21st Century: A New Hypothesis for Philosophy

Japan's Nuclear Crisis

Together, with some theorist friends of mine (including Katerina Kolozova, Catherine Malabou, Slavoj Zizek, Christopher Haley, Mario D’Amato, Vidhu Aggarwal, Alain Badiou, Michael Hardt, Marcus Pound, Toni Negri, Clayton Crockett, Ward Blanton, Noelle Vahanian, and Jeff Robbins) I have been thinking through a new hypothesis for the history of philosophy especially in light of the acute energy/climate crisis that our planet Earth confronts today.

The question that gives birth to a new hypothesis for 21^st century thought is very simple:  How can we re-think the history of thought and action that opens up new ways of future thinking and being that will harmonize our relationship to planet Earth (the very precondition for our survival)?  Asked slightly differently:  How can thought (the action of thinking)/being (action/practices), open up the future possibility of existence for us as a human species?  These questions must be raised because the future of life on planet Earth is unsustainable given our current practices on all levels of existence (thinking, action, energy, food, water, and so forth).

But you will immediately notice that with the raising of these questions the fundamental destiny of philosophy/theology dramatically changes.  Heretofore, the basic destiny of philosophy has been predicated on the question of wonderment, curiosity, wisdom and knowledge.  But my question moves philosophy from trying to satisfy a curious itch, to trying to think the very future of our existence in practical terms such that the verb “to be” can continue unfolding in time and space on our planet.

One can immediately tell from the collection of my theorist friends, that a range of different theoretical positions have converged, which taken together have produced insights about the very basic make-up of our existence and future.  Some of these theoretical positions include Feminism, Quantum Physics, Marxism, Heidegger, Aristotle, Hegel, Freud/Lacan, Deleuze, Irigaray, just to name a few.

My hypothesis (thought in relation to Clayton and Kevin) is that the history of philosophy (and its future) must be framed in terms of energy. 

There have been many different commentaries on the history of thinking (philosophy, theology, science, politics, economics etc.), which has produced a suffocating hegemony of secondary literature, which in turn as Peter Sloterdijk has argued in his forthcoming book, Philosophical Temperaments, only serves to undermine “original thoughts [which] are everywhere disappearing behind impenetrable veils of commentaries….”[1]  One of the first histories of philosophy is recorded in Aristotle’s Metaphysics book I when he’s trying to synthesize the different philosophical positions articulated in the pre-Socratic world.  In the end, Aristotle does this by employing his methodological structure of analogy and teleology, which in the final instance, only undermines philosophy’s energetic infinite relationality.[2]

There are many other examples of histories of philosophy from Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit to Deleuze & Guattari A Thousand Plateaus.  The former gives us a way of finally overcoming the traditional Christian dualism of the body/soul split by merging the subject with the material universe (substance). In his Preface, Hegel says, “The living substance is being which is in truth subject.”[3]   But what took place between Hegel and Deleuze & Guattari’s account of the unfolding of thought made strange in material actualization, is both Charles Darwin evolutionary theory as well as Sigmund Freud’s discovery of the Unconscious, that is, the founding of Psychoanalysis.

Here the human experience and cognition are somewhat determined by innate and irrational drives, which are sometimes unknown to us.  In other words, despite all efforts there is something that escapes our own self-understanding in history and in existence, which we cannot fully account for in scientific terms.  This opens up an a universe that’s not centered on anything that secures its meaning in some transcendent manner (e.g., there is no God that can ensure that all this will finally make sense, or not absolute principle that lays bare all truth).  Deleuze & Guattari read the history of philosophy from a monist, Spinozan perspective in which all things are related to everything else not through a God (or a master-signifier) but through multiplicity and difference (as pure difference unrelated to anything the existence of which is not entailed by its own existence).  The world is not so much a world as it is a rhizome of immanence productions of desires.

Thus far, in a very brutal manner, I have highlighted a few seminal histories of the history of philosophy.  Now I want to briefly return to my hypothesis (thought in relation to other thinkers especially Clayton and Kevin).

My hypothesis is that the history of philosophy (and its future) must be framed in terms of energy.

Now that my basic and admittedly vague hypothesis is on the table, I want to turn now to defining what we mean by energy (and by “we” I mean Clayton, Kevin and I).  I would like to thank Jay McDaniel for granting me permission to re-publish Kevin’s work on my blog.  This was originally published on professor McDaniel’s blog http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/.

What’s up with magnetism?

A Reflection on Time, Energy, and Hope—Part II

By Kevin Mequet

Posted September 9^th, 2011

Scientists, therefore, are used to dealing with doubt and uncertainty.

All scientific knowledge is uncertain.

This experience with doubt and uncertainty is important.

I believe that it is of very great value, and one that extends beyond the sciences.

I believe that to solve any problem that has never been solved before,

you have to leave the door to the unknown ajar.

You have to permit the possibility that you do not have it exactly right.

Otherwise, if you have made up your mind already, you might not solve it.

—Richard Feynman

How can we generate more electricity than with hydrocarbons?

Petroleum refinery operations

OR a better question might be how can we generate electricity WITHOUT using hydrocarbons at all? I don’t want to start off with a fight here but I guess I’m going to use some fightin’ words. Global chaotic climate change is happening right now. Not maybe it’ll happen much later. Or maybe it’ll happen soon. Not even it might be happening. It’s happening and it’s happening right now. And we, all of us, globally, are responsible for it. Right now. I repeat: all of us are responsible for it.

Though—the relatively smaller number of vastly greater-consuming citizens is not expiated from seeking real alternatives to the pervasive combustion of hydrocarbons.

So, let’s do something about it. Let’s imagine together an approach to generate electricity without using hydrocarbons at all. What if we generated far more electricity by magnetoelectric induction from nuclear elements directly—without all the hoopla of 19th century thermal/hydro dynamos and such?

Where could we look for an example that models this approach?

Heliomagnet & geomagnet interaction

WELL, we could look at the sun. But it’s so hot and so radically different from our Earth that it might not point us in the direction we need to go; even though its magnetic field is by far the strongest in the solar system: 100 times stronger than ours at our orbit. The Inverse Square Law says that its magnetic field is more than 36,000 times greater in low solar orbit—if we had the technology to do that—or 3.6 million times greater than Earth’s. [This will become important in the final essay.]

We could look at the outer solar system gas giants. Again, so different in physical, chemical, gaseous and fluidic makeup than our Earth, they wouldn’t help us in our quest, even though all of them have far more sizeable magnetic fields than ours. Jupiter has the strongest at 20,000 times Earth’s. Uranus and Neptune’s are nearly identical at nearly 50 times Earth’s.

We could look at Mercury. Until 2011 we have never been able to park a long-term satellite mission—called MESSENGER—in orbit around Mercury to really study it. It’s rocky like our Earth. It shows some magnetism. But is its magnetism coming from inside or is it imparted by the sun? Since it is a little less than half the distance to the surface of the sun than Earth, it experiences around 5 times the strength of the interplanetary magnetic field or IMF—or around 500 times the strength of Earth’s magnetic field at Mercury’s orbit. Regardless of the answer, its magnetic field is 40,000 times weaker than our magnetic field. Not much help there.

We could look at Venus. We’ve successfully flown several missions, both flyby and orbital, to study our nearest planetary neighbor in-depth. No magnetic field. We could look at Mars but the same results have come back as for Venus.

We could look at our terrestrial moon. No magnetism to speak of except remnants of far past magnetism and crustal magnetic effects, the result of its nearly monthly passage through our Earth’s geomagnetotail—the vastly elongated, stretched-out magnetic field of our Earth created by interaction with the sun’s interplanetary magnetic field, or IMF.

What about the outer gas giant moons? Well, most are devoid of intrinsic magnetic fields except for two curious cases. Ganymede around Jupiter has a magnetic field 22 times stronger than Mercury’s but 1,800 times weaker than Earth’s. Io around Jupiter may have a magnetic field, too. A small portion of NASA’s just-launched Juno mission profile will be to survey this when it arrives in Jupiter space around July 4^th, 2016.

That’s it. That’s all we have to go on. Wait. What I’m I leaving out? What about Earth?

How does Earth generate its magnetic field?

Glatzmaier–Roberts geomagnet model

MAYBE this is a silly question? Maybe not. Of the rocky or “solid” planets and moons, Earth has by far the strongest viable magnetic field. Why? The truth is right now that there is no good explanation. Or I should say was. We used to think it was a geoelectromagnetic dynamo [‘geo’ means ‘Earth’]. Until Pierre Curie prove it wrong more than a century ago. We’ve been searching for a reasonable explanation since. I’m going to make an unreasonable proposal. And George Bernard Shaw has given me good cause in doing it:

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable.

So, here goes. The Earth is generating its magnetic field by a combined process of which we’ve had only 2 of 3 puzzle pieces until 1957. Up until then we thought the whole of the universe was shaped by electricity, magnetism, gravity and nuclear forces. We could conceive of the binaries electromagnetism and magnetoelectricity but we had been unsuccessful in linking the other 2 with these. That is until Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann put forth an idea worth taking very seriously: that radioactive decay chain interactions are linked with electromagnetism and magnetoelectricity in radioelectromagnetism and radiomagnetoelectricity—trinaries we’ve hitherto not recognized. The term ‘radio’ merely signifies that those decay chain interactions are somehow linked with electricity and magnetism.

The current working theory of the Earth’s interior processes to produce the geomagnetic field is a long word I’ll explain: magnetohydrodynamics. Really this is placeholder name. It means the heated mantle/core materials comprising mostly iron, silicates and trace heavy elements is a liquefied thermal and density gradient matrix in complex dynamic motion, convective, torsional and angular, and it’s somehow magnetized.

Did you understand any of that? Doesn’t really matter. What’s important is that a different kind of magnetism is going on that was not well understood. I offer a suggestion.

Gravity is not a factor

NASA: Gravity Probe B frame-dragging-effect

FIRST, a word about gravity. Consider the possibility that Dick Feynman is right in the opening quotation with respect to this situation. There is no such ‘THING’ as gravity. Just like there is no such ‘THING’ as time. What we call gravity—and time for that matter—is really an effect of the spacetime continuum, which is also not a ‘THING.’ So suffice it to say, that gravity as such is not a factor in the radioelectromagnetic or radiomagnetoelectric effects.

Kip Thorne explains the intricacies of Einsteinian orbital path geometry, spacetime warpage, frame-dragging-effect and traveling wave phenomena much better than I. But let’s review some of the fascinating basics of Einsteinian General Relativity Gravity Theory:

1. ORBITAL PATH GEOMETRY: for more than 40 years we have been using laser inter-ferometry tracking of special reflector stations on the moon place by the Apollo missions to confirm spacetime warp lunar orbital pathway geometry—well over 500 circuits—in the local Earth spacetime.
2. SPACETIME WARPAGE: for more than 40 years US and Russian unmanned interplanet-ary space missions have confirmed as part of their mission objectives the so-called ‘lost-inch conic’ geometry of local spacetime warpage about the sun. Mass warps the spacetime.
3. FRAME-DRAGGING-EFFECT: Collation and analysis of the Gravity Probe B mission data has recently confirmed the frame-dragging-effect phenomenon in near-Earth orbital spacetime. Rotating mass drags the warped spacetime into an angular vortex.
4. TRAVELING WAVE PHENOMENA: data is being collected right now. The original plan was to launch 3 equidistant solar orbital satellites at Earth-distance radii from the sun to deploy a mutually linked Laser Interferometer Space Antenna or LISA which is designed to detect and survey intergalactic spacetime traveling wave phenomena. That mission hasn’t launched yet. But NASA’s STEREO mission has reached its nominal objectives in achieving final positioning for stereoscopic solar observations and is doing double-duty in linked LISA observations. Unfortunately, all it can do is register and survey the events. It can’t triangulate to determine possible origin point—which is why you need 3 satellites. That incoming data is pending collation and analysis now. Rotating black holes drag the warped spacetime so severely that their vortices propagate warped traveling waves in the spacetime. It is yet to be proved.

Let’s not worry if we do not fully understand all of this.  We can’t all be physicists.  But the point is that spacetime is vast.  Far more vast than human consciousness can fathom. Our local spacetime is for all intents and purposes uniformly and reliably warped, exhibiting a dependable and resilient gravity effect. Now let’s move on.

[To see an explanation of the previous go to these YouTube video links: Kip Thorne Gravity Probe B Pre-Launch Press Conference Part I, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_UDvq0UyM, GO; Kip Thorne Gravity Probe B Pre-Launch Press Conference Part II, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVQC8nKzuZA, GO; Laser Interferometer Space Antenna [LISA] Mission, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVQC8nKzuZA, GO.]

Ferromagnetism & Paramagnetism

Magnetic bubbles of the imagination

HOW did Pierre Curie disprove the 19^th century geoelectromagnetic dynamo? Because the hypo-thesis was dependent upon flowing electric currents in the mantle/core materials to drive the global magnetic effect. But Curie proved this impossible. Why? Because all materials that have an ability to carry an electric current—piezoelectricity—or remain magnetized—ferromagnetism—lose that ability when they are heated. Beyond the Curie Temperatures they cannot carry an electric current or remain conventionally magnetized. When we discovered through geoseismology that the majority of the interior of the Earth was hot, very hot, in fact way above the Curie Temperatures for piezo-electricity and ferromagnetism, the geoelectromagnetic dynamo went into the dust bin. Before geoseismology it was thought that volcanism was a deep core phenomenon—Jules Verne’s 1864 ‘Journey to the Center of the Earth’ will attest to this commonly-held misconception.

So what’s going on? The Earth has a viable magnetic field that has been maintained for 4.5 billion years, give or take a few hundred million years, and will continue to do so for the next 5 or so billion. It’s impossible for the iron materials to be ferromagnetized or for them to be piezo-electrofied—bracketing for a moment the fact that iron is one of the worst piezoelectric elements. It is interesting to note that ductility of an element goes hand in hand with its thermal conductance and piezoelectrical properties, and is inversely proportional to its ferromagnetic capability. Highly ferromagnetic elements concurrently possess low ductility, thermal conductance and piezoelectrical properties. Highly piezoelectric elements are also highly ductile and efficient thermal conductors, but exhibit extremely poor to nonexistent ferromagnetic properties. Elements that have neither capability are called insulators. [This will be useful to us in the final essay.]

There is another way normally ferromagnetic elements well below the Curie Temperature can be magnetized well above that threshold. It’s called paramagnetism, but it has some drawbacks. First, while the ferromagnetic elements can become magnetized well above the Curie Temperature, they must be continually—though not continuously—magnetically driven. That is to say they need to remain in the presence of a magnetic driver or they give up their magnetism. Second, in conditions of elements well above the Curie Temperature this is also the temperature at that element’s melting point. That is to say that well after they have lost their ferromagnetism they are also in a thermally fluidic state. This is important to understand. This means that in a thoroughly mixed hot matrix the atoms and molecules are in frenetic randomized motion, jumbling the alignments of the individual magnetic bits in such a way as to make a coherent dipole global magnetic effect impossible. Since the tiny discrete dipoles cancel each other out the whole doesn’t appear to be magnetized.

Confusing? I apologize, but I promise we will get someplace useful.

The Earth has a viable dipole magnetic field. Why?

Mantle/Core interior morphology

WHILE paramagnetism in the laboratory setting renders a null magnetic effect; the magnetism is still there. And though in the laboratory the conditions of the thoroughly mixed thermally fluidic matrix are also thoroughly random; this is not the case in the interior of the Earth. This provides us with our answer.

Have you ever played around with a storm—or tornado—in a bottle? I did when I was young but it was a novelty from which I had no context to make wider connections. In the previous essay Jay and I played off Emily Dickenson: ‘How wide are out brains?’ Well, this is an important question. When I was young even though I was filled with imagination—still am—my brain wasn’t yet wide enough to connect a tornado in a bottle to more universal applications.

The Principles of Least Action and Nature Abhors a Gradient are at work in a tornado in a bottle that helps us understand how the interior of the Earth is operating. If you invert the connected water bottles and hold them still, most likely you’ll hear a loud gurgling sound and it will take a long time for the water in the upper bottle to fall into the lower. But if you invert them and give a little rotation at a right angle to the vertical axis you’ll impart an angular momentum throughout the liquid that tips the normally random water molecules into a spontaneously self-organized torsional siphon vortex that efficiently degrades the gradients which is nearly silent and quickly allows the water to fall from the upper bottle to the lower.

How do the molecules ‘know’ to do this? Alfred North Whitehead would undoubtedly have said it is the suffused capacity for prehension – for one entity feeling the presence of others and being affected by them, consciously or unconsciously.   For him things influence one another vis-à-vis their acts of prehending and thus ‘knowing,’ one another.  Some may beg to differ, speaking instead of a more global consciousness of which all things are manifestations, and through the mediation of which they influence one another, without themselves ‘knowing’ things.   For my part, I prefer to take William of Occam’s view. All things being equal the simpler explanation tends to be the correct one.  This accords nicely with the Principle of Least Action: that nature tends to take the path of least resistance in maximizing efficient gradient reduction. So I would say that the molecules don’t ‘know’ anything but exhibit a global consciousness in their proclivity to self-organization, finding the most efficient way to degrade the gradient—which means spontaneously self-organizing a structure to most efficiently accomplish this. This doesn’t violate the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics; it’s a consequence of it. I’m not focused on the why of this; I’m concentrating on the fact.

The mantle/core materials are in highly self-organized, most efficient thermal and density gradient-reducing structured motions. This is how normally randomized paramagnetism becomes a highly self-organized global dipole magnetic effect that appears to be a 19^th century geoelectromagnetic dynamo but isn’t. Now we are getting someplace useful.

But what’s driving the paramagnetism?

It’s the nuclear elements.

THIS is the complicated part. Recall what we said about Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann at the beginning?  The great radical idea Feynman and Gell-Mann elucidated in 1957 is the production of single magnetic field packet per interaction. It’s been called the ‘strange magnetism’ result. It forms the basis upon which the original claims of this essay are made.

There’s one naturally-occurring spontaneously fissionable isotope. That means that it’s so unstable it will split on its own. That isotope is Uranium 235. In its splitting on its own the fissile production of at least one neutron sometimes more, one antineutrino also known as a geoneutrino in the interior of the Earth, at least two sometimes three lighter nucleons—Potassium 40, Strontium 90, Tin 127, Iodine 131 and Cesium 137 to name a few and all radioactive—and one spontaneous magnetic field packet interact with the surrounding lighter elements and heavy fertile nuclear isotopes. Fertile means that it is almost able to fission but can’t on its own. The fissile isotope accounts for 0.7% of the uranium elements—or 1/140^th of the total. The most abundant fertile uranium isotope is U 238 at 99.2% of the total. This is why enrichment is necessary: to concentrate and separate the fissile isotope. Plutonium 239 is a product of the fission conversion of Uranium 238 by Uranium 235 and is highly fissile, more so than Uranium 235. The thorium isotopes are all fertile and occur in quantities 3 times greater than uranium. Conversion of fertile Th 232, U 234 and U 238 into fissile U 233, U 235 and Pu 239 happens when the far more plentiful fertile isotopes interact with the fissile starter isotope U 235.  It is very like yeast leavening bread and U 235 could be rightly thought of as a sourdough starter that converts the entire loaf. [NOTE: this is a highly abbreviated and simplified description. It is intended for non-physicists, only. Physicists would be most unhappy with its brevity.]

These decay chain interactions do many things at once in the interior of Earth. They drive more the half the heating of the far more abundant iron–silicates mantle/core matrix.  They convert the nearly 560 times more abundant heavy fertile elements to fissile entrained in the mantle/core matrix. They also make decay chain lighter elements such as non-radioactive potassium. The nuclear decay chain cycle has been well understood for more than 50 years. And most importantly, they paramagnetize the iron–silicates matrix. It is the siphon, torsional, angular convection motions of the mantle/core materials that self-organize the paramagnetism into a global dipole magnetic field. Imagine dozens of tornados in a bottle mapped across the globe. But what sets or maintains the siphons’ motions? Well, remember what happened when we gave a little rotation at a right angle to the vertical axis of the tornado in a bottle? Earth’s rotation does the same to its interior gradient-reducing siphons.

A. Chulliat et al: geomagnet related to inner mantle/core motions

In 2010 Arnaud Chulliat and his colleagues published in Journal of Geophysical Research a paper that stated Earth’s magnetic field is indeed linked to the mantle/core siphon, torsional, angular motions; specifically, that the north magnetic pole’s migration over the last two-hundred years which has accelerated in the last couple of decades is associated with the evolution of motions of the mantle siphon plume underneath it. This directly corroborates the claims of this essay; although, I am taking a far more global view of the phenomenon than Chulliat et al.

Earth is an egg.

Geomagnet protects us from IMF.

THIS is not a metaphorical claim. It’s a factual statement of reality. All life on this planet is radically interdependent and interrelated—and it is the progeny of our mother/father Earth. Earth is our egg. I am indebted to Gilles Deleuze for this observation. I find it as true as it is beautiful.

All of us on Spaceship Earth wouldn’t—no, couldn’t—be here without our geomagnetosphere sheath that protects and nurtures us. The geomagnetosphere is our eggshell protecting us from the IMF and hostile interplanetary solar wind.  Mars exemplifies this. When its viable intrinsic geomagnetosphere dissipated with the exhaustion of its nuclear isotopes a billion or more years ago its atmosphere began to dissolve into interplanetary space by interaction with the IMF. It continues today. Mars’ remaining tenuous atmosphere is continually pinched off into interplanetary space by the eddy currents in the IMF created by its orbital passage.

A case could also be rightly made that the relatively thin lithosphere is an eggshell within an eggshell or the durable eggmembrane. It provides us with a ‘solid’ surface on which to live while protecting us from the heat and radiation of the interior. It is a protective insulative barrier to preserve the interior heat and attenuate the nuclear decay chain interactions. The mantle/upper core could be rightly thought of as the eggwhite. The deep solid iron core could be rightly thought of as the eggyolk, spinning to provide for our home’s angular momentum. I’m using poetic language to illustrate a picture. This isn’t literal in any sense. It’s more than literal. It’s a poetics of physics, mathematics, philosophy, theology, music and art.

Roger Penrose, Freeman Dyson, Manuel DeLanda, David Goodstein, John Wheeler and Richard Feynman never discounted or dismissed the value of aesthetics in physics or mathematics. In fact, Feynman summed it up rather nicely. He said he knew he was on the right track if the math or physical visualization looked beautiful. It should look this way if it is right, but if it turned ugly, he knew he had gone off the rails some ways back. He then needed to backtrack to find his error and then proceed. By this standard I think we’re on the right track. Now we need to proceed.

This geoembryonic view of Earth provides the way for us to surmount the next step in our ascent of the energy grand staircase begun more than 350 years ago from the age of oil to the age of athermal fission. Only our successful transition off oil to magnetoelectric fission exploitation will get us to fusion. Dr. Goodstein has repeatedly said: ‘it is our only long-term hope.’ I agree. It is.

Transformation by means of mimetic geomagnetoelectricity.

A new dynamic core that mimics Earth’s …

WELL, that’s it, really.

Now that we understand sufficiently how the Earth is generating its magnetic field we have only to model it competently to harvest vast amounts of electricity for the next phase of our development out of the age of oil and into the age of athermal fission—on our way to inexhaustible athermal fusion. Stay tuned for installment III where I will explain the mechanics of accomplishing this and Jay and I will postulate some possible beneficial outcomes for our world and humanity.

Beyond Quarterly Consciousness: A Reflection on Time, Energy & Hope—Part I. GO.

http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/beyond-quarterly-consciousness.html

What’s up with magnetism? A Reflection on Time, Energy & Hope—Part II. GO.

http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/whats-up-with-magnetism-ii.html

[NOTE: The original physical theorizations presented herein are copyrighted. Copyright © 2011 Kevin Mequet. All rights reserved. These materials have previously been formulated into written electronic form, printed onto hardcopy form, packaged into sealed governmentally certified documents by USPS and placed into archival storage with those seals intact. This meets the US and international requirements for copyright protection. Please download only one [1] electronic and print one [1] hardcopy version for your strictly personal use. Always give full source attribution. Please do not abuse the privilege of its convenient online availability. The complete citations for the materials used in this essay are available upon request. Where a source is cited the following exposition is that source’s original work and not mine. I am deeply indebted to the cited sources. I wish to thank Jay McDaniel for his contribution of Alfred North Whitehead’s prehension ideas included in this essay.]

---

[1] Peter Sloterdijk, Philosophical Temperaments: From Plato to Foucault with an Introduction by Creston Davis (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012).

[2] Aristotle does get close when he examines energy in his work, De Anima.

[3] Hegel, The Phenomenology of Spirit, (trans. Miller) (Oxford University Press) p. 10.

Advertisement