So how much do you know about Aztec metaphysics?

“In chapter three Maffie introduces the “fundamental premise” of Aztec metaphysics, which he calls inamic agonistic unity. Teotl, Maffie claims, is defined by

the continual and continuous cyclical struggle (agon) of paired opposites, polarities, or dualities. Agonistic inamic unity refers to a brute fact about the nature of teotl and hence a brute fact about the nature of reality per se. . . . Teotl’s ceaseless self-becoming, self-presenting, and self-unfolding, and therefore its ceaseless generating and regenerating of the cosmos, are defined by agonistic inamic unity. (137)

“Night and day, male and female, life and death, warp and weft, wind and fire, wet and dry, flower and flint stone, weakness and strength, order and disorder or being and non-being are just a few of the countless opposites that struggle for dominance. Indeed, all things, processes, forces, powers, influences, or energies-in-motion have an inamic match that they complete, complement, and compete with. More accurately, all things have multiple matches, which indicates one of the ways in which teotl is ineliminably ambiguous. For example, a person is both male (vis-à-vis his wife) and female (vis-à-vis his enemy), both dead and alive, both weak and strong, etc. Importantly, no inamic half ever triumphs over the other, for both opposites are necessary for the existence of the pair. There is no death without life, for instance, even though death and life constantly struggle to dominate each other.”

Read a review of James Maffie’s Aztec Philosophy.

SLCC’s Nietzsche conference – for students!

SLCC will be hosting a big conference focused on Nietzsche at the end of this month. October 30 (Thursday) will feature presentations by professors, and October 31st (Friday) will feature undergraduate presentations. The sponsors are eager to have as much participation as possible – and the conference is an exceptionally friendly and welcoming one. So if you have an idea for a short paper on some philosophical topic having some connection to Nietzsche – please participate! Just send me a note with a possible title for your presentation and (if possible) a photo – I’ll forward it along to the organizers.

MORE INFO HERE: http://slccnietzsche.wix.com/slccphilosophyconf

Neuroscience and free will – another one!

Now here is an interesting article. I know, the very idea of brain implants ‘boosting’ free will sounds confused on various levels. But consider the phenomenon. Some subjects report the inner feeling of having lost free will – not being able to get up and do what they feel like doing. Various supplements are made available to help these people execute their desired actions. I think the right question to ask is, What is the conception of free will, such that subjects feel they don’t have it, and then they do? And does this have anything at all to do with the concept of causal determinism?

An interesting excerpt:

One depression patient participating in a 2008 University of Toronto study had responded well to DBS, but experienced a return of his symptoms after a battery in the pulse generator ran out. ‘I’m just happy it wasn’t me, that it was the battery,’ he remarked. This is a misunderstanding: it was not the malfunctioning pulse generator but faulty circuits in his brain that were causing his depression. Understandably, his comment reflected a desire to believe that he and not the device was in control of his mood and actions. Yet the fact is that DBS does not replace the person as the agent. Instead, it is an enabling device whose modulating effects on dysfunctional brain circuits return this control to him. It does not matter whether our mental states and actions are generated and sustained by a natural or an artificial system such as DBS, HP or BCI. Provided that these systems connect in the right way with neural inputs and outputs that regulate our minds and bodies, they can ensure that the person in whom they are implanted is in control.