Authored by: Payton Alexander.

Introduction

What is the nature of the relationship between the body and soul of a human being, and is this nature analogous to the nature and form of a population of humans?

In order to give an accurate account of the individual consciousness (or the soul), certain key principles need to be established.  First of all, the very concept of a system in itself must be understood before we can begin to understand the concept of a conscious system.  Second, in order to move closer to a complete understanding of systems and conscious systems, it must be known whether or not systems exist in varying degrees of complexity.  A conscious system cannot be adequately understood apart from knowing what degree of system it is.  Third, an adequate theory or account must be given for the nature of the soul in the fundamental sense, specifically regarding the relationship between the soul and the body of a system.  Finally, after giving an account of the individual human soul, the investigation can be extended by exactly the same pattern to give a hylomorphic account of the nation-state.

The Concept of a System

To illustrate the concept of a system, imagine a flock of birds.  To an outside observer, the birds appear directed from a ‘centre’ in the system, but this is not the case.  Each bird minds its distance from the birds immediately next to them so as not to bump into them or stray too far from them.  Because each individual plays the same function and guides itself by this one rule, the birds as a whole fly in a formation.  This arrangement of interacting functions is what I mean by ‘system’. [1] This cannot be explained in terms of individual birds, because an individual bird does not fly through the air in a way which suggests how it would behave in a group.  Thus the behaviour and nature of the whole cannot be deduced from the nature of its parts.

However, the concept of a system of interacting functions is not limited to groups of individual bodies.  A tree is another example of a system. Each branch or stem grows in the direction of sunlight so as to produce more food through photosynthesis.  With every individual branch behaving in this way, certain interesting properties of the whole tree arise which are not explicable in terms of individual parts.   Consider the distribution of leaves on a tree. The tree as a whole appears directed.  At first glance it seems almost as if each branch has been ordered by a leader to grow leaves only on a certain side so as to maximize the absorption of sunlight.  However, as with the flock of birds, this is not the case with the tree either.  Similar to the behaviour of each bird in tending towards flying a certain distance from its neighbours, one branch which takes up sunlight in one area and casts shadows beneath is effectively ‘telling’ the other branches not to grow beneath it.  This simple communication between each branch is what guides the tree to grow the way it does.

In this way, we can see that the system is what makes an organism the way it is; what defines the nature of the organism.

Degrees of Systems

Now, trees and flocks of birds are examples of systems which are not very centralized.  Trees are significantly more centralized than a flock of birds, because a tree has a hierarchy of parts defined by interacting functions as described above.  This hierarchy of interacting functions extends from the leaves to the trunk, comprising the entire system.  You might cut a leaf off from a tree, and there would be little or no damage done to the tree.  But if you were to cut the trunk of the tree, the tree would very likely die.  Therefore, it can be understood that different parts of the tree are more important than others, due entirely to the centrality of their functions.  Such a hierarchy cannot be seen in a flock of birds.  There is no ‘trunk bird’ whose function supports all the other birds in the flock.  A tree exhibits a greater degree of centralization than a flock of birds.  I would then call the system of a tree a ‘higher degree’ of system than the flock.[2]

There are many different degrees of systems.  A cat is a system more centralized than a tree or a flock of birds.  There are many ‘trunk parts’ of a cat, those without which it could not survive.  The head of a cat is one of these.  If you were to cut off the head of a cat, it would die.  Now, within the brain of a cat, which I have shown to be a centre of the cat’s body, so to speak, there are many billions of neurons that govern the vital functions of the cat’s body.  Specifically, the brain and body of the cat constitute a vast system of interacting functions which make the cat what it is (i.e., defines the nature of the cat).

It is of value to note that the matter of the cat does not produce the life of the cat.  Every atom in the cat’s body is switched out and replaced by another many times throughout its life due to its biological functions.  So it is not a matter of which specific atoms or electrons materially constitute the cat, but what arrangement thereof formally constitutes it.  The form of the body does not change over time, (as the bodily system of interacting functions remains the same), while the atoms are switched out into different functions and roles.

Hylomorphic Aspect of the Conscious Human System

According to the above, the form of the body makes the body what it is, not necessarily the matter.  It must be noted, however, that the form cannot be separated from the matter, as a wave cannot be separated from its own water.

To understand how this concept can be related to the soul, look to the United States of America, as nation-states are properly analogous to conscious human systems.  It can be said that America ‘moves through’ people.  Some people die and new ones are born every minute, yet America remains.  Now, at any given moment could someone answer the question, “What is America?”, by ‘freezing’ this movement and saying, “These people are America “?  There seems to be nothing of importance to the nature of America about these people[3], but rather their system of interacting functions (i.e., that one remaining bit which is more or less constant over time, as people are continually replaced).  This could be interpreted variously as their economy, their government, their media, their culture, their society, and their very families and relationships, to name a few.  This is to be called the State.[4]

Now, the conscious human system bears meaningful similarities to America.  Much the same as America, the conscious human moves through matter.  Yet, as with America, while the matter is changed out, the soul (or consciousness) remains the same.  Yet again, as with America, the form of the body remains the same.  When the matter of the body is switched out, the consciousness remains the same, yet when the form of the body is changed, the consciousness is affected.  For example, if the matter of the body is switched out, as it is known to do over time as part of the natural biological processes of the body, the consciousness is present throughout.  For example, you have vivid recollections of your life as a child, yet now none of the molecules which then constituted you remain. However, if the form of the body is changed, as it is when a part of the heart or brain is ripped apart (it is of some interest to note that the matter remains the same in these cases), the consciousness is destroyed in death.  From this seemingly non-coincidental association, it can be assumed that the soul is the form of the body.

This, I believe, is similar to what was meant by ‘hylomorphism’ in ancient times[5], from the Greek hylo-, meaning ‘matter’, and –’morpha’, meaning ‘form’.  I maintain that hylomorphism accurately gives an account of the nature of consciousness.

It is of interest to note that the human soul, being capable of introspection and knowledge of the self, exhibits the highest degree of centralization to be found in nature.  Therefore, the human soul is to be ranked above the souls of bird flocks, trees, and cats as the highest degree of soul.

Hylomorphic Aspect of the State

Earlier, the similarities between the conscious human system and America were discussed with attention paid to the idea that the form of a nation is properly analogical to the form of an organism (i.e. the conscious human).  Over the span of its history, America has persisted, which is to say that it has continued to be what it is.  This is not true of its population (i.e. its ‘nation’), which has not persisted, as it were.  It has grown, shrunk, died, and been entirely and completely replaced since its creation.  However, its form has more or less persisted, which is to say that the system of interacting functions in America, in its government, and to a much lesser extent its economy and society, has persisted, thus leading to the conclusion that it is the form of a nation which is what makes it what it is.

Now, the form of a nation is actually the same as the form of an organism.  A nation is defined as a population of humans[6]; a vast collection of individual conscious systems.  I might object then, that surely the form of a nation, this form of many bodies, must be a different sort of form than the form of one body?  But this cannot be the case.  The line between an individual and a population is blurry, and therein lies the solution.  One can just as easily object that the form of the body must be different, as it is also a form of many bodies.  This is because the human body, while commonly thought of as being individual, is actually quite ‘dividual’.  The human body can be thought of as a population of cells.  Yet, what can this objection bring against the hylomorphism of the body?  Similarly, it can bring nothing against the hylomorphism of the nation.  We mustn’t be too hasty, then, to draw a line between the “collective” soul and “normal” souls.

Now, the form of the nation, which is its government, economy, society, etc, is what is meant by “the state”[7].  What is meant by the nation is the physical population of humans in community. This hylomorphic conception of the nation-state is properly analogous to the dual nature of the human being as body and soul.  (Body -> nation, soul -> state.  Nation-state -> hylo-morpha).

Relationship between Citizen and State

To understand the relationship between the citizen and the State, imagine that a human is a microcosm of the universe, as past philosophers have suggested.[8] There is contained within the soul of a human, and the state of a nation, analogous systems of interacting functions.

Indeed, the king is to the city, or the government is to the State, what the head is to the body, to use the classical analogy.  The head (the brain, really) holds the executive office and function of the body, and rules it.  Plato makes this analogy in the Republic, with reference to the State[9], and by St. Paul with reference to the Church, in the theology of Christianity, which is heavily hylomorphic.[10] Christ is the head of the Church[11], in that case.

So ingrained is this analogy between the parts of the body and the parts of nation-states in human thought that it is embedded in the English language in the form of metonymic expressions.[12] To refer to the leader of a nation as its “head”, or to its language as its “tongue”, is a classic example of English “metonymy”.

My next point in laying the framework for a theory of the relationship between the citizen and the State takes the form of a thought experiment called the Chinese Nation Argument (CNA).  It was devised at least in part by Ned Block.[13] (The experiment assumes that if consciousness is concomitant with matter, [specifically, the nervous system], then only the function of a neuron or any other constituent piece of matter involved is relevant to the concomitance of consciousness, as opposed to the substance of the neuron). In this thought experiment, the concept of the conscious self is explored with relation to neural interactions.  It is as follows:

Suppose a man named Jeff is kidnapped by a bunch of evil futuristic scientists who have extremely advanced neurosurgical technologies at their disposal.  Suppose they carry Jeff off to their stadium sized lab and remove his skull, thereby exposing his brain.  The scientists, being very advanced and futuristic, are then able to disentangle the billions of tiny nerve fibres constituting Jeff’s brain in such a way that their functioning is not affected.  A neuron has a very simple job of either sending or refraining to send an impulse to another neuron.  The scientists then proceed to slowly and carefully suspend each and every individual nerve fibre of Jeff’s brain and nervous system on hooks throughout the giant lab, in such a way as to have them suspended a reasonable distance apart, and also so their functioning is still not affected.  Throughout this procedure, Jeff continues to have thoughts, experiences, and a generally normal mental life, since the function of his nervous system has not been affected.

Now suppose that the scientists begin to replace some of Jeff’s stretched out neurons with Chinese men in cubicles.  These Chinese men perform the exact same function of sending and directing simple impulses as the neurons they replace.  These Chinese men, when they see a light come on in their cubicle, are directed to press a button to send an impulse to another neuron or another Chinese man in a box who is acting like a neuron.  It does not matter.  They perform in a manner identical in speed and reflex to actual neurons, and do so reliably.

Now suppose all the rest of Jeff’s neurons are replaced by Chinese men in boxes such that the entire population of China goes to work in this way; sitting in boxes in their homes, pushing buttons when directed.  It is conceivable that Jeff’s mental functioning would not be affected, since nothing of his China-Mind is qualitatively different from his neural one.  Yet the significant question remains:  At what time, if at all, during his transformation can Jeff honestly proclaim, “I am China”? How has Jeff’s identity been affected by all of this?

(It is valuable to note that Chinese men are not necessarily required to form a mind for Jeff.  As stated before, the substance of the system seems not to be relevant.)

I argue that if the soul is the form of the body, if the soul is the form of the system, then Jeff will not necessarily be able to say that he is China, because all that has been changed is matter (recall the cat example).  As was discussed before, matter is changed out all the time, while the organism remains alive.  Instead, each Chinese man would cease being Chinese, and would instead become “Jeff-ese”, as they would then constitute the form of Jeff, and not the form of China.

Degrees of States

Remember that a more centralized system is a better system.  Now that we have made this connection, we can judge human systems of government by assessing what degree of centralization they have.  This is not the most perfect connection, as there is more to the form of a nation than its government (the government is not the whole State. There is also the economy, society, culture etc, as was discussed before).

At the very bottom of the scale is anarchy, which is the lack of government.  It is like the flock of birds, and similarly, anarchists will act like birds.  The birds mind their distance from each other in order to reduce drag, or not bump in to each other, as discussed before.  Naturally, humans will be similar.  But by their nature, they will have a whole panoply of rules and ideals[14], making them distinct from birds in flight, which have that one rule about not crashing into each other.  They will say, “Thou shalt not murder”, “thou shalt not steal”, etc, and this will decide the shape of their “flock”.  In this way, by their nature, they will assume a certain form that is unique to humans[15] (as the flock is unique to birds).

At the very top of this scale should be the government described in the CNA.[16] When the nation is organized into the form of a human (i.e. “Jeff”), it is very centralized.  As was discussed before, the human soul is the most centralized form in nature, as it produces the self; it is the highest degree of soul.  Likewise, the government (the brain is the government of the body, and as the CNA involves only Jeff’s brain[17], only the government, and not the whole State is described) described in the CNA (i.e., Jeff’s brain) is the highest degree of government.

Furthermore, a system ruled from within is better than one ruled from without.  If you disturb one bird in a flock, it goes crazy, causing the birds next to it to be disturbed.  This action produces a dramatic effect in the whole flock, and it is reduced to chaos, with birds flying every which way.  In this way, being reactive, the flock of birds is ruled from the outside.  Indeed, the same goes for anarchy.

On the contrary, a CNA-style government, being proactive, is ruled from within, like a human.  It has a will, and is a free entity that does as it pleases.  If a person wishes to go somewhere, they may do so.  Most of its actions originate from within, although there are some cases in which it can be disturbed like a flock of birds.  The flock of birds is just as disturbed by a hungry frog as it is by a hungry cat, though it obviously needn’t be as disturbed by the frog.  However, the CNA-style government is more sensible, and applies reason both to itself and to the external world[18].  It will be ruled from without in the presence of mortal dangers only insofar as it is forced to by reason[19].  It will not react unreasonably, and so is far higher on the scale than the flock of birds.

Now, what makes a system centralized is the number of connections between the centre and periphery[20].  If every individual or organ of the State (or organism) is connected to the ones next to it, and also to one other to which every other organ is attached, then we say that this other organ to which they are all attached is the centre.  Now, this needn’t be a kind of mob-rule where every organ connected to the centre rules it, or the other way around where the centre dominates its organs.  Indeed, there is a whole scale between these two extremes of power, and every one is just as centralized as the others.  Every one has the same degree of connection between the centre and the periphery, but the interaction between them can be more or less asymmetric.

Now in this scale of power distribution in centralized systems we can place several types of modern government.  At the one end is a kind of fascism,[21] where the centre dominates the whole system.  At this end there is a kind of one-way interaction; from the government to the nation (centre to periphery).  At the other end is a kind of libertarianism.[22] Here there is a kind of one-way interaction from the nation to the government (periphery to centre); individuals or groups dominate the centre of the system, and their interests come before those of the government.

Now, to determine which point along this scale is the best government, we must turn again to the human individual, which is analogous to the nation-state.  We must determine what kind of interactions exist between the centre and periphery of the human system, which is to say, between the head and the body, and apply this to our assessment of nation-states.  Consider the human system when there is no interaction from the head to the body.  If the brain ceases to command a muscle to move, if it ceases to interact with it, then the muscle will shrink and atrophy.[23] This is indicative of the fact that interaction from the centre to the periphery is necessary, and likewise, that the government must interact with the nation.

On the contrary, in recent studies in sensory deprivation, where the hand is immobilized or anesthetized for an extended period of time, so that there is no sensory inflow from the nerves in the hand to the brain, then the part of the brain responsible for sensing and moving the hand becomes atrophied and weak[24].  Indeed, during a scientific experiment in which a group of mice’s whiskers were trimmed, certain effects were observed in the brain.[25] We see that without sensation coming in from the whiskers, there was an increase in non-specific neural connectivity in the mice’s brains, meaning their brains became less centralized (more like the flock of birds) and began to appear juvenile.  This is indicative of the fact that interaction from the body to the mind (periphery to centre) is necessary in order to have a functional brain, and likewise, that the nation must interact with the government in order to keep it practical.[26]

Evidently, there must be two-way (symmetric) interaction between the government and the nation in the ideal nation-state.  Indeed, the best government is one that interacts with the nation and also facilitates the interaction of the nation with the government itself.  This kind of interaction takes many forms in the whole organism, or the whole nation-state.  As in the nervous system of the human body, which was the case of two-way interaction discussed above, this interaction must take the form of a flow of information in the nation-state.  Interaction from the nation to the government must consist of resource, information, control (as in voting and democracy), and sustenance (as in taxes). Furthermore, the interaction from the centre to the periphery consists of leadership and service[27] (governance).

We see an important example of this in the government subsidization of media.  In the case of the British Broadcasting Corporation, the UK Government sustains it through subsidies, and it performs the task of exposing Government inefficiencies and abuses publicly, so that they can be corrected by the nation through the processes of democracy[28].  They also provide public service radio, television and Internet broadcasting within the United Kingdom[29].  In this way we see a two-way interactive relation in which the government provides for the existence of an organ of the nation (the BBC), and it keeps the government “in shape”, so to speak.[30]

By the same token, things like free speech must be taken not as rights, but as necessities.  For without them, the connectivity that is the key to the centralization of the system does not exist.  It is then only a one-way interaction from the government to the nation, which may take the form of despotism.  Then this government, like the sensory deprived brain, will atrophy and dissolve, and the nation-state will cease to exist.

Conclusion

I conclude that an accurate account of the nature of the soul and the nation-state has been given by establishing a number of necessary principles.  First of all, a system must be understood as a network of interacting functions or parts before any significant progress can be made towards understanding what a conscious or living system really is.  Second, systems of interacting functions tend towards varying degrees of complexity, and these degrees can be understood in terms of the centralization of a system.  From this understanding of the varying degrees of systems present in nature and the world of man, it is clear that the conscious system of a normal human being is the highest degree of system known.  Third, an investigation of the soul yields an understanding of the fundamental relationship between the form and body of a system.  The soul is the form of the body.  Additionally, the relationship between the system and the individual can be understood in terms of the whole being equal to more than the sum of its parts, whereby the conscious system (the soul) is greater than the sum interaction of its parts.

Furthermore, under a hylomorphic understanding of the human being, a proper analogy can be established that relates human beings to nation-states, as they are both bodies with souls.  The State is the form of the nation, as the soul is the form of the body.  In this way, souls and States are properly analogous.  Following this conclusion is an examination of the relationship between the citizen and the State in which the Chinese Nation Argument of Ned Block is considered.  It is determined that it is the form of a nation which makes it what it is, and constitutes the nature of the nation-state.  Man is a microcosm of the ideal nation-state.

In conclusion, it is recalled that the brain/head is the government of the body, and then various systems of government are categorized according to higher and lower degrees of centralization, as souls were previously.  The ideal governmental system is the most centralized, which is to say, the one that has the most centre-peripheral connectivity.  The CNA-style government is a part of the highest order of state, as it will produce introspection and consciousness.  It is the conscious State, and has an “I”, or self.  This concept is further expanded to analyze the nature of this connectivity in this ideal State, which is a kind of two-way interaction.  The BBC is an excellent example of this interaction.  Indeed, this kind of interaction must be safeguarded and facilitated by the ideal government in the form of things like free speech and the BBC.

However, that is the extent of this investigation.  As to whether a CNA-style government is possible, or indeed, if it is even the best government, we cannot say within the scope of this study.  There also exists the question of what steps can be taken to centralize a system, or what can be done to make it of a higher degree.  It could be that the ideal governmental system possesses the same degree of centralization and general framework of the individual human, as would be the case with the CNA, but is in an entirely different (more mundane or realistic), but equivalent form.  Or it could be an altogether different kind of system; we do not know.  Could it be that humanity naturally arranges itself into systems of governance in a way similar to how birds fly in formation?  This is a worthwhile question.  However, this particular investigation is complete within the context of this essay, and an accurate account of the embodied soul and the nation-state has been given.[31]

Bibliography

“British Broadcasting Corporation.” BBC – Homepage. BBC, n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2010. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/>.

“Hylomorphism.” MSN Encarta, Dictionary. Microsoft, 2009. Web. 17 Dec. 2009. <http://encarta.msn.com/‌dictionary_1861619520/‌hylomorphism.html>.

Kimball, J. “Neurons.” Biology Pages. RCN, 13 Feb. 2010. Web. 21 Feb. 2010. <http://users.rcn.com/‌jkimball.ma.ultranet/‌BiologyPages/‌N/‌Neurons.html>.

Kukathas, Chandran. “A Definition of the State.” Madison Philosophy Department. University of Wisconsin, 29 Mar. 2008. Web. 7 Mar. 2010. <http://philosophy.wisc.edu/‌hunt/‌A%20Definition%20of%20the%20State.htm>.

Metzger, Perry E. “What is the Role of the State?” Piermont. Metzger, Dowdeswell & Co. LLC,, 10 Sept. 2004. Web. 28 Feb. 2010. <http://www.piermont.com/‌blog/‌archives/‌permalinks/‌2004-08-28T12_54_13.html>.

“Muscle Atrophy.” Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia. Medline Plus, 13 Nov. 2008. Web. 7 Mar. 2010. <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/‌medlineplus/‌ency/‌article/‌003188.htm>.

Mussolini, Benito. “What is Fascism?” Fordham Modern History Sourcebook. Fordham University, 8 Feb. 2001. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. <http://www.fordham.edu/‌halsall/‌mod/‌mussolini-fascism.html>.

“Nation.” WordNet Search. Princeton University, Fall 2004. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. <http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/‌perl/‌webwn?s=nation>.

Nordquist, Richard. “Metonymy.” About. The New York Times Company, 10 Feb. 2009. Web. 21 Feb. 2010. <http://grammar.about.com/‌od/‌mo/‌g/‌metonymy.htm>.

Rodrigue, Jean-Paul. “Centrality and Intermediacy.” The Geography of Transport Systems. Hofstra University, 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2010. <http://people.hofstra.edu/‌geotrans/‌eng/‌ch4en/‌conc4en/‌centralityintermediacy.html>.

Sandeep. “Man the microcosm, Universe the macrocosm.” Auromere. WordPress, 18 Aug. 2009. Web. 21 Feb. 2010. <http://auromere.wordpress.com/‌2009/‌08/‌18/‌man-the-microcosm-universe-the-macrocosm/>.

Shaffer, Marjorie. “Sensory Deprivation Affects Brain’s Nerve Connections.” NYU Langone Medical Center. New York University, 18 July 2005. Web. 7 Mar. 2010. <http://communications.med.nyu.edu/‌news/‌2005/‌sensory-deprivation-affects-brains-nerve-connections>.

Van der Hart, Rob. “Hylomorphism and Politics.” Message to Payton Alexander. 22 Sept. 2009. E-mail.

Van der Hart, Rob. “Hylomorphism and Politics.” Message to Payton Alexander. 24 Sept. 2009. E-mail.

- – -. Personal interview. 27 July 2009. University of Oxford, England

- – -. Personal interview. 20 July 2009. University of Oxford, England

- – -. Personal interview. 13 July 2009. University of Oxford, England

---

[1] Van der Hart, Rob. Personal interview. 20 July 2009. University of Oxford, England

[2] Van der Hart, Rob. Personal interview. 20 July 2009. University of Oxford, England

[3] Van der Hart, Rob

[4] Kukathas, Chandran. “A Definition of the State.” Madison Philosophy Department.
University of Wisconsin, 29 Mar. 2008. Web. 7 Mar. 2010.
<http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/A%20Definition%20of%20the%20State.htm>.

[5] “Hylomorphism.” MSN Encarta, Dictionary. Microsoft, 2009. Web. 17 Dec. 2009.
<http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861619520/hylomorphism.html>.

[6] “‘Nation.’” WordNet Search. Princeton University, Fall 2004. Web. 14 Dec. 2009.

<http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=nation>.

[7] Mussolini, Benito. “What is Fascism?” Fordham Modern History Sourcebook. Fordham

University, 8 Feb. 2001. Web. 14 Dec. 2009. <http://www.fordham.edu/

halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html>.

[8] Sandeep. “Man the microcosm, Universe the macrocosm.” Auromere. WordPress, 18

Aug. 2009. Web. 21 Feb. 2010. <http://auromere.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/

man-the-microcosm-universe-the-macrocosm/>.

[9] Van der Hart, Rob. “Hylomorphism and Politics.” Message to Payton Alexander. 22

Sept. 2009. E-mail.

[10] Van der Hart, Rob. “Hylomorphism and Politics.” Message to Payton Alexander. 24

Sept. 2009. E-mail.

[11] Acts 4:8, 1 Corinthians 11:2, Ephesians 1:15, Ephesians 4:7, Ephesians 4:11, Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 1:18, Colossians 2:6, Colossians 2:18, 1 Peter 2:5

[12] Nordquist, Richard. “Metonymy.” About. The New York Times Company, 10 Feb. 2009.

Web. 21 Feb. 2010. <http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/metonymy.htm>.

[13] Block, Ned. Consciousness, Function, and Representation: Collected Papers, Volume 1 . N.p.: Bradford Books, n.d.

[14] Van der Hart, Rob

[15] ibid

[16] ibid

[17] Block, Ned

[18] OSU ASIAIN and SHAUN GRAVESTOCK (2002). Psychiatric and Behavioural Disorders in Developmental Disabilities and Mental Retardation. Edited by N. Bouras. (Pp. 464; £35.00) Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 1999.. Psychological Medicine, 32 , pp 369-376

doi:10.1017/S0033291701235223

[19] Metzger, Perry E. “What is the Role of the State?” Piermont. Metzger, Dowdeswell

& Co. LLC,, 10 Sept. 2004. Web. 28 Feb. 2010. <http://www.piermont.com/

blog/archives/permalinks/2004-08-28T12_54_13.html>.

[20] Rodrigue, Jean-Paul. “Centrality and Intermediacy.” The Geography of Transport

Systems. Hofstra University, 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.

<http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch4en/conc4en/

centralityintermediacy.html>.

[21] Van der Hart, Rob. “Hylomorphism and Politics.” Message to Payton Alexander. 24

Sept. 2009. E-mail.

[22] ibid

[23] “Muscle Atrophy.” Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia. Medline Plus, 13 Nov. 2008.
Web. 7 Mar. 2010. <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/
003188.htm>.

[24] Van der Hart, Rob. Personal interview. 13 July 2009. University of Oxford, England

[25] Shaffer, Marjorie. “Sensory Deprivation Affects Brain’s Nerve Connections.”
NYU Langone Medical Center. New York University, 18 July 2005. Web. 7
Mar. 2010. <http://communications.med.nyu.edu/news/2005/
sensory-deprivation-affects-brains-nerve-connections>.

[26] Van der Hart, Rob

[27] Van der Hart, Rob

[28] ibid

[29] “British Broadcasting Corporation.” BBC – Homepage. BBC, n.d. Web. 7 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/>.

[30] Van der Hart, Rob

[31] Van der Hart, Rob. Personal interview. 27 July 2009. University of Oxford, England