisions are a human being because he/she is a being that has a finality toward self-transcendence. 2. However, a zygote and its first cellular divisions are not differentiated to a point that prevents twinning. [Substantial cellular differentiation in which the cells and cell tissues differentiate and loose the original undifferentiated plasticity hinders the possibility of twinning.]</blockquote> <blockquote>3. Twinning results from spliting of cells into two distinct developing entities, each with their own developmental tragectories, oriented toward becoming two self-transcending beings.</blockquote> <blockquote>4. Thus, I would argue that prior to twinning, you had one human being, then after you have two (or three, or four).</blockquote> There would not be a philosophical problem as far as I can tell with a multiplication of "unity-identity-wholes." This is a substantial change. (or to use Lonergan's language from Insight, a central change). When a person dies, of course, there is a great deal of multiplication of "unity-idenity-wholes" -- each molecule, etc., becomes its own unity-identity-whole. However, these obviously are different kinds of unity-identity-wholes that arise--and these are no longer human beings. In the case of twinning, the cells that compose the original human being had been on one developmental tragectory, then because of some non-systematic and non-developmental event, (since twinning is neither a scheme of recurrence nor is it built into the developmental operators) these cells are separated in a manner that allows for two developing entities to come into existence and to begin their own developmental journeys. Both have their own individual developmental capacities that are oriented, if all goes well, toward a self-transcending being, just as the pre-twinning human being was likewise oriented. One interesting question to raise, I suppose, is whether this was a "substantial" change (an annihilation of one central form, and the creation of two others) or not. Did the original human being cease to exist in this? If not, which of the two is the original? One cannot really base the answer on which one had received the most cells when the split took place -- that seems arbitrary. So, if one cannot determine which of the two was the original, then perhaps neither was the original -- and two unity-identity-wholes have come from one, and the one no longer exists. It is true that if the original had not split, it would have developed in a slightly different manner, with different finger prints, perhaps different size organs, some difference in brain layout and formation, etc., etc., etc..-- all because of the manner in which cell differentiation unfolds. I will sort out my response into the following points: 

1. I would argue that whenever a self-mediating developing entity begins to exist that has an orientation to unfolding as a human being does–toward self-transcendence–then the human being begins to exist.

2. Thus, a zygote and the first number of cell divisions are a human being because he/she is a being that has a finality toward self-transcendence.

2. However, a zygote and its first cellular divisions are not differentiated to a point that prevents twinning. [Substantial cellular differentiation in which the cells and cell tissues differentiate and loose the original undifferentiated plasticity hinders the possibility of twinning.]

3. Twinning results from spliting of cells into two distinct developing entities, each with their own developmental tragectories, oriented toward becoming two self-transcending beings.

4. Thus, I would argue that prior to twinning, you had one human being, then after you have two (or three, or four).

There would not be a philosophical problem as far as I can tell with a multiplication of “unity-identity-wholes.” This is a substantial change. (or to use Lonergan’s language from Insight, a central change). When a person dies, of course, there is a great deal of multiplication of “unity-idenity-wholes” — each molecule, etc., becomes its own unity-identity-whole. However, these obviously are different kinds of unity-identity-wholes that arise–and these are no longer human beings. In the case of twinning, the cells that compose the original human being had been on one developmental tragectory, then because of some non-systematic and non-developmental event, (since twinning is neither a scheme of recurrence nor is it built into the developmental operators) these cells are separated in a manner that allows for two developing entities to come into existence and to begin their own developmental journeys. Both have their own individual developmental capacities that are oriented, if all goes well, toward a self-transcending being, just as the pre-twinning human being was likewise oriented. One interesting question to raise, I suppose, is whether this was a “substantial” change (an annihilation of one central form, and the creation of two others) or not. Did the original human being cease to exist in this? If not, which of the two is the original? One cannot really base the answer on which one had received the most cells when the split took place — that seems arbitrary. So, if one cannot determine which of the two was the original, then perhaps neither was the original — and two unity-identity-wholes have come from one, and the one no longer exists. It is true that if the original had not split, it would have developed in a slightly different manner, with different finger prints, perhaps different size organs, some difference in brain layout and formation, etc., etc., etc..– all because of the manner in which cell differentiation unfolds.

]]> Comment on When does the human person begin to exist? Part 9, the conclusion by David Fleischacker http://lonergan.org/blog/2008/06/14/when-does-the-human-person-begin-to-exist-part-9-the-conclusion/#comment-10 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:32:20 +0000 http://lonergan.org/blog/2008/06/14/when-does-the-human-person-begin-to-exist-part-9-the-conclusion/#comment-10 I would argue that there are stages based on intelligibility, not just on convenience. However, I have not identified many of them of which I am aware. Plus there are many more stages of which I am simply unaware. The stages would unfold in both horizontal and vertical manners--organic/neurological, psychic, intellectual, etc.. The first stage is the first organic moment of life (a self-mediating entity), which I would argue is the zygote, and then every differentiation of new cell tissue is a new stage. For example, forming cell tissues that lead to circulation or forming cell tissues that lead to an immune system would all be stages of development. Likewise, there are a variety of stages in the formation of neural tissues (For example, the formation of the amygdala, the cerebellum, the various associative cortices, etc.--and really within each of these, there are developments. Basically, whenever a new functional purpose emerges, there is a neural development). Then, once sensate abilities begin to arise there are a variety of stages that one could sort. Likewise, with the development of intelligence (Montessori for example identifies a number of "sensitive periods" of development). Hence, the basis for a new stage would be the introduction of new conjugate forms and their operation within schemes of recurrence. I would argue that there are stages based on intelligibility, not just on convenience. However, I have not identified many of them of which I am aware. Plus there are many more stages of which I am simply unaware. The stages would unfold in both horizontal and vertical manners–organic/neurological, psychic, intellectual, etc.. The first stage is the first organic moment of life (a self-mediating entity), which I would argue is the zygote, and then every differentiation of new cell tissue is a new stage. For example, forming cell tissues that lead to circulation or forming cell tissues that lead to an immune system would all be stages of development. Likewise, there are a variety of stages in the formation of neural tissues (For example, the formation of the amygdala, the cerebellum, the various associative cortices, etc.–and really within each of these, there are developments. Basically, whenever a new functional purpose emerges, there is a neural development). Then, once sensate abilities begin to arise there are a variety of stages that one could sort. Likewise, with the development of intelligence (Montessori for example identifies a number of “sensitive periods” of development). Hence, the basis for a new stage would be the introduction of new conjugate forms and their operation within schemes of recurrence.

]]> Comment on When does the human person begin to exist? Part 1: To Be Distinct by psheedy http://lonergan.org/blog/2007/12/22/when-does-the-human-person-begin-to-exist-part-1/#comment-9 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:06:55 +0000 http://lonergan.org/blog/2007/12/22/when-does-the-human-person-begin-to-exist-part-1/#comment-9 My only question with regard to your analysis of when does the human being begin to exist is the fact that twinning and recombination can take place anywhere from 7 to 14 days after conception. Given this fact then does the human being begin to exist only after that time or have we somehow lost a potential human in the recombination? Pat Sheedy My only question with regard to your analysis of when does the human being begin to exist is the fact that twinning and recombination can take place anywhere from 7 to 14 days after conception. Given this fact then does the human being begin to exist only after that time or have we somehow lost a potential human in the recombination?

Pat Sheedy

]]> Comment on When does the human person begin to exist? Part 9, the conclusion by mounce http://lonergan.org/blog/2008/06/14/when-does-the-human-person-begin-to-exist-part-9-the-conclusion/#comment-8 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:30:20 +0000 http://lonergan.org/blog/2008/06/14/when-does-the-human-person-begin-to-exist-part-9-the-conclusion/#comment-8 Why stages? Is that for your organizing convenience, or are you proposing that there are clearly divided sections regardless of the perspective from-which they are considered? Why stages? Is that for your organizing convenience, or are you proposing that there are clearly divided sections regardless of the perspective from-which they are considered?

]]> Comment on When does the human person begin to exist? Part 2: To be a subsistent, or not to be. by mounce http://lonergan.org/blog/2007/12/29/when-does-the-human-person-begin-to-exist-part-2-to-be-a-subsistent-or-not-to-be/#comment-2 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 22:44:59 +0000 http://lonergan.org/blog/2007/12/29/when-does-the-human-person-begin-to-exist-part-2-to-be-a-subsistent-or-not-to-be/#comment-2 You might be interested in linking other blog sites where Lonergan studies are being pursued. I'm thinking, in particular, of two: http://unrestrictedyearning.blogspot.com/ (highly recommended) http://cbking.blogspot.com/ (haven't read much, but the author is recommended.) You might be interested in linking other blog sites where Lonergan studies are being pursued. I’m thinking, in particular, of two:

http://unrestrictedyearning.blogspot.com/

(highly recommended)

http://cbking.blogspot.com/

(haven’t read much, but the author is recommended.)

]]>