The Ontology of Becoming: To Research and Become with the World

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of The ontology of becoming: to research and become with the world

First off, I have difficulties understanding the exact thesis that this article is trying to explicate. I would try to summarize it this way: consistent with a specific worldview (what the author calls an “ontology of becoming”, OoB), the “body” (something that is *very different* from the usual concept of a “body” in as standardly used in physics/biology) plays an important role in shaping the things we experience/know in the world. This, in turn, has consequences, in particular for social science research (but I’m not clear on what research exactly). This thesis is being explicated with the example of sound.

I think the idea of closely linking epistemology and ontology is a very good one. I am a bit surprised that the author did not cite some classic sources on this such as Quine’s “Ontological Relativity” or Putnam’s “pragmatic realism”. It would be a good example where analytic and continental approaches converge or at least deal with similar issues. Both could also be read as a critique of a dualist interpretation of Kant, something that the author also critiques on l. 103 ff.

In contrast to the works of Quine or Putnam, though, I do not read the first part of the paper as an exercise in deduction or a demonstration of analytic reasoning but primarily as a presentation of an alternative worldview (the world as becoming in the sense of Deleuze, Stengers, Bergson, etc.). In the light of OoB, what the author calls “internal self-differentiation” has thus be regarded as a kind of epistemological event. (Although “epistemology” here takes a non-dualistic sense, having only contingently to do with human knowledge)

The interesting question is, in my opinion, not whether the author's approach can be justified a priori (e.g. in terms of arguments) but what this perspective would enable, i.e. what consequences would follow if one believed in the OoB.

OoB seems to share some commonalities with idealism, insofar as that the way how we experience/conceptualize/know the word has a consequence for the way how the world is (given to us). Now, the author finds a connection with “movement” and “form” but I am not sure what he exactly means with these notions. Therefore, the connection with (new) materialism and posthumanism is less obvious to me. While “movement” and “formation” seem to be used in a highly metaphorical way at first, the “body“ terminology seems to invoke certain (concrete) non-linguistic faculties (e.g. moving, sensing..). That a “ body, [] consists of a complexity of entanglements of thoughts, cells, and genes that are in constant relationship with other biological bodies and with everything else that emerges on the immanent plane.” (l. 138) is a nice idea but certainly non-standard from a biologists/scientists perspective, so that would perhaps need a more explicit pointer. I guess that concept of a body resolves the above-mentioned invoked tension. If such a body were to move that would include events on all levels of this body (on the level of thoughts, cells, and genes).

The author then goes on to discuss this against the background of biosemiotics and some quantum physics. This is interesting, though, I would assume, non-standard readings of the matter. The idea to extend Bohr’s ideas to the realm of (quantum) biology and psychology (quantum cognitive science) is well studied and needs to be cited if the author wants to go down that road, e.g. the book on “quantum mind and social science” by Alexander Wendt.  

The author often imports metaphorical language, e.g. from Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. This use of words is often not particularly helpful in case one is not already familiar with this “jargon”. So I would recommend to either better explain what is exactly meant, without referring to yet other metaphorical terminology (e.g. a “body without organs” is explained as “being permeated by unstable, formless matter, by flows”) or to try and say things as simple as possible. This would help avoid potential confusion.

Finally comes the example of sound. I am not quite sure what is really achieved here. To what extent does the OoB-based methodology enable the researcher to do something that the usual (standard) explanation of sound in terms of waves and physical rhythms doesn’t?  Would it, for example, be able to solve the problem of quality, i.e. why certain sounds feel like anything to a subject?

Some specific points where I struggled and the article needs to be clearer.

1. I am not sure exactly what the author means when he says on l85ff. that

It may well be that the first phenomena on the planet Earth became through the vortices that arose through the world's self-repetition. Through these, the first phenomena were formed and were set in motion. This was done by connecting and transforming themselves to each other.

It would be good to make this a bit more concrete, e.g. what are the “first phenomena on the planet Earth”. Did this include living beings, since one could arguably speak only of phenomena if it appears to someone? Or is it meant in a more “sciency” fashion? What is exactly meant with “the world’s self-repetition” here (I know this appeals to Deleuze).

2. Perhaps this can also be spelled out in more detail (l. 119ff):

That phenomena come into being with the world means two clear conditions. The first is that the world cannot be grasped. Something that will contribute to phenomena forming as a difference to the world. The second condition is that the world's constant self-repetition causes phenomena to be created in motion by a shock of the world's self-repetition. These two conditions can be summarized in the concepts of different formation and movement intensity. The difference to the world means that the world cannot be grasped, while the world's self-repetition causes phenomena to be set in motion.

I am not sure that I see how difference formation implies non-grasping of the world and movement-intensity is exactly related to self-repetition. Please explain this a bit better other than saying “it follows that...”

3. The section on quantum physics (last one in part 1) would profit from being “tamed” a bit by a physicist. In particular, the relation between Bohr’s ideas on QM and the OoB could be made a bit more precise and concrete. (what is repetition here and how does it connect to “quantum leaps” – the latter being a terminology which is hardly in use anymore in physics)
4. The first part of the MS is ontological/philosophical, the second is methodological, and the third part gives an example. One could try to reverse that order and start with the simple example in order not to lose readers using the abstract/metaphorical terminology already at the start. (This is only a suggestion)

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Many thanks for the excellent comments. It has inspired me in working on revising the article. Above all, I have clarified that the perspective is inspired by internal realism, now also with references to Putman. I have also tried to clarify the consequences of the perspective for pedagogical research. The terms "form" and "movements" have been clarified and references have been given to Derrida. The article is written based on the theme of the journal, which is in good agreement with selected theorists in posthumanism and new materialism. Here I have made additions so that similarities and differences become clearer between Deleuze / Guattari and Barad. I have removed the piece on 185ff, which was unclear. About quantum physics, I have specified that this should be seen as an example, which helps to broaden the understanding of ontological becoming.

Thanks again for the comments, I hope the article now appears both better and clearer.

Best regards

PS. Before the first version has the article has undergone English language editing by MDPI. 

Reviewer 2 Report

"The Ontology of Becoming: To Research and Become with the World" proposes a reorientation of the concept of learning. Standard approaches begin with a specific ontology in which there exists an world, an atomistic learner within the world, the learner has a mind, the content of that mind is limited, through experience with the world the content of the learner's mind becomes less limited. This, then, is what is meant by learning, where the world has a lasting effect on the mind of the learner within the world either through directed experience or symbols. This author, however, considers a completely different foundational metaphysic through which to make sense of learning. The learner is not distinct from nature, but rather a part of nature. Combining the approach of Deleuze/Guattari with insights from quantum mechanics, the author objects that it is not possible to separate learner from world. We are observers who are participating in the world we are learning about and in learning, we affect the world. Deleuze argues that the world naturally reproduces itself. In that sense, as a part of the world, the world will reproduce itself within us. There is a trivial sense of learning. But what about the participatory elements, the creative elements of learning? For that, the author takes a fascinatingly interdisciplinary stance pulling from physics to poetry.

It is a smart piece that is quite well researched and quite provocative. The few critical comments would be to make the structure of the argument a bit clearer. Also, some of the D/G exposition could be clearer. Vernon Cisney has a wonderful book working out the notion of repetition that might be helpful.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Many thanks for a positive and helpful review. The comments have inspired me to continue working on the article. I have tried to clarify the structure and arguments and the importance that the perspective has for educational research. Has removed some text that and tried to clarify through more examples and references, including Putman and Derrida. Has also tried to clarify differences and similarities between Deleuze / Guattari and Barad. Overall, I hope that these changes have helped to make the article more readable and I look forward to reading Verona Cisney's book, which will surely be useful for continued writing.

Best regards

PS. Before the first version, the article has undergone English language editing by MDPI.