Video Transcript: Aspectual Laws and Type Laws
We're going to add one more part of this theory before closing shop for today. And that is to introduce another new concept. This is the concept of a type law. In addition to talking about the nature of things, by the aspect that qualifies that nature, that is the highest one in which it fun, it has its properties actively, and the laws of which govern its internal organization, when you take the things as a whole, there are also laws for types of things. And what does this mean? types of things, these are kinds of things, these are types, types, here are things such as a daisy, a frog, or a tree. I'm going to use that because I already use that as an illustration of something else, just a while ago. These are all natural, and this is an artifact. So they're going to have a difference in nature that we already saw, the natural things are going to be qualified by the highest aspect in which they have their have their properties actively. The book is not it's going to be its nature is going to be zeroed in on by looking at the formative historical is foundational to, to making a book the process by which it was made. And then it's going to be qualified linguistically. Because that's what a book is, it's a bunch of language conveying something from one person to another. But there are types and the type law is a law that makes possible the arrangement of the parts and properties that combine to make a particular type of individuals. of individual things. Think of it this way, when we look at a natural object, take the rock again, the rock has many properties that are physical, and has properties that are spatial, numerical, kinetic, kinetic, what is it that makes it possible to combine those properties together in such a way that it forms an individual rock? And the answer is, there is a type law for rocks that says that its parts and properties can be arranged in this way. And this law governs them and unifies them. A type law is a law that unifies a thing, having many different kinds of parts, and many different kinds of properties from all different aspects. But just this combination of them is a rock that's made possible by a type law. Same thing for a tree. There's a type law for what it is to be a tree, different properties of all different kinds combine in a specific way to form an object that is a tree. The law makes that possible. So well, while aspects go this way. Type laws go the other way. It's a cross hatching of laws to zero in on the nature of the thing. So there's a different type law for a daisy and a tree, and the book, the books an artifact. Here, what this means is that there is a type law for every possible type of thing that has been built into the creation from its very beginning. Does that mean there was a type law for an airplane back at the time of the Big Bang, yes, that's what we're saying? Absolutely. If there weren't a type law, it wouldn't be able to put parts together. So as the form of 747. So in this view, follow me now there's a difference between those things being impossible. And the things just not being possible. Nothing is impossible if it's self contradictory, or self performatively incoherent in the strong sense, something like that. It commits one of those gross blunders. It's not possible. But take an idea of something such as a talking rock, a flying tree. There's no contradiction there. It's just that
there's no type law for any such thing so that they're not possible. So, not possible, is a bigger category than impossible impossible, breaks a law and can't be and isn't not possible means there's just no type law that makes it that combination of properties into this sort of thing. And if there isn't, such as a talking rock or a flying tree, if there isn't, then there can't be such things. So, take some examples here. There are natural types, and artifacts, as I said. Take a natural object such type of things such as a cell, a cell in a living thing, the cell has arrangement of its parts, and they and their properties. It has a nucleus, it has cytoplasm, it has DNA. Inside the nucleus, it has messenger RNA that goes back and forth between the nucleus and communicates new proteins to be generated. In the plasma of a cell, and so on. There are many things we can say these are necessary for any cell. And the there has to be a type law for a cell that makes that combination of parts and properties possible. It's a law ordered combination. It's not just a heap. But we do not need the concept of a substance, there is nothing in that thing, which is what they are all propertis of. The thing is all the properties and parts arranged in this way by the type law. And I mean the type law for all cells. Every cell has its own law, there is a law covering every cell. When it comes to artifacts, something similar happens. I can take clay, or some other substance, and mold it around and make a tea cup. That particular combination of parts and properties with parts with all their properties, ends up with a cup made that can hold tea and the handle so that I don't have to burn my hand when I hold the cup. Now that's, that's what it's intended to be intended to be a tea cup. Can we use it as an ashtray? If we want to, of course you could. But that's got nothing to do with what I'll call its internal purpose its internal structure is, is that of something to hold tea or other hot liquids, and a handle once again, so I don't burn myself when I hold it. It's not a heap. But it's not a substance either. It's a law ordered arrangement of parts and properties. So as to form this type of thing, a chair, a teacup, a ladder, a house. Dooyeweerd points out the way that a house is very different from say, a shack, or a leanto a house has an arrangement of rooms that reflect reflect social needs and social status. The master bedroom's larger, the nursery is even smaller than the other bedrooms. This shows something about social status of who lives in those rooms. There's a living room to meet people meet and greet, and talk with and share good times, perhaps around the fire, something interesting to sip. But it's its overall character is any social. It's made of many different kinds of natural materials, combined in a certain way. But there's a basic type for what it is to be a house that makes it possible for us to do that. We can speak then of artifacts like these as having an intrinsic purpose. Not any purpose to which we want to put it we can, as I said, use a teacup as an ashtray, we can use a chair as a ladder. But they weren't made for that. And their structure exhibits that the chair exhibits a structure of holding your back while your butt sits on the seat. You can use it as a ladder, but it doesn't have the right
configuration of parts for a ladder. So I'm distinguishing the internal purpose of the thing which we can observe in the arrangement of its parts from any external purpose we'd like to impose on it. Those aren't the same thing. And I'm talking now here about its internal arrangement. It's the type law that makes that possible. And it exhibits then to us a certain intrinsic purpose for which it's made. This is yet one more way of zeroing in on the nature's of the things around us. We have now the the aspects in which they function actively They function in all of them passively. And we can notice that too, but actively zeros in on its nature is different from for an artifact. Because what qualifies the artifacts nature is its leading function, which is still one in which it has properties only passively. But the laws of that aspect, the laws governing those properties govern the overall internal organization of the artifact. And now we have type laws that cut across all the special distinctions, and combined parts and properties of many different kinds. So as to make a particular type of individual things, chairs, teacups, ladders, books, automobiles. We're zeroing in ever, ever closer on the nature of the things we encounter in God's good creation. When we come back, we have some real work to do. We're going to look at the relations of parts to wholes, we're going to look at the relation of wholes to super wholes, we're going to see how these things play in and can give an account that makes sense. Where we're going with this is that I'm going to end up using the organization of the state, the political institution, as my example of an artifact, something people create, but whose nature can be determined in this way by these concepts of leading functions, qualifying functions, passive possession of properties, type laws, and so on. There's going to be a type law for the state, for the political institution, the ruling part of which is the government. And we're going to take these concepts and apply them to getting a theory of the state as an example of how to apply apply all these. So we have a lot of ground to cover tomorrow. And then we'll go to the theory of the state. Think this over, rewind it. If I were personally available to you, I'd say write down your questions and send them to me but I can't do that. Other people will do it for you. So next time, till then, sleep well.