Dr. Flint是我的博士导师，关于申请有什么问题可以和我联系。 Graduate (PhD) Research Assistantships Available in Human Dimensions of Natural Resources University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Dept. of Natural Resources Environmental Sciences Applications are being considered for Ph.D. students to join Dr. Courtney Flint’s Community Natural Resources Lab beginning summer or fall 2012. Our current research examines interactions of values, knowledge, and conservation actions at multiple scales across multiple contexts by a variety of practitioners. Our research incorporates qualitative, quantitative, and spatial analytical methods. Current projects include: · Human dimensions of biodiversity and natural area conservation in the US · Comparative human-nature relationships and landscape sustainability in the US and Europe · Water quality perspectives and conservation practices in agricultural watersheds in Illinois · International human dimensions of coastal hazard mitigation Inquiries from interested applicants with a social science background may be sent to Dr. Flint at cflint@illinois.edu . More information can be found at http://communitynatres.nres.illinois.edu and about the NRES department at http://nres.illinois.edu .
Preface Space has long been the setting of especially intricate encounters between human aspirations and the implacable laws of the physical universe. It is a natural laboratory of fundamental science, at once the source of seminal conceptual achievements and bewildering mysteries. It has been the venue for both spectacular feats of engineering and tragic accidents. It has been the locus of uplifting collaboration among nations as well as ominous confrontation. It is an ever-compelling template on which popular imagination plays out. The resulting array of interests, attitudes, and emotions engaged in the practical utilization of space has made that topic an especially demanding problem of public policy. Because of the risks and expense involved in space operations, the burden so far has been borne primarily by the major national govern ments. And those governments have been driven primarily by national security considerations, the legacy of confrontations between the two global alliances that dominated the latter half of the twentieth century. The passing of that era and the progressive expansion of commercial utilization of space have clearly created a new situation but not as yet the decisive reformulation of basic purpose and operational policy that the change of circumstance can be expected to require. There has in fact been an argument about the basic character of the appropriate adjustment. An impulse emerging from within the United States government to dominate the utilization of space for national military advantage has been resisted by a nearly universal coalition of other countries defending the principle of equitable utilization for common benefit. If the outcome were to be directly decided by simple majority sentiment, the argument would have long since been settled. Most people when asked opt for collaboration and the pursuit of common interest; redirecting the inertia of established policy is anything but simple, however. The underlying argument involves a collision of intense convictions, and casual endorsement of common interest is often mixed with the residual fear of imperial aggression that is an enduring product of historical experience. The appropriate balance between collaboration and confrontation in the era of globalization is an unsettled question, and the implications for space policy have not been worked out in the necessary detail. The effort to do so is demanding, and will undoubtedly take some time. To stimulate the broad discussion that must accompany any fundamental redirection of policy, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences initiated the Reconsidering the Rules of Space project in 2002. Five occasional papers have been published dealing with, respectively, the basic laws of physics that apply to all space activity (The Physics of Space Security: A Reference Manual, by David Wright, Laura Grego, and Lisbeth Gronlund, 2005); the fundamental issues of security policy (Reconsidering the Rules of Space, by Nancy Gallagher and John Steinbruner, 2008); the policies of the principal national governments (United States Space Policy: Challenges and Opportunities, by George Abbey and Neal Lane, 2005, and Russian and Chinese Responses to U.S. Military Plans in Space, by Pavel Podvig and Hui Zhang, 2008); and the historical origins of China’s space program (A Place for One’s Mat: China’s Space Program, 1956– 2003, by Gregory Kulacki and Jeffrey G. Lewis, 2009). A European Approach to Space Security, by Xavier Pasco, is the sixth occasional paper of the series. It documents the efforts of EU members to develop common policies and practical collaboration for space missions related to security. It notes that the European community has not as yet been able to establish authoritative coordination of national military programs and warns that balancing those programs with increasingly important commercial and social interests is a generally unresolved problem. But it also suggests that EU efforts to develop collective rules, confidence-building measures, and codes of responsible conduct can make an important constructive contribution to working out global arrangements for space. John D. Steinbruner Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland Director, Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) Co-Chair, Committee on International Security Studies, American Academy of Arts and Sciences 原文见 http://www.amacad.org/publications/spaceEurope.pdf
Preface Space has long been the setting of especially intricate encounters between human aspirations and the implacable laws of the physical universe. It is a natural laboratory of fundamental science, at once the source of seminal conceptual achievements and bewildering mysteries. It has been the venue for both spectacular feats of engineering and tragic accidents. It has been the locus of uplifting collaboration among nations as well as ominous confrontation. It is an ever-compelling template on which popular imagination plays out. The resulting array of interests, attitudes, and emotions engaged in the practical utilization of space has made that topic an especially demanding problem of public policy. Because of the risks and expense involved in space operations, the burden so far has been borne primarily by the major national govern ments. And those governments have been driven primarily by national security considerations, the legacy of confrontations between the two global alliances that dominated the latter half of the twentieth century. The passing of that era and the progressive expansion of commercial utilization of space have clearly created a new situation but not as yet the decisive reformulation of basic purpose and operational policy that the change of circumstance can be expected to require. There has in fact been an argument about the basic character of the appropriate adjustment. An impulse emerging from within the U.S. government to dominate the utilization of space for national military advantage has been resisted by a nearly universal coalition of other countries defending the principle of equitable utilization for common benefit. If the outcome were to be directly decided by simple majority sentiment, the argument would have long since been settled. Most people when asked opt for collaboration and the pursuit of common interest; redirecting the inertia of established policy is anything but simple, however. The underlying argument involves a collision of intense convictions, and casual endorsement of common interest is often mixed with the residual fear of imperial aggression that is an enduring product of historical experience. The appropriate balance between collaboration and confrontation in the era of globalization is an unsettled question, and the implications for space policy have not been worked out in the necessary detail. The effort to do so is demanding, and will undoubtedly take some time. To stimulate the broad discussion that must accompany any fundamental redirection of policy, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences initiated the Reconsidering the Rules of Space project in 2002. Four occasional papers have been published dealing with, respectively, the basic laws of physics that apply to all space activity (The Physics of Space Security: A Reference Manual, by David Wright, Laura Grego, and Lisbeth Gronlund, 2005); the fundamental issues of security policy (Reconsidering the Rules for Space Security, by Nancy Gallagher and John Steinbruner, 2008); and the policies of the principal national governments (United States Space Policy: Challenges and Opportunities, by George Abbey and Neal Lane, 2005, and Russian and Chinese Responses to U.S. Military Plans in Space, by Pavel Podvig and Hui Zhang, 2008). A Place for One’s Mat: China’s Space Program, 1956–2003 is the fifth paper of the project series. Using Chinese-language sources, Gregory Kulacki and Jeffrey G. Lewis examine three formative events in the development of China’s utilization of space: the launch of the first satellite in 1970, the launch of the first communications satellite in 1984, and the first human spaceflight in 2003. They trace the origins and basic purposes of each of these efforts and set them in the context of China’s internal history. Their central observation is that China understood each of these efforts to be a measure of national accomplishment necessary to qualify for inclusion among the major spacefaring countries that set the rules. Equity appears to have been the principal concern of China’s political leadership. That motive is more legitimate and less belligerent than those typically attributed by foreign observers—the U.S. intelligence community in particular. The authors do not claim to provide a comprehensive account of China’s space program or an indisputable interpretation of its fundamental purposes. They do, however, provide evidence to be considered in any fair-minded assessment of the program’s global significance. John D. Steinbruner Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland Director, Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) Co-Chair, Committee on International Security Studies, American Academy of Arts and Sciences 原文见 http://www.amacad.org/publications/spaceChina.pdf
Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History 掠影 ( 二 ) 黄安年文 黄安年的博客 /2011 年12 月8 日 ( 美东时间 ) 发布 2010 年 12 月 23 日 , 家人带领两个外孙参观了位于耶鲁大学的 170 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, CT 的 Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, 这个博物馆引发孩子的极大兴趣。 照片（一） 26 张 , （二） 26 张 , （三） 16 张 , 是即时拍摄的。 *********************************** Yale Peabody Museum Mission The mission of the Peabody Museum is to serve Yale University by advancing our understanding of earth ’ s history through geological, biological, and anthropological research, and by communicating the results of this research to the widest possible audience through publication, exhibition, and educational programs. Fundamental to this mission is stewardship of the Museum ’ s rich collections, which provide a remarkable record of the history of the earth, its life, and its cultures. Conservation, augmentation and use of these collections become increasingly urgent as modern threats to the diversity of life and culture continue to intensify. A short history of the Yale Peabody Museum Yale University ’ s earliest museum collection, begun in the 18th century, was a miscellaneous assortment of “ natural and artificial curiosities ” from around the world typical of college collections of the time. Systematic collecting of specimens for teaching and research began in 1802 with the appointment of Benjamin Sillimanas Professor of Chemistry and Natural History. The outstanding mineral collection Silliman built for Yale, which he used in his pioneering teaching of geology and mineralogy, became an important source of public entertainment and one of the principal attractions for visitors to New Haven. Silliman ’ s activities helped to establish Yale as a major center of scientific education in the first half of the 19th century. Among the undergraduates attracted to the University by its scientific reputation was Othniel Charles Marsh. Marsh ’ s education and his postgraduate studies abroad were funded by his uncle, the wealthy international financier George Peabody.When toward the end of his life Peabody began to distribute his vast fortune to, among others, institutions concerned with education, Marsh persuaded his uncle to include Yale in his philanthropies. In 1866 the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale University was founded with a gift of $150,000 for the construction of a museum building and the care and increase of the museum and its collections. O.C. Marsh was appointed Professor of Paleontology at Yale in 1866, the first such professorship in the United States, and only the second in the world. In addition to serving as director of the Peabody Museum, Marsh, with George Jarvis Brush (Mineralogy) and Addison Emery Verrill(Zoology), was also one of the Peabody Museum ’ s first three curators. Using his inheritance from his uncle, who died in 1869, Marsh proceeded to amass large collections vertebrate skeletons, vertebrate and invertebrate fossils, fossil footprints, and archaeological and ethnological artifacts. The first Peabody Museum building opened to the public in 1876, but its capacity was soon strained by the huge dinosaur bones that Marsh ’ s collectors were sending in to the rapidly growing collections. In 1917 it was demolished to make way for a major dormitory complex, the Harkness Quadrangle. Construction of a new building was delayed by World War I, and the collections were in nearly inaccessible storage for seven years, until the current Peabody Museum building became ready for occupancy in 1924. Dedicated in December 1925, the new building ’ s two-story Great Hall was specifically designed to accommodate some of O.C. Marsh ’ s dinosaurs, such the mounting of the giant “ Brontosaurus ” (Apatosaurus), completed in 1931 after six years of labor. In 1947 Rudolph F. Zallinger finished the fresco secco painting that is probably the Yale Peabody Museum ’ s best known feature, the 110-foot mural The Age of Reptiles on the south wall of the Great Hall. The new building, like the old one, quickly filled with growing collections and the people studying them. Bingham Laboratory, completed in 1959, and the Kline Geology Laboratory (1963), each connected to the Museum and helped to relieve the need for storage, work, and classroom space. Museum collections and staff are also housed in parts of three additional buildings, and a field station a few miles away on Long Island Sound provides varied research opportunities. In recognition of the importance of conserving the collections and of enabling scientists and scholars to study them properly, the University constructed the new Class of 1954 Environmental Science Center to house approximately half of the Museum ’ s collections and to provide space for collections-based teaching and research. Current efforts are addressing the conservation, education and research needs of the collections that make up the remaining portion of the Yale Peabody Museum ’ s more than 11 million specimens and objects requiring upgraded storage, lab and classroom facilities. Until 1922, the directorship was unofficially assumed by the Curator of Geology. The title was first used officially in 1922. 1866 – 1899 Othniel Charles Marsh 1899 – 1904 Charles Emerson Beecher 1904 – 1922 Charles Schuchert 1922 – 1938 Richard Swann Lull (Acting, 1936 – 38) 1938 – 1942 Albert Eide Parr 1942 – 1959 Carl Owen Dunbar 1959 – 1964 Sidney Dillon Ripley II 1964 David Challinor (Acting) 1964 – 1970 Alfred Walter Crompton 1970 – 1976 Charles Gald Sibley 1976 – 1979 Keith Stewart Thomson (Acting, 1976-77) 1979 – 1982 Karl Mensch Waage (Acting, 1979-80) 1982 – 1987 Leo Joseph Hickey 1987 – 1990 Willard Daniel Hartman (Acting, 1987-90; Director, 1990 July – December) 1991 – 1994 Alison Fettes Richard 1994 Edward Allen Adelberg (Acting) 1995 – 2002 Richard Lewis Burger 2003 – 2008 Michael John Donoghue 2008 Jay John Ague (Acting, July to December) 2009- Present Derek Ernest Gilmor Briggs http://peabody.yale.edu/about-us/mission-history ****************** George Peabody From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the London-based banker and philanthropist. For the southern USA capitalist, see George Foster Peabody. George Peabody Born February 18, 1795(1795-02-18) Peabody , Massachusetts, U.S. Died November 4, 1869(1869-11-04) (aged 74) London , England Resting place Harmony Grove Cemetery, Salem, Massachusetts Occupation Financier, Banker, Entrepreneur Net worth USD $16 million at the time of his death (approximately 1/556th of US GNP) Religion Unitarian Spouse none Children none Parents Thomas Peabody and Judith Dodge George Peabody (/?pi?b?di/ PEE-b?-dee; February 18, 1795 – November 4, 1869) was an American-British entrepreneur and philanthropist who founded the Peabody Trust in Britain and the Peabody Institute in Baltimore, and was responsible for many other charitable initiatives. Peabody was born in what was then South Danvers (now Peabody), Massachusetts. His family had Puritan antecedents in the state, but was poor, and as one of eight children George suffered some deprivations during his upbringing: these factors influenced his later philanthropic tendencies. His birthplace at 205 Washington Street in Peabody is now the George Peabody House Museum, a museum dedicated to preserving his life and legacy. One of his longtime business associates and friends was renowned banker and art patron William Wilson Corcoran. In 1816, he moved to Baltimore, where he would live for the next 20 years. Peabody first visited the UK in 1827 for business reasons, and over the next decade made four more trans-Atlantic trips, establishing a branch office in Liverpool, and later the banking firm of George Peabody Co. in London. In 1837 he took up permanent residence in London, remaining there for the rest of his life. In February 1867, on one of several return visits to the United States, and at the height of his financial success, Peabody's name was suggested by Francis Preston Blair as a possible Secretary of the Treasury in the cabinet of President Andrew Johnson. At about the same time, his name was also mentioned in newspapers as a future presidential candidate. Peabody described the presidential suggestion as a "kind and complimentary reference", but considered that he was too old for either office. Although he was briefly engaged in 1838 (and later allegedly had a mistress, who bore him a daughter, in Brighton), Peabody never married. He died in London on November 4, 1869, aged 74, at the house of his friend Sir Curtis Miranda Lampson. At the request of the Dean of Westminster and with the approval of the Queen, Peabody was given a temporary burial in Westminster Abbey. Peabody 's funeral in Westminster Abbey. His will provided that he be buried in the town of his birth, Danvers, Massachusetts, and Prime Minister Gladstone arranged for Peabody's remains to be returned to America on HMS Monarch, the newest and largest ship in Her Majesty's Navy. He was laid to rest in Harmony Grove Cemetery, in Salem, Massachusetts, on February 8, 1870. Peabody's death and the pair of funerals were international news, with hundreds of people participating in the ceremonies and thousands attending. Business While serving as a volunteer in the War of 1812, Peabody met Elisha Riggs, who, in 1814, provided financial backing for what became the wholesale dry goods firm of Riggs, Peabody Co., specializing in importing dry goods from Britain. Branches were opened in New York and Philadelphia in 1822. Riggs retired in 1829, and the firm became Peabody, Riggs Co., with Peabody as senior partner. Peabody first visited the UK in 1827 to purchase wares, and to negotiate the sale of American cotton in Lancashire. He subsequently opened a branch office in Liverpool, and British business began to play an increasingly important role in his affairs. He appears to have had some help in establishing himself from William and James Brown, the sons of another successful Baltimore businessman, the Irishman Alexander Brown, who managed their father's Liverpool office, opened in 1810. In 1835, Peabody established the banking firm of George Peabody Co. in London. It was founded to meet the increasing demand for securities issued by the American railroads, and – although Peabody continued to deal in dry goods and other commodities – he increasingly focused his attentions on merchant banking. The bank rose to become the premier American house in London. In 1854, Peabody took Junius Spencer Morgan (father of J. P. Morgan) into partnership to form Peabody, Morgan Co., and the two financiers worked together until Peabody ’ s retirement in 1864. Peabody frequently entertained and provided letters of introduction for American businessmen visiting London, and became known for the Anglo-American dinners he hosted in honor of American diplomats and other worthies, and in celebration of the Fourth of July. In 1851, when the US Congress refused to support the American section at the Great Exhibition at the Crystal Palace, Peabody advanced ?3000 to improve the exhibit and uphold the reputation of the United States. During the run on the banks of 1857, Peabody had to ask the Bank of England for a loan of ?800,000: although rivals tried to force the bank out of business, it managed to emerge with its credit intact. Following this crisis, Peabody began to retire from active business, and in 1864 retired fully (taking with him much of his capital, amounting to over $10,000,000, or ?2,000,000). Peabody, Morgan Co. was then renamed J. S. Morgan Co. The former UK merchant bank Morgan Grenfell (now part of Deutsche Bank), international universal bank JPMorgan Chase and investment bank Morgan Stanley can all trace their roots to Peabody's bank. Philanthropy Peabody Estates provide cheap housing in Central London even today. This sign is on the side of an estate in Westminster. Peabody is the acknowledged father of modern philanthropy, having established the practice later followed by Johns Hopkins, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Bill Gates. In the United States, his philanthropy largely took the form of educational initiatives. In Britain, it took the form of providing housing for the poor. In America, Peabody founded and supported numerous institutions in New England and elsewhere. At the close of the American Civil War, he established the Peabody Education Fund to "encourage the intellectual, moral, and industrial education of the destitute children of the Southern States." His grandest beneficence, however, was to Baltimore; the city in which he achieved his earliest success. The first block of Peabody dwellings in Commercial Street, Spitalfields, London. A wood-engraving published in the Illustrated London News in 1863, shortly before the building opened. In April 1862, Peabody established the Peabody Donation Fund, which continues to this day as the Peabody Trust, to provide housing of a decent quality for the "artisans and labouring poor of London". The trust's first dwellings, designed by H. A. Darbishire in a Jacobethan style, were opened in Commercial Street, Spitalfields in February 1864. Peabody's philanthropy was recognised and on 10 July 1862 he was made a Freeman of the City of London, the motion being proposed by Charles Reed in recognition of his financial contribution to London's poor. He became the first of only two Americans (the other being Dwight D. Eisenhower) to have received the award. A statue of him was unveiled by the Prince of Wales in 1869 next to the Royal Exchange, London, on the site of the former church of St Benet Fink (demolished 1842-6). George Peabody is known to have provided benefactions of well over $8 million, most of them in his own lifetime. Among the list are included: 1852 The Peabody Institute (now the Peabody Institute Library), Peabody, Mass: $217,000 1856 The Peabody Institute, Danvers, Mass (now the Peabody Institute Library of Danvers): $100,000 1857 The Peabody Institute (now the Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University), Baltimore: $1,400,000 1862 The Peabody Donation Fund, London: $2,500,000 1866 The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University: $150,000 1866 The Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University: $150,000 1867 The Peabody Academy of Science, Salem, Mass: $140,000 1867 The Peabody Institute, Georgetown, District of Columbia: $15,000 (today the Peabody Room, Georgetown Branch, DC Public Library). 1867 Peabody Education Fund: $2,000,000 1875 George Peabody College for Teachers, now the Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. The funding came from the Peabody Education Fund 1866 The Georgetown Peabody Library, the public library of Georgetown, Massachusetts 1866 The Thetford Public Library, the public library of Thetford, Vermont: $5,000 1901 The Peabody Memorial Library, Sam Houston State University, Texas Recognition and commemoration In 1862, Peabody was made a Freeman of the City of London. On March 16, 1867, he was awarded the United States Congressional Gold Medal. Also in 1867, he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Laws by Harvard University, and an Honorary Doctorate in Civil Law by Oxford University. The town of South Danvers, Massachusetts, changed its name in 1868 to The City of Peabody, Massachusetts, in honor of its favorite son. Statue by Royal Exchange (London) A statue sculpted by William Wetmore Story stands next to the Royal Exchange in the City of London, unveiled in 1869 shortly before Peabody's death. A replica, erected in 1890, stands next to the Peabody Institute, in Mount Vernon Park, part of the Mount Vernon neighborhood of Baltimore, Maryland. In 1900, Peabody was one of the first 29 honorees to be elected to the Hall of Fame for Great Americans, located on what was then the campus of New York University (and is now that of Bronx Community College), at University Heights, New York. Wikimedia Commons has media related to: George Peabody References 1. ^ Klepper, Michael; Gunther, Michael (1996), The Wealthy 100: From Benjamin Franklin to Bill Gates — A Ranking of the Richest Americans, Past and Present, Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Publishing Group, p. xii, ISBN 9780806518008, OCLC 33818143 2. ^ This is the standard pronunciation in the United States, and presumably how Peabody himself pronounced his name. In Britain, however, the name of George Peabody himself, and of the Peabody Trust, is invariably pronounced as spelt, Pea-body (/?pi?'b?di/). 3. ^ Parker 1995, pp. 164-5, 203, 214. 4. ^ Parker 1995, pp. 29-33. 5. ^ "Funeral of George Peabody at Westminster Abbey". The New York Times. 1869-11-13. p. 3. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9804E0D7123BE63BBC4B52DFB7678382679FDE. "As soon as the ceremony within the church was over the procession formed again, and advanced to a spot near the western entrance, where a temporary grave had been prepared... Here the body was deposited, and will remain until it is transported to America." 6. ^ Parker, Franklin (July 1966). "The Funeral of George Peabody". Peabody Journal of Education (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor Francis Group)) 44 (1): 21 – 36. doi:10.1080/01619566609537382. JSTOR 1491421. 7. ^ Chernow: The House of Morgan 8. ^ Bernstein, Peter (2007). All the Money in the World. Random House. p. 280. ISBN 0307266125. "Even before the Carnegies and Rockefellers became philanthropic legends, there was George Peabody, considered to be the father of modern philanthropy." 9. ^ Davies, Gill (2006). One Thousand Buildings of London. Black Dog Publishing. p. 179. ISBN 1579125875. "George Peabody (1795-1869) — banker, dry goods merchant, and father of modern philanthropy..." 10. ^ "Peabody Hall Stands as Symbol of University's History". University of Arkansas. December 2009. http://coehp.uark.edu/colleague/7657.php. Retrieved 2010-03-12. "George Peabody is considered by some to be the father of modern philanthropy." 11. ^ "George Peabody Library History". Johns Hopkins University. http://www.peabodyevents.library.jhu.edu/history.html. Retrieved 2010-03-12. "After the Civil War he funded the Peabody Education Fund which established public education in the South." 12. ^ "London People: George Peabody". http://www.london-footprints.co.uk/peopeabody.htm. Retrieved 2010-03-12. "By 1867 Peabody had received honours from America and Britain, including being made a Freeman of the City of London, the first American to receive this honour." 13. ^ Peabodylibrary.org 14. ^ Danverslibrary.org 15. ^ Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives - Congressional Gold Medal Recipients 16. ^ Parker 1995, p. 203. Further reading * Burk, Kathleen (1989). Morgan Grenfell 1838-1988: the biography of a merchant bank. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0198283067. * Burk, Kathleen (2004). "Peabody, George (1795 – 1869)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/21664. Retrieved 24 Sept 2011. (Subscription required.) * Hanaford, Phebe Ann (1870). The Life of George Peabody: Containing a Record of Those Princely Acts of Benevolence Which Entitle Him to the Esteem and Gratitude of All Friends of Education and the Destitute, Both in America, the Land of His Birth, and in England, the Place of His Death. B.B. Russell. * Parker, Franklin (1995). George Peabody: A Biography (2nd ed.). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. ISBN 0826512569. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Peabody
Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History 掠影 ( 一 ) 黄安年文 黄安年的博客 /2011 年12 月8 日 ( 美东时间 ) 发布 2010 年 12 月 23 日 , 家人带领两个外孙参观了位于耶鲁大学的 170 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, CT 的 Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History, 这个博物馆引发孩子的极大兴趣。 照片（一） 26 张 , （二） 26 张 , （三） 16 张 , 是即时拍摄的。 *********************************** Yale Peabody Museum Mission The mission of the Peabody Museum is to serve Yale University by advancing our understanding of earth ’ s history through geological, biological, and anthropological research, and by communicating the results of this research to the widest possible audience through publication, exhibition, and educational programs. Fundamental to this mission is stewardship of the Museum ’ s rich collections, which provide a remarkable record of the history of the earth, its life, and its cultures. Conservation, augmentation and use of these collections become increasingly urgent as modern threats to the diversity of life and culture continue to intensify. A short history of the Yale Peabody Museum Yale University ’ s earliest museum collection, begun in the 18th century, was a miscellaneous assortment of “ natural and artificial curiosities ” from around the world typical of college collections of the time. Systematic collecting of specimens for teaching and research began in 1802 with the appointment of Benjamin Sillimanas Professor of Chemistry and Natural History. The outstanding mineral collection Silliman built for Yale, which he used in his pioneering teaching of geology and mineralogy, became an important source of public entertainment and one of the principal attractions for visitors to New Haven. Silliman ’ s activities helped to establish Yale as a major center of scientific education in the first half of the 19th century. Among the undergraduates attracted to the University by its scientific reputation was Othniel Charles Marsh. Marsh ’ s education and his postgraduate studies abroad were funded by his uncle, the wealthy international financier George Peabody.When toward the end of his life Peabody began to distribute his vast fortune to, among others, institutions concerned with education, Marsh persuaded his uncle to include Yale in his philanthropies. In 1866 the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale University was founded with a gift of $150,000 for the construction of a museum building and the care and increase of the museum and its collections. O.C. Marsh was appointed Professor of Paleontology at Yale in 1866, the first such professorship in the United States, and only the second in the world. In addition to serving as director of the Peabody Museum, Marsh, with George Jarvis Brush (Mineralogy) and Addison Emery Verrill(Zoology), was also one of the Peabody Museum ’ s first three curators. Using his inheritance from his uncle, who died in 1869, Marsh proceeded to amass large collections vertebrate skeletons, vertebrate and invertebrate fossils, fossil footprints, and archaeological and ethnological artifacts. The first Peabody Museum building opened to the public in 1876, but its capacity was soon strained by the huge dinosaur bones that Marsh ’ s collectors were sending in to the rapidly growing collections. In 1917 it was demolished to make way for a major dormitory complex, the Harkness Quadrangle. Construction of a new building was delayed by World War I, and the collections were in nearly inaccessible storage for seven years, until the current Peabody Museum building became ready for occupancy in 1924. Dedicated in December 1925, the new building ’ s two-story Great Hall was specifically designed to accommodate some of O.C. Marsh ’ s dinosaurs, such the mounting of the giant “ Brontosaurus ” (Apatosaurus), completed in 1931 after six years of labor. In 1947 Rudolph F. Zallinger finished the fresco secco painting that is probably the Yale Peabody Museum ’ s best known feature, the 110-foot mural The Age of Reptiles on the south wall of the Great Hall. The new building, like the old one, quickly filled with growing collections and the people studying them. Bingham Laboratory, completed in 1959, and the Kline Geology Laboratory (1963), each connected to the Museum and helped to relieve the need for storage, work, and classroom space. Museum collections and staff are also housed in parts of three additional buildings, and a field station a few miles away on Long Island Sound provides varied research opportunities. In recognition of the importance of conserving the collections and of enabling scientists and scholars to study them properly, the University constructed the new Class of 1954 Environmental Science Center to house approximately half of the Museum ’ s collections and to provide space for collections-based teaching and research. Current efforts are addressing the conservation, education and research needs of the collections that make up the remaining portion of the Yale Peabody Museum ’ s more than 11 million specimens and objects requiring upgraded storage, lab and classroom facilities. Until 1922, the directorship was unofficially assumed by the Curator of Geology. The title was first used officially in 1922. 1866 – 1899 Othniel Charles Marsh 1899 – 1904 Charles Emerson Beecher 1904 – 1922 Charles Schuchert 1922 – 1938 Richard Swann Lull (Acting, 1936 – 38) 1938 – 1942 Albert Eide Parr 1942 – 1959 Carl Owen Dunbar 1959 – 1964 Sidney Dillon Ripley II 1964 David Challinor (Acting) 1964 – 1970 Alfred Walter Crompton 1970 – 1976 Charles Gald Sibley 1976 – 1979 Keith Stewart Thomson (Acting, 1976-77) 1979 – 1982 Karl Mensch Waage (Acting, 1979-80) 1982 – 1987 Leo Joseph Hickey 1987 – 1990 Willard Daniel Hartman (Acting, 1987-90; Director, 1990 July – December) 1991 – 1994 Alison Fettes Richard 1994 Edward Allen Adelberg (Acting) 1995 – 2002 Richard Lewis Burger 2003 – 2008 Michael John Donoghue 2008 Jay John Ague (Acting, July to December) 2009- Present Derek Ernest Gilmor Briggs http://peabody.yale.edu/about-us/mission-history ****************** George Peabody From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the London-based banker and philanthropist. For the southern USA capitalist, see George Foster Peabody. George Peabody Born February 18, 1795(1795-02-18) Peabody , Massachusetts, U.S. Died November 4, 1869(1869-11-04) (aged 74) London , England Resting place Harmony Grove Cemetery, Salem, Massachusetts Occupation Financier, Banker, Entrepreneur Net worth USD $16 million at the time of his death (approximately 1/556th of US GNP) Religion Unitarian Spouse none Children none Parents Thomas Peabody and Judith Dodge George Peabody (/?pi?b?di/ PEE-b?-dee; February 18, 1795 – November 4, 1869) was an American-British entrepreneur and philanthropist who founded the Peabody Trust in Britain and the Peabody Institute in Baltimore, and was responsible for many other charitable initiatives. Peabody was born in what was then South Danvers (now Peabody), Massachusetts. His family had Puritan antecedents in the state, but was poor, and as one of eight children George suffered some deprivations during his upbringing: these factors influenced his later philanthropic tendencies. His birthplace at 205 Washington Street in Peabody is now the George Peabody House Museum, a museum dedicated to preserving his life and legacy. One of his longtime business associates and friends was renowned banker and art patron William Wilson Corcoran. In 1816, he moved to Baltimore, where he would live for the next 20 years. Peabody first visited the UK in 1827 for business reasons, and over the next decade made four more trans-Atlantic trips, establishing a branch office in Liverpool, and later the banking firm of George Peabody Co. in London. In 1837 he took up permanent residence in London, remaining there for the rest of his life. In February 1867, on one of several return visits to the United States, and at the height of his financial success, Peabody's name was suggested by Francis Preston Blair as a possible Secretary of the Treasury in the cabinet of President Andrew Johnson. At about the same time, his name was also mentioned in newspapers as a future presidential candidate. Peabody described the presidential suggestion as a "kind and complimentary reference", but considered that he was too old for either office. Although he was briefly engaged in 1838 (and later allegedly had a mistress, who bore him a daughter, in Brighton), Peabody never married. He died in London on November 4, 1869, aged 74, at the house of his friend Sir Curtis Miranda Lampson. At the request of the Dean of Westminster and with the approval of the Queen, Peabody was given a temporary burial in Westminster Abbey. Peabody 's funeral in Westminster Abbey. His will provided that he be buried in the town of his birth, Danvers, Massachusetts, and Prime Minister Gladstone arranged for Peabody's remains to be returned to America on HMS Monarch, the newest and largest ship in Her Majesty's Navy. He was laid to rest in Harmony Grove Cemetery, in Salem, Massachusetts, on February 8, 1870. Peabody's death and the pair of funerals were international news, with hundreds of people participating in the ceremonies and thousands attending. Business While serving as a volunteer in the War of 1812, Peabody met Elisha Riggs, who, in 1814, provided financial backing for what became the wholesale dry goods firm of Riggs, Peabody Co., specializing in importing dry goods from Britain. Branches were opened in New York and Philadelphia in 1822. Riggs retired in 1829, and the firm became Peabody, Riggs Co., with Peabody as senior partner. Peabody first visited the UK in 1827 to purchase wares, and to negotiate the sale of American cotton in Lancashire. He subsequently opened a branch office in Liverpool, and British business began to play an increasingly important role in his affairs. He appears to have had some help in establishing himself from William and James Brown, the sons of another successful Baltimore businessman, the Irishman Alexander Brown, who managed their father's Liverpool office, opened in 1810. In 1835, Peabody established the banking firm of George Peabody Co. in London. It was founded to meet the increasing demand for securities issued by the American railroads, and – although Peabody continued to deal in dry goods and other commodities – he increasingly focused his attentions on merchant banking. The bank rose to become the premier American house in London. In 1854, Peabody took Junius Spencer Morgan (father of J. P. Morgan) into partnership to form Peabody, Morgan Co., and the two financiers worked together until Peabody ’ s retirement in 1864. Peabody frequently entertained and provided letters of introduction for American businessmen visiting London, and became known for the Anglo-American dinners he hosted in honor of American diplomats and other worthies, and in celebration of the Fourth of July. In 1851, when the US Congress refused to support the American section at the Great Exhibition at the Crystal Palace, Peabody advanced ?3000 to improve the exhibit and uphold the reputation of the United States. During the run on the banks of 1857, Peabody had to ask the Bank of England for a loan of ?800,000: although rivals tried to force the bank out of business, it managed to emerge with its credit intact. Following this crisis, Peabody began to retire from active business, and in 1864 retired fully (taking with him much of his capital, amounting to over $10,000,000, or ?2,000,000). Peabody, Morgan Co. was then renamed J. S. Morgan Co. The former UK merchant bank Morgan Grenfell (now part of Deutsche Bank), international universal bank JPMorgan Chase and investment bank Morgan Stanley can all trace their roots to Peabody's bank. Philanthropy Peabody Estates provide cheap housing in Central London even today. This sign is on the side of an estate in Westminster. Peabody is the acknowledged father of modern philanthropy, having established the practice later followed by Johns Hopkins, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Bill Gates. In the United States, his philanthropy largely took the form of educational initiatives. In Britain, it took the form of providing housing for the poor. In America, Peabody founded and supported numerous institutions in New England and elsewhere. At the close of the American Civil War, he established the Peabody Education Fund to "encourage the intellectual, moral, and industrial education of the destitute children of the Southern States." His grandest beneficence, however, was to Baltimore; the city in which he achieved his earliest success. The first block of Peabody dwellings in Commercial Street, Spitalfields, London. A wood-engraving published in the Illustrated London News in 1863, shortly before the building opened. In April 1862, Peabody established the Peabody Donation Fund, which continues to this day as the Peabody Trust, to provide housing of a decent quality for the "artisans and labouring poor of London". The trust's first dwellings, designed by H. A. Darbishire in a Jacobethan style, were opened in Commercial Street, Spitalfields in February 1864. Peabody's philanthropy was recognised and on 10 July 1862 he was made a Freeman of the City of London, the motion being proposed by Charles Reed in recognition of his financial contribution to London's poor. He became the first of only two Americans (the other being Dwight D. Eisenhower) to have received the award. A statue of him was unveiled by the Prince of Wales in 1869 next to the Royal Exchange, London, on the site of the former church of St Benet Fink (demolished 1842-6). George Peabody is known to have provided benefactions of well over $8 million, most of them in his own lifetime. Among the list are included: 1852 The Peabody Institute (now the Peabody Institute Library), Peabody, Mass: $217,000 1856 The Peabody Institute, Danvers, Mass (now the Peabody Institute Library of Danvers): $100,000 1857 The Peabody Institute (now the Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University), Baltimore: $1,400,000 1862 The Peabody Donation Fund, London: $2,500,000 1866 The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University: $150,000 1866 The Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University: $150,000 1867 The Peabody Academy of Science, Salem, Mass: $140,000 1867 The Peabody Institute, Georgetown, District of Columbia: $15,000 (today the Peabody Room, Georgetown Branch, DC Public Library). 1867 Peabody Education Fund: $2,000,000 1875 George Peabody College for Teachers, now the Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. The funding came from the Peabody Education Fund 1866 The Georgetown Peabody Library, the public library of Georgetown, Massachusetts 1866 The Thetford Public Library, the public library of Thetford, Vermont: $5,000 1901 The Peabody Memorial Library, Sam Houston State University, Texas Recognition and commemoration In 1862, Peabody was made a Freeman of the City of London. On March 16, 1867, he was awarded the United States Congressional Gold Medal. Also in 1867, he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate of Laws by Harvard University, and an Honorary Doctorate in Civil Law by Oxford University. The town of South Danvers, Massachusetts, changed its name in 1868 to The City of Peabody, Massachusetts, in honor of its favorite son. Statue by Royal Exchange (London) A statue sculpted by William Wetmore Story stands next to the Royal Exchange in the City of London, unveiled in 1869 shortly before Peabody's death. A replica, erected in 1890, stands next to the Peabody Institute, in Mount Vernon Park, part of the Mount Vernon neighborhood of Baltimore, Maryland. In 1900, Peabody was one of the first 29 honorees to be elected to the Hall of Fame for Great Americans, located on what was then the campus of New York University (and is now that of Bronx Community College), at University Heights, New York. Wikimedia Commons has media related to: George Peabody References 1. ^ Klepper, Michael; Gunther, Michael (1996), The Wealthy 100: From Benjamin Franklin to Bill Gates — A Ranking of the Richest Americans, Past and Present, Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Publishing Group, p. xii, ISBN 9780806518008, OCLC 33818143 2. ^ This is the standard pronunciation in the United States, and presumably how Peabody himself pronounced his name. In Britain, however, the name of George Peabody himself, and of the Peabody Trust, is invariably pronounced as spelt, Pea-body (/?pi?'b?di/). 3. ^ Parker 1995, pp. 164-5, 203, 214. 4. ^ Parker 1995, pp. 29-33. 5. ^ "Funeral of George Peabody at Westminster Abbey". The New York Times. 1869-11-13. p. 3. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9804E0D7123BE63BBC4B52DFB7678382679FDE. "As soon as the ceremony within the church was over the procession formed again, and advanced to a spot near the western entrance, where a temporary grave had been prepared... Here the body was deposited, and will remain until it is transported to America." 6. ^ Parker, Franklin (July 1966). "The Funeral of George Peabody". Peabody Journal of Education (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor Francis Group)) 44 (1): 21 – 36. doi:10.1080/01619566609537382. JSTOR 1491421. 7. ^ Chernow: The House of Morgan 8. ^ Bernstein, Peter (2007). All the Money in the World. Random House. p. 280. ISBN 0307266125. "Even before the Carnegies and Rockefellers became philanthropic legends, there was George Peabody, considered to be the father of modern philanthropy." 9. ^ Davies, Gill (2006). One Thousand Buildings of London. Black Dog Publishing. p. 179. ISBN 1579125875. "George Peabody (1795-1869) — banker, dry goods merchant, and father of modern philanthropy..." 10. ^ "Peabody Hall Stands as Symbol of University's History". University of Arkansas. December 2009. http://coehp.uark.edu/colleague/7657.php. Retrieved 2010-03-12. "George Peabody is considered by some to be the father of modern philanthropy." 11. ^ "George Peabody Library History". Johns Hopkins University. http://www.peabodyevents.library.jhu.edu/history.html. Retrieved 2010-03-12. "After the Civil War he funded the Peabody Education Fund which established public education in the South." 12. ^ "London People: George Peabody". http://www.london-footprints.co.uk/peopeabody.htm. Retrieved 2010-03-12. "By 1867 Peabody had received honours from America and Britain, including being made a Freeman of the City of London, the first American to receive this honour." 13. ^ Peabodylibrary.org 14. ^ Danverslibrary.org 15. ^ Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives - Congressional Gold Medal Recipients 16. ^ Parker 1995, p. 203. Further reading * Burk, Kathleen (1989). Morgan Grenfell 1838-1988: the biography of a merchant bank. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0198283067. * Burk, Kathleen (2004). "Peabody, George (1795 – 1869)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/21664. Retrieved 24 Sept 2011. (Subscription required.) * Hanaford, Phebe Ann (1870). The Life of George Peabody: Containing a Record of Those Princely Acts of Benevolence Which Entitle Him to the Esteem and Gratitude of All Friends of Education and the Destitute, Both in America, the Land of His Birth, and in England, the Place of His Death. B.B. Russell. * Parker, Franklin (1995). George Peabody: A Biography (2nd ed.). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. ISBN 0826512569. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Peabody
Aristotle had a lifelong interest in the study of nature. He investigated a variety of different topics, ranging from general issues like motion, causation, place and time, to systematic explorations and explanations of natural phenomena across different kinds of natural entities. These different inquiries are integrated into the framework of a single overarching enterprise describing the domain of natural entities. Aristotle provides the general theoretical framework for this enterpise in his Physics , a treatise which divides into two main parts, the first an inquiry into nature (books 1-4) and the second a treatment of motion (books 5-8). In this work, Aristotle sets out the conceptual apparatus for his analysis, provides definitions of his fundamental concepts, and argues for specific theses about motion, causation, place and time, and establishes in bk. 8 the existence of the unmoved mover of the universe, a supra-physical entity, without which the physical domain could not remain in existence. He takes up problems of special interest to physics (such as the problem of generation and perishing) in a series of further physical treatises, some of which are devoted to particular physical domains: the De generatione et corruptione (On Generation and Perishing) , the De caelo (On the Heavens) , and the Meteorology , which lead up to the treatises on biology and psychology. The science of physics, Aristotle stresses, contains almost all there is to know about the world. Were there no separate forms—entities such as the unmoved mover at the pinnacle of the cosmos—which are without matter and are not part of the physical world, physics would be what Aristotle calls first philosophy ( Metaphysics 6.1, 1026a27-31). As there are such separate entities, physics is dependent on these, and is only a second philosophy ( Metaphysics 7.11, 1037a14f). Nevertheless, the interaction between these two “philosophies” is not completely exhausted by the causal influence exerted on the world by the supra-physical entities—the prime movers as it turns out. Aristotle's metaphysics and physics use a common conceptual framework, and they often address similar issues. The prime and distinctive task of first philosophy is an inquiry into first entities; these, however, are not perceptible entities, and as a result they have to be investigated through a metaphysical investigation of physical entities. Hence the overlap between the two disciplines, which often verges on inseparability. 1. Natures 1.1 The four causes 2. Motion 3. The principle of causational synonymy 4. Priority among motions 5. Movers and unmoved movers Glossary of Aristotelian terms Bibliography Other Internet Resources Related Entries 1. Natures Nature, according to Aristotle, is an inner principle of change and being at rest ( Physics 2.1, 192b20-23). This means that when an entity moves or is at rest according to its nature reference to its nature may serve as an explanation of the event. We have to describe how—to what extent, through what other processes, and due to what agency—the preconditions for the process of change or being at rest are present, but once we have provided an account of these preconditions, we have given a complete account of the process. The nature of the entity is in and of itself sufficient to induce and to explain the process once the relevant circumstances do not preempt it. Natures as inner principles of change and rest are contrasted with active powers or potentialities ( dunameis ), which are external principles of change and being at rest ( Metaphysics 9.8, 1049b5-10), operative on the corresponding internal passive capacities or potentialities ( dunameis again, Metaphysics 9.1, 1046a11-13). When a change, or a state of rest, is not natural, both the active and the passive potentiality need to be specified. Natures, then, in a way do double duty: once a nature is operative, neither a further active, nor a further passive capacity needs to be invoked. Even so, as will be clear from Aristotle's discussion, this general thesis will require a host of qualifications. Because natures—beside the active and passive potentialities—are ultimate grounds in causal explanations, Aristotle sets out how they are integrated with the doctrine of causation. The four causes An explanation for a state of affairs must specify some fact or object (in general, some abstract or concrete entity) which is responsible for it. The entity responsible is, Aristotle submits, a cause ( aitia or aition , words used interchangeably by Aristotle). Different explanations of a single state of affairs are possible, and indeed usually necessary, because there are different ways of being reponsible for distinct facets of the same state of affairs. The varieties of responsibilities are grouped by Aristotle under four headings, the so-called four causes. The first two of these are matter and form, what an entity is made up from according to Aristotle's hylomorphic analysis. Understandably, both of them can be responsible for the features and the behaviour of the entity they make up. Hylomorphic analysis, together with the separation of the material and formal causes as distinct types, implies that if something is explicable in terms of matter or form, explanations in terms of form will be different in kind from those given in terms of matter. As a rule there is a collaboration between these causes: matter provides the potentialities which are actualised by the form. But this collaboration is not such that the two types of explanations overlap. Rather, these causally relevant entities give rise to a hierarchic structure of explanation. In order for a form to be realised, one needs to have suitable matter. This suitable matter brings with it the features required by a given hylomorphic composite. These features, then, are on the one hand the contribution of the matter, and as such the matter is the (material) cause of these features of the composite entity, whereas on the other hand they are indispensable presuppositions for the realisation of the form, and to that extent their presence is prompted by the form. Such dependency relations between matter and form are labelled by Aristotle as cases of hypothetical necessity. Aristotle sometimes illustrates his point by appealing to the matter required for the construction of a house. If there is a house to be built, one needs building bricks, slabs, mortar, etc. Each part provides material with properties within a definite range of the sort required for a house to come into being. A house cannot, for example, be made out of liquid water. This sort of matter provides potentialities not suited to the form of house. Explanations often specify entities beyond the role played by the matter and the form of the entity itself. These cases are grouped by Aristotle as efficient or moving causes on the one hand and as final causes on the other. Efficient causes operate in a straightforward manner by initiating processes and bringing about their effects, whereas final causes account for processes and entities by being what these processes and entities are for, what they objectively intend to attain. The fact that the role of efficient causes is not identical to that of the matter and the form of the entity whose features they are to explain does not require that every instance of efficient causation must issue from outside the entity moved. On the contrary, an efficient cause can also be internal. In cases in which the efficient cause is internal, it will be, in its specific function, one of the parts, or even the formal aspect, of the entity caused to move. Natures, understandably, can feature in any of these four causal functions. However, when the matter of an entity functions as its nature—i.e., when its natural motion and rest are explained in terms of the matter it is made of—this matter must possess some causally relevant features, bestowed upon it by its own formal aspect. This role of matter can be contrasted to the causal role of the three further types of causes—of form, of efficient cause, and of final cause respectively. This is so, because, as Aristotle adds, form and final cause often coincide. Moreover, when a nature is specified as a first efficient cause, cause and effect are the same in form (or in species), though this is not to say that one and the same entity causes itself and is caused through its own causal efficacy ( Physics 2.7, 198a24-27, cf. Metaphysics 8.4, 1044a32-b1). As internal principles of moving and rest, natures stand in an exclusive relationship to the efficient or moving causes of the motions and rests they bring about: in some cases when Aristotle is not specifying the first moving cause, he can assert the identity of nature and moving cause. Accordingly, the soul of living beings will be identified as the substance (i.e., form) and the moving cause of the organism whose soul it is. But the identification, even in this restricted sense, will need some further important qualifications, to which we will return in Section 5 below, on movers and unmoved movers. 2. Motion Because motion or change ( kinêsis ) is mentioned in the definition of nature, any discussion of nature will need to rely upon the explanation of motion. One might—erroneously—think that this is an easy task, because Aristotle's categories (as listed in the Categories and also elsewhere) do contain two related types of entities, action and passion. Aristotle's discussion of motion in the Physics , however, starts out in a somewhat different manner. When he submits that there is no motion besides the categories ( Physics 3.1, at 200b32-201a3), he does not assign motions to the categories of action and passion. After mentioning that the entities in the categories come in oppositions, Aristotle submits a few lines later (at 201a8-9) that there are as many kinds of motion and change as there are kinds of being. This means that motions are grouped here with the entities of the category where they effect change. Nevetheless, when making this claim, Aristotle speaks about four kinds of motion and change only—those in substance, in quality, in quantity and in place—whereas the number of the kinds of being should have remained ten. Indeed, the Physics will later submit its own list of categories. That list is slightly reduced—it has seven or eight elements, depending on whether we include or exclude time. The reduced list also concludes with the claim that there are three kinds of motion, plus the additional kind of substantial change. That is to say, even where Aristotle enumerates a fairly complete list of categories, he will not have motions in every one of these categories, and he is not content to include motions in the categories of action and passion. But this is a context where Aristotle stresses another issue: he is not interested in assigning a separate ontological niche for motions—regardless of whether that might or might not have been a feasible task within the categorization of entities. Here Aristotle is more intent on characterizing the ontological links which motions have to entities falling into different categories, and to find a general matrix of undergoing and effecting change. This happens in several steps. First Aristotle claims that changes of relations are not changes in their own right; rather they are accidental, as they occur also in entities in which no change occurs at all, if the entity which they stand in relation to undergoes some change. After these considerations the crucial two categories of action and passion are eliminated: As there are no motions of motions, we can set aside action and passion (items (7) and (8) in the Categories ). This leaves us with the shorter list of relevant categories, (1) substance, (2) quality, (3) quantity, and (4) place. Within the four domains where genuine change can occur, change always requires the existence of a potentiality which can be actualised. But change is neither identical to this potentiality, nor to the lack of a property, nor, without further qualifications, to the actuality which is acquired when the potentiality is actualised ( Physics 3.2, 201b33-35). It is a special kind of actuality, the actuality of the potential in so far as it is potential ( Physics 3.2, 201a27-29). Aristotle's formulation strongly suggests that the potentiality actualised in the process of change is not a separate and independent potentiality for motion, alongside the entity's potentiality for harbouring the end-state of the process: the process, say, house-building, and the end result, the house, are different actualisations of the same potentiality of a set of materials that is buildable into a house. Not only would Aristotle's definition be uninformative and circular otherwise, amounting to the tautologous claim that change is the actualisation of the capacity for change, the further qualification in the definition, that change is the actuality of the potential in so far as it is potential, would be completely idle. This further restriction is meant to select among the different types of the realisations of the same potentialities. As Aristotle stresses these are the incomplete actualities belonging to these potentialities, because what is actualised in a process of realisation is an incomplete potentiality only ( Physics 3.2, 201b32-33). Accordingly, potentialities of change are readmitted into the ontology. They, nevertheless, do not feature as potentialities in their own right, but as the incomplete variants of the fundamental potentiality for an end result. It is furthermore important to note that potentiality in this discussion throughout excludes actuality. In a formulation closely matching the formulation of the principle of non-contradiction, Aristotle asserts that “some things are the same both in potentiality and in actuality, but not at the same time or not in the same respect, as e.g. warm in actuality and cold in potentiality” ( Physics 3.1, 201a19-22). Hence the ability of Aristotle's definition to pick out the paradoxical entity, which is the actuality of a potentiality that can no longer be present once it has been replaced by the corresponding property in actuality. 3. The principle of causational synonymy The definition of motion suggests that such processes can be characterised in terms of a property or state of an entity, acquired as a result at the end of the process, which can be labelled the form within this process, and an initial lack of this form. Furthermore, Aristotle claims, there is a third component, which is not changed in the process, the substrate or subject of the motion ( Physics 1.7). In term of this threefold division it is the duty of the entity effecting change to confer the requisite form on the object changed, as Physics 3.2, 202a9-11 puts it. But there are further important requirements for such a change to occur. First of all, these motions or changes occur at the interaction of two potentialities. One, the passive potentiality, is in the object undergoing change, while the other, the active potentiality, is in the entity initiating change. The two potentialities need to match each other: when there is a potentiality for being heated in the object undergoing change, the process needs to be initiated by another object possessing an active potentiality for effecting heat. This is true to the extent that Aristotle can claim that the definition of passive potentiality is dependent on that of the active potentiality ( Metaphysics 9.1, 1046a11-13). These two potentialities need to work in tandem, and consequently Aristotle can claim that there is only a single process going on, which is located in the entity moved. Thus, for example, when a process of instruction is going on, it is identical to a process of knowledge acquisition, which happens in the mind of the learner. Hence although action and passion retain their categorical difference, because their accounts are different, what they subsist in, the motion, will be the same ( Physics 3.3, 202b19-22). Aristotle already by the introduction of a matching pair of active and passive potentialities for each causal interaction comes very close to admitting a separate potentiality for each and every change, something uncomfortably close to the vis dormitiva , ridiculed by Molière, according to which a sleeping pill allegedly induces sleep just in virtue of its power to induce sleep. Aristotle, however, subscribes to an even stronger principle, that causes in effecting change transmit the form they possess to the entity they effect change in, so that they have to be synonymous with the effects they bring into existence. In Aristotle's favourite example, only a human in actuality produces a human from what is a human in potentiality. If this is so, a sleeping pill need not only possess an active potentiality for inducing sleep: it needs also to be slumbering itself. The principle—which we could term the principle of causational synonymy—comes from Plato (see e.g. Phaedo 100B-101D), but Aristotle has his own reasons for endorsing it. His science attests to the presence and operation of causally active forms at each level of analysis of the physical world. Hence, as we shall see, Aristotle's forms are the causally significant components of the substance effecting a change. Accordingly, when it comes to specifying the moving cause of an artefact, Aristotle will refer to the art of the craftsman as the fundamental component operative in the change. In cases where a living being is generated, it is the parental form which is transmitted to the newly emerging living being. But it is not only processes of generation that conform to this requirement. Instances of qualitative change are often mentioned alongside substantial generation, and as a crucially important instance of qualitative alteration—or of qualitative quasi-alteration, depending on how we interpret Aristotle's theory of perception (on this debate see the supplementary note on Controversies Surrounding Aristotle's Theory of Perception )—Aristotle presupposes that the principle of causational synonymy characterises also the causal link connecting the object of sensation and the sense organ. It is, nevertheless, important to note that Aristotle restricts the principle of causal synonymy in different and subtle ways. Most significantly, an important domain of cases where a property of an object is actualised is exempted from the requirements of this principle. The actualisation of a property can be the continuation of a previous causal process to the extent that Aristotle claims it is a second actuality , following upon a previously acquired first actuality . In these cases the emergence of the second actuality does not necessarily require an additional external efficient cause. The operation of this first actuality, through which it reinforces and completes itself, can be the mere extension of the operation of the original efficient cause (this will be Aristotle's claim about the natural locomotion of the elements, see Section 5 below), or the entity which has acquired this first actuality can be already causally responsible for its own activities, including the ones which bring it to a level of higher actuality (Aristotle's examples for this case are the soul of the embryo or of the newborn cub, which commands and effects the nourishing and the activities of the animal; or the actual application of a piece of knowledge one has acquired beforehand). It is important to note that these claims are far from trivial: they rest on further claims that the very definitions of these first actualities (what it is to be an element, an animal, or knowledge, respectively) inseparably include references to these activities. Second, the principle is couched in terms which do not include locomotions: it is substantial, qualitative or quantitative form which is claimed to be transmitted through the efficacy of the cause in Physics 3.2, 202a9-12. One of the reasons for this is that locomotion, as Aristotle submits, affects the least the substance, the ousia of the object undergoing motion ( Physics 8.7, 261a20f). Unlike the other types of change, locomotion does not change the being of the moved object at all. To some extent that should mean that the predication of place should remain extrinsic to the being of the entity that is at a particular location. Hence the fundamental presupposition of causation, that it is intrinsic characterisations of entities which are conferred on the object moved cannot be in full force in cases of locomotion. Accordingly, Aristotle will have a more intricate account for natural and forced locomotions. Third, the principle of causational synonymy is restricted to substances at the end of Metaphysics 7.9, and in the first half of the same chapter the non-standard presence of some causally relevant forms may also be envisaged. Aristotle's example there is the heat in motion, which produces heat in the body when the doctor rubs the patient in the appropriate manner. This heat in the motion can be the presence of an active potentiality in the motion which is able to elicit heat in the body, without heat being predicable of motion itself. But even if such non-inherential subsistence of properties is not envisaged in this passage—the alternative being that the heat in motion is the heat in the skin of the patient, caused by the rub, which then enters into the inner recesses of the body, becoming heat in the body—some similar sort of presence is required in two large classes of cases: natural generations and artificial productions. Aristotle claims that in a chain of efficient causes, where the first element of the series acts through the intermediary of the other items, it is the first member in the causal chain, rather than the intermediaries, which is the moving cause ( Physics 8.5, 257a10-12). Then, both in cases of natural generation and artificial production, it is only this first efficient cause which has to satisfy the requirement of synonymous causation. Aristotle's prime example, that human generates human, is also such a case. Here, the causal efficacy of the paternal human form is transmitted through the generative potentialities of the semen of the father. The semen, however, although it acts as an efficient cause in the process of the formation of the embryo, is not a human; it does not possess the form it transmits in the same way as the male parent. Aristotle's discussion makes it clear that this is not an isolated instance of an exception from the general principle. He compares the case to the activity of a craftsman, where the form of the product of the artistic production is in the soul of the craftsman, and then through the motions of the instruments this form can get imposed on the material manufactured into an artefact. The instruments and their motions are efficient causes of the process, but they do not contain the form in the same way as the soul of the craftsman ( On the generation of animals 730b14-23 and 740b25-29, for further discussion see the entry on Aristotle: Biology ). All these restrictions notwithstanding, Aristotle can claim that the principle of causational synonymy remains universally valid. This is so, because all the three restrictions above specify cases where Aristotle can claim that a preceding, more prominent cause has already satisfied the requirement: in the case of second actualities the first actuality was called into existence by a synonymous cause in the first place; locomotions, qualitative and quantitative changes, even if not caused by a synonymous entity, can be part of a larger pattern of causation, in which a substance is caused by a substance of the same kind; and causal chains producing substances can be claimed to start out invariably from synonymous substances. Given his commitment to causal synonymy, Aristotle needs to invoke considerations through which a chain of efficient causes of some entity can be meaningfully compared in terms of causal efficacy. These considerations will on each occasion describe synonymous causes not only as temporally prior, but also as having priority in terms of causal efficacy over the intermediate causes, which are responsible only for the transmission of the forms of the original locus of causal efficacy. This allows, then, that in the two major paradigms of such causation—in natural generation and in artificial production—the forms—the nature of the natural entity, and the art of the craftsman exercising his art respectively—are the causally operative entities initiating change. This has wide ranging consequences for the status of forms in several respects. First, the causal relevance of these forms shows that not any arrangement or configuration can qualify as a full-fledged form. While it is true that privations are also forms in some sense ( Physics 2.1, 193b19-20), this is not the sense in which the causally operative forms, describable in evaluative terms, can be called forms. Moreover, the causal relevance of forms allows Aristotle to switch (e.g. in De generatione et corruptione 1.7) without notice between the craftsman and the craft itself as the appropriate specification of the efficient cause in these cases. We should note that in the latter cases, Aristotle specifies causes which are unmoved. They do not effect motion by being in motion themselves, in so far as they are the causally effective forms within the causal framework; hence they are not under any reactive influence during this process either. 4. Priority among motions Even though the foregoing might have suggested that generation of substances is fundamental for all the other kinds of changes, in fact locomotion will have a privileged status. All other changes depend on locomotions, because any two entities involved in change, with their active and passive potentialities respectively, need to come into contact in order for the interaction to occur. Contact, however, as a rule needs to be established by locomotion: either the entity to be moved, or the mover, or both, need to proceed so that they meet ( Physics 8.7, 260a26-b7). Moreover locomotion is the form of change which can occur in isolation of generation, perishing and the other forms of change ( Physics 8.7, 260b26-29). Other changes are indepedent kinds of change insofar as they can occur in an entity which does not perform any other change. Nevertheless all these forms of change include or presuppose that some other entity engages in locomotion. Aristotle argues at the opening of Physics bk. 8 that motion and change in the universe can have no beginning, because the occurrence of change presupposes a previous process of change. With this argument Aristotle can establish an eternal chain of motions and refute those who hold that there could have been a previous stationary state of the universe. Such an eternal chain, Aristotle argues, needs to rely on a cause which guarantees its persistence: if each of the constitutive processes in the causally connected web were of finite duration, for every one of them it can be the case that it is not present in the world, indeed, at some later time it will not be present any longer. But then the whole causally connected series of events, Aristotle submits, would also be contingent. Hence Aristotle postulates that the processes of the universe depend on an eternal motion (or on several eternal motions), the eternal revolution of the heavenly spheres, which in turn is dependent on one or several unmoved movers ( Physics 8.6, 258b26-259a9). The priority of the eternal celestial revolutions, furthermore, guarantees the causal finitude of the universe. This is so, even though there are infinite causal chains: behind every single individual of an animal species there is an infinite series of male ancestors, each causally responsible for the subsequent members in the series, because Aristotelian species are eternal and male parents are the efficient causes of their offspring. Left to its own devices, the finite universe on its own would swiftly reach a dissolution, a state of complete separation of the elemental masses into their concentrically arranged natural places. In view of the fact that such a complete segregation of the elemental masses is avoided through the constant excitation caused by the celestial motions, producing heat in the sublunary domain, especially around the regions of the Sun, Aristotle will be entitled to assert that the cause of the human being is in the first instance his or her father, but is at the same time the Sun as it moves along its annual ecliptic path. Between celestial revolutions and the individual natural processes there is always a finite causal chain, as these natural processes could not possibly have continued without the celestial motions. The infinite causal chains passing through male parents cannot subsist on their own without this constant external support, and this dependence can always be analysed in terms of finite causal chains. 5. Movers and unmoved movers The definition of motion as the actuality of a potentiality of the entity undergoing motion in so far as it is potential requires that in each case the passive potentiality for the change is present in the changing object. The presence of the potentiality can, nevertheless, be in accordance with the nature of the object—in which case the change is natural ( phusei ) or according to nature ( kata phusin ), or can happen in the face of a contrary disposition on the part of the nature of the entity—in which case the change is forced ( biai ) or contrary to nature ( para phusin ). A major presupposition on Aristotle's part is that this division is exhaustive: there are no changes to which the nature of the entity would be indifferent or neutral. The major consideration behind such a presupposition is that natures regulate the behaviour of the entities to which they belong in a comprehensive manner, and not merely partially. Any influence the entity is exposed to interacts with the nature in a substantive manner. The entity does not possess potentialities for change which would not be directly related to the tendencies emerging from its nature. Note, however, that even if we endorsed the exhaustiveness of the dichotomy of natural and forced motions, and accepted the thesis that simple bodies possess a unique natural motion ( De caelo 1.2, 269a8-9), we would not need thereby to accept Aristotle's further major claim, that natural and forced motions come in pairs of contraries, with the result that if a motion is contrary to the nature of an entity, the contrary motion will be its natural motion ( De caelo 1.2, 269a9-18). Where there is room for some more complex relationships among the endpoints of changes than a simple opposition along an axis of a single dimension—and this is eminently so between locomotions along rectilinear and circular paths respectively—there can be several forced translations in contrast to the single natural motion, as Aristotle also admits in some passages of the De caelo (see 1.2, 269a18-b2 and 269b10-12; for a more complex description of the relationships between circular motion and rectilinear ones in opposite directions see 270b32-271a5). Aristotle's classification of motions into those contrary to nature and those according to nature applies not only to the motions of the moved objects, but transfers also to the movers effecting motions. A mover can effect a motion which is contrary to its own nature. Aristotle's example of such an unnatural mover is the lever, an object heavy by nature, with which loads can be lifted ( Physics 8.4, 255a20-23). Although such movers can effect motions in the contrary direction to the motion at the head of the causal chain (levers are operated by the downward push of something heavy at the other end), the crucial consideration for Aristotle in this case is that the original, initiating cause of the causal chain should effect the motion according to its nature. Taken together, these considerations imply that we have a complete account of the physical domain once we have a thorough description of what is natural to the entites in that domain, together with a specification of all the circumstances in which they operate. Bk. 8 of the Physics argues for the additional thesis that for each motion, whether natural or contrary to nature, there needs to exist a mover. In cases of forced motion, movers are present in a perspicuous way. This need not be so, however, in cases of natural motion. Apart from the cases where the nature of the entity is at the same time a moving and efficient cause—i.e., apart from living beings, whose nature, the soul, is both formal and efficient cause—the mover may be inconspicuous. This is eminently so in the remaining large class of natural motions, the natural motions of the elements. The nature of these elements, their inner principle of motion and rest is not the moving cause of the motions of the elements, Aristotle claims. If it were, then it would be up to the elementary masses to determine when they should perform their motions, but plainly it is not. Moreover, the principle of causational synonymy rules out that any homogenous mass, without an internal demarcation into components which move and are moved, could move itself ( Physics 8.4, 255a5-18). This is so because, on the assumption that one part of a homogenenous body could move another part, the active component of change would be, in every aspect, indistinguishable from the part in which change is effected, and this in turn would mean that change would occur even though there would be no transmission of a causally relevant property from the active part to the passive. This implies that even though we may answer the question as to why the elements move to their natural places—the light bodies up and the heavy ones down—by an appeal to their respective natures as causes (“that it is simply their nature to move somewhere, and this is what it is to be light and to be heavy” Physics 8.4, 255b13-17), we do not thereby specify their moving causes. Their thrust being in a single direction, the elements cannot circumvent even rather simple obstacles they may encounter on their way (a sealed container can retain air under water, the roof stays put pressing down on the walls of a building etc.). Hence, whoever removes an obstacle to an element's motion is causally responsible for the ensuing elemental motions. But even such a causally responsible agent will not qualify as the moving cause, without yet further qualifications. For the identification of the moving cause of these locomotions Aristotle invokes his distinction of two potentialities. Some heavy material can be potentially light, as it can be transformed into a light material in a process of generation, whereas the emerging light material is still potential in a sense until it has acquired its full-fledged status, which involves its having arrived at that region of the cosmos which is its natural place. This analysis, then, describes the natural locomotion of the elements as a possibly postponed, completing stage within a single overarching process, and hence in these cases Aristotle can identify the cause of the second stage of the process with the efficient cause of the first stage, the entity which generated the element in the first place ( Physics 8.4, 256a1). Once it is established that there is a mover for each change, the finite causal chains can be followed up to the primary instance of motion, the celestial revolutions, the Sun's motion along the ecliptic course responsible for many sublunar changes, the rotating seasons being foremost among them. Whether the cosmos has unmoved or moved movers, moreover, whether the universe is causally closed or needs some continuous external causal influence for its preservation, depends ultimately, then, on the status of the celestial motions. Revolutions in the celestial realm are the natural motions of the special element making up the celestial spheres. This, however, does not entail that they have no need of an external unmoved mover: the motions of the sublunary elements also occur under the influence of a moving cause. Nevertheless, the celestial bodies cannot be moved by an external mover of the same sort as the sublunary elements. These celestial bodies are eternal and ungenerated. Consequently, Aristotle cannot appeal to the entity which produced them as responsible for their locomotions. As they do not encounter any hindrance during their revolutions, there is no room for an accidental mover which would remove any obstacles in their way. Nevertheless, as celestial revolutions are motions, albeit eternal ones, they include some component of potentiality, which is actualised in the motion, and hence this potential component is in need of an actuality as a mover. This requirement implies that whatever can be the mover of these eternal motions needs to be in actuality without any restrictions ( Metaphysics 12.6). Moreover, such an entity has to possess an infinite power which it communicates to the moved celestial sphere. Hence, this entity cannot be divisible and cannot have extension ( Physics 8.10). All this testifies to the exceptional status of the first movement, and behind it, of the first mover in the universe. The mover of these spheres possesses nothing but actuality, but this actuality is not what is transmitted in the process of causation. As we have seen in Section 3 above, this would not be exceptional as such: locomotion need not be caused on the transmission model of causation. But locomotions caused without immediate transmission were understood to be be embedded in larger patterns of causation which observed the principle of causational synonymy, and it is exactly such a larger pattern of causation which is missing in the case of celestial motions. Instead, what we hear in Metaphysics 12.6 is that the first mover moves as an object of love and striving, which comes perilously close to abandoning the claims of Physics bk. 8 to the effect that there is an unmoved mover serving as the efficient cause of the motions of the cosmos. Such doubts, however, should be dismissed. Aristotle is describing here in the terminology of his physics a supra-physical entity without which the universe could not function or persist. Small wonder if its mode of operation needs to subsume several different dimensions of physical causation. Glossary of Aristotelian terms action: poiein actuality: energeia or entelecheia art, craft: technê capacity: dunamis cause: aitia or aition change: kinêsis or metabolê to effect change or motion: kinein to undergo change or motion: kineisthai qualitative change: alloiôsis quantitative changes—growth: auxêsis; shrinking: phthisis locomotion: phora to come to be: gignesthai coming to be: genesis force: bia forced: biai form: eidos or morphê in so far as: hêi genus, kind: genos goal: telos kind, species: eidos matter: hulê magnitude: megethos motion: kinêsis nature: phusis natural: phusikos, phusei according to nature: kata phusin contrary to nature: para phusin passion: paschein to perish: phtheirein perishing: phthora place: pou (as one of the categories, literally: where) or topos potentiality: dunamis power: dunamis quality: poion quantity: poson substance: ousia time: pote (as one of the categories, literally: when) or chronos Bibliography Primary Sources Aristotle, De generatione et corruptione , translated with notes by C. J. F. Williams, Oxford: Clarendon Press (Clarendon Aristotle Series), 1982. Aristotle, On coming-to-be and passing-away ( De generatione and corruptione ), revised Greek text with introduction and commentary by Harold H. Joachim, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926. Aristotle, Du ciel , ( De Caelo = On the Heavens), Greek text and French translation by Paul Moraux, Paris: Les Belles lettres (Collection Budé), 1965. Aristotle, Physics , Books I-II, translated with introduction and notes by William Charlton, Oxford: Clarendon Press (Clarendon Aristotle Series), 1970 (2nd. ed. 1992). Aristotle, Physics , Books III-IV, translated with notes by Edward Hussey, Oxford: Clarendon Press (Clarendon Aristotle Series), 1983. Aristotle, Physics , Book VIII, translated with commentary by Daniel W. Graham, Oxford: Clarendon Press (Clarendon Aristotle Series), 1999. Aristotle, Physics , revised Greek text with introduction and commentary by William David Ross, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936. Secondary Sources Ackrill, J. L. “Change and Aristotle's theological argument,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy Supplement (1991) 57-66 Annas, Julia. “Aristotle on inefficient causes,” Philosophical Quarterly , 32 (1982): 311-26. Bodnár, István M. “Movers and elemental motions in Aristotle,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy , 15 (1997): 81-117. Cherniss, Harold F. Aristotle's criticism of Plato and the Academy , Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1944. Code, Alan. “Soul as efficient cause in Aristotle's embryology,” Philosophical Topics , 15 (1987): 51-59. de Haas, Frans and Mansfeld, Jaap (eds.). Aristotle: On Generation and Corruption, Book I: Symposium Aristotelicum , Oxford: Clarendon, 2004. Falcon, Andrea. Aristotle and the science of nature: Unity without uniformity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Frede, Michael and Charles, David (eds.). Aristotle's Metaphysics Lambda: Symposium Aristotelicum , Oxford: Clarendon, 2000. Freeland, Cynthia A. “Aristotle on bodies, matter, and potentiality,” in Allan Gotthelf and James Lennox (eds.), Philosophical issues in Aristotle's biology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 392-407. Furley, David. “Self-movers,” in G.E.R. Lloyd and G.E.L. Owen (eds.), Aristotle on mind and the senses , (Proceedings of the Seventh Symposium Aristotelicum), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 165-79. Gill, Mary Louise. “Aristotle's theory of causal action in Physics III. 3,” Phronesis , 25 (1980): 129-47. Judson, Lindsay. “Heavenly motion and the unmoved mover,” in Mary Louise Gill and James G. Lennox (eds.), Self-motion: From Aristotle to Newton , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994, pp. 155-171. Judson, Lindsay (ed.). Aristotle's Physics: A collection of essays , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Kosman, L. Aryeh. “Aristotle's definition of motion,” Phronesis , 14 (1969): 40-62. Makin, Stephen. “An ancient principle about causation,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 91 (1990/91): 135-52. Matthen, Mohan and Hankinson, R.J. “Aristotle's universe: Its form and matter,” Synthèse , 96 (1993): 417-435. Moravcsik, Julius M. “What makes reality intelligible? Reflections on Aristotle's theory of aitia ,” in Lindsay Judson (ed.), Aristotle's Physics: A collection of essays , Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991, pp. 31-48. Mourelatos, Alexander P. “Aristotle's powers and modern empiricism,” Ratio , 9 (1967): 97-104. Mourelatos, Alexander P. “Aristotle's rationalist account of qualitative interaction,” Phronesis , 29 (1984): 1-16. Solmsen, Friedrich. Aristotle's system of the physical world , Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1960. Sorabji, Richard. Matter, space, and motion: Theories in Antiquity and their sequel , London: Duckworth or Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988. Sorabji, Richard. Time, creation, and the continuum: Theories in Antiquity and the early Middle Age , London: Duckworth or Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983. Turnbull, Robert G. “Aristotle's debt to the ‘natural philosophy’ of the Phaedo ,” Philosophical Quarterly , 8 (1958): 131-43. Wardy, R. The chain of change: A study of Aristotle's Physics VII , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Waterlow, Sarah. Nature, change, and and agency in Aristotle's Physics, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982. Wildberg, Christian. John Philoponus’ criticism of Aristotle's theory of aether , (Peripatoi 16), Berlin: De Gruyter 1988. 原文见 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-natphil/
ACL Special Interest Group on Natural Language Learning (SIGNLL) ACM ACM Digital Library ACM SIGART ACM SIGIR ACM SIGKDD ACM SIGMOD Adaptive Computation Group at University of New Mexico AI at Johns Hopkins AI Bibliographies AI Topics : A dynamic online library of introductory information about artificial intelligence Ant Colony Optimization ARIES Laboratory : Advanced Research in Intelligent Educational Systems Artificial Intelligence Research in Environmental Sciences (AIRIES) Austrian Research Institute for AI (OFAI) Back Issues of Neuron Digest BibFinder : a computer science bibliography search engine integrating many other engines BioAPI Consortium Biological and Computational Learning Center at MIT Biometrics Consortium Boosting site Brain-Style Information Systems Research Group at RIKEN Brain Science Institute , Japan British Computer Society Specialist Group on Expert Systems Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence (CSCSI) CI Collection of BibTex Databases CITE , the first-stop source for computational intelligence information and services on the web Classification Society of North America CMU Advanced Multimedia Processing Group CMU Web-KB Project Cognitive and Neural Systems Department of Boston University Cognitive Sciences Eprint Archive (CogPrints) COLT: Computational Learning Theory Computational Neural Engineering Laboratory at the University of Florida Computational Neurobiology Lab at California, USA Computer Science Department of National University of Singapore Data Mining Server Online held by Rudjer Boskovic Institute Database Group at Simon Frazer University, Canada DBLP : Computer Science Bibliography Digital Biology : about creating artificial life Distributed AI Unit at Queen Mary Westfield College, University of London Distributed Artificial Intelligence at HUJI DSI Neural Networks group at the Université di Firenze, Italy EA-related literature at the EvALife research group at DAIMI, University of Aarhus, Denmark Electronic Research Group at Aberdeen University ElsevierComputerScience European Coordinating Committee for Artificial Intelligence (ECCAI) European Network of Excellence in ML (MLnet) European Neural Network Society (ENNS) Evolutionary Computing Group at University of the West of England Evolutionary Multi-Objective Optimization Repository Explanation-Based Learning at University of Illinoise at Urbana-Champaign Face Detection Homepage Face Recognition Vendor Test Face Recognition Homepage Face Recognition Research Community Fingerpass ftp of Jude Shavlik's Machine Learning Group (University of Wisconsin-Madison) GA-List Searchable Database Genetic Algorithms Digest Archive Genetic Programming Bibliography Gesture Recognition Homepage HCI Bibliography Project contain extended bibliographic information (abstract, key words, table of contents, section headings) for most publications Human-Computer Interaction dating back to 1980 and selected publications before 1980 IBM Research IEEE IEEE Computer Society IEEE Neural Networks Society IEEE Xplore Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory (IlliGAL) ILP Network of Excellence Inductive Learning at University of Illinoise at Urbana-Champaign Intelligent Agents Repository Intellimedia Project at North Carolina State University Interactive Artificial Intelligence Resources International Association of Pattern Recognition International Biometric Industry Association International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) International Machine Learning Society (IMLS) International Neural Network Society (INNS) Internet Softbot Research at University of Washington Japanese Neural Network Society (JNNS) Java Agents for Meta-Learning Group (JAM) at Computer Science Department, Columbia University , for Fraud and Intrusion Detection Using Meta-Learning Agents Kernel Machines Knowledge Discovery Mine Laboratory for Natural and Simulated Cognition at McGill University, Canada Learning Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University Learning Robots Laboratory at Carnegie Mellon University Laboratoire d'Informatique et d'Intelligence Artificielle (IIA-ENSAIS ) Machine Learning Group of Sydney University, Australia Mammographic Image Analysis Society MDL Research on the Web Mirek's Cellebration : 1D and 2D Cellular Automata explorer MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory MIT Media Laboratory MIT Media Laboratory Vision and Modeling Group MLNET : a European network of excellence in Machine Learning, Case-based Reasoning and Knowledge Acquisition MLnet Machine Learning Archive at GMD includes papers, software, and data sets MIRALab at University of Geneva : leading research on virtual human simulation Neural Adaptive Control Technology (NACT) Neural Computing Research Group at Aston University, UK Neural Information Processing Group at Technical University of Berlin NIPS NIPS Online Neural Network Benchmarks , Technical Reports ,and Source Code maintained by Scott Fahlman at CMU; source code includes Quickprop, Cascade-Correlation, Aspirin/Migraines Neural Networks FAQ by Lutz Prechelt Neural Networks FAQ by Warren S. Sarle Neural Networks: Freeware and Shareware Tools Neural Network Group at Department of Medical Physics and Biophysics, University of Nijmegen Neural Network Group at Université Catholique de Louvain Neural Network Group at Eindhoven University of Technology Neural Network Hyperplane Animator program that allows easy visualization of training data and weights in a back-propagation neural network Neural Networks Research at TUT/ELE Neural Networks Research Centre at Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Neural Network Speech Group at Carnegie Mellon University Neural Text Classification with Neural Networks Nonlinearity and Complexity Homepage OFAI and IMKAI library information system , provided by the Department of Medical Cybernetics and Artificial Intelligence at the University of Vienna (IMKAI) and the Austrian Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence (OFAI). It contains over 36,000 items (books, research papers, conference papers, journal articles) from many subareas of AI OntoWeb : Ontology-based information exchange for knowledge management and electronic commerce Portal on Neural Network Forecasting PRAG: Pattern Recognition and Application Group at University of Cagliari Quest Project at IBM Almaden Research Center Recursive-Partitioning.com : an academic website focusing on classification and regression trees. Maintained by Tjen-Sien Lim Reinforcement Learning at Carnegie Mellon University ResearchIndex : NECI Scientific Literature Digital Library, indexing over 200,000 computer science articles ReVision: Reviewing Vision in the Web! RIKEN : The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research, Japan Salford Systems SANS Studies of Artificial Neural Systems, at the Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden Santa-Fe Institute Scirus : a search engine locating scientific information on the Internet Second Moment : The News and Business Resource for Applied Analytics SEL-HPC Article Archive has sections for neural networks, distributed AI, theorem proving, and a variety of other computer science topics SOAR Project at University of Southern California Society for AI and Statistics SVM of ANU Canberra SVM of Bell Labs SVM of GMD-First Berlin SVM of MIT SVM of Royal Holloway College SVM of University of Southampton SVM-workshop at NIPS97 TechOnLine : TechOnLine University offers free online courses and lectures UCI Machine Learning Group UMASS Distributed Artificial Intelligence Laboratory UTCS Neural Networks Research Group of Artificial Intelligence Lab , Computer Science Department , University of Texas at Austin Vivisimo Document Clustering : a powerful search engine which returns clustered results Worcester Polytechnic Institute Artificial Intelligence Research Group (AIRG) Xerion neural network simulator developed and used by the connectionist group at the University of Toronto Yale's CTAN Advanced Technology Center for Theoretical and Applied Neuroscience ZooLand: Artificial Life Resource
What is geography? Geography is the study of the earth’s landscapes, peoples, places and environments. It is, quite simply, about the world in which we live. Geography is unique in bridging the social sciences (human geography) with the natural sciences (physical geography). Geography puts this understanding of social and physical processes within the context of places and regions - recognising the great differences in cultures, political systems, economies, landscapes and environments across the world, and the links between them. Understanding the causes of differences and inequalities between places and social groups underlie much of the newer developments in human geography. Geography provides an ideal framework for relating other fields of knowledge. It is not surprising that those trained as geographers often contribute substantially to the applied management of resources and environments. Click on the right hand side resource bar fora lecture by Professor Doreen Massey entitled 'Is The World Really Shrinking?' which lays out an inspirational manifesto of why it's time to put the geography back into global thinking. Further information Read case studies of where geographers are making a difference and where there workhas a direct relevance to the world around us Read more stories featuring geography and geographers Read other articles featuring geographers Read about fieldwork and other projects supported by the Society Learn more about the work of the society and read articles about our projects , including grants supported Learn more about our events and about the society more generally
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61172183, 21127010), the Natural Science Founda-tion of Jilin Province (20101503, 20101506), and the Scientific and Technical Project of Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of Jilin Province (No.2010pt067).
Classical Paper List on Machine Learning and Natural Language Processing from Zhiyuan Liu Hidden Markov Models Rabiner, L. A Tutorial on Hidden Markov Models and Selected Applications in Speech Recognition. (Proceedings of the IEEE 1989) Freitag and McCallum, 2000, Information Extraction with HMM Structures Learned by Stochastic Optimization, (AAAI'00) Maximum Entropy Adwait R. A Maximum Entropy Model for POS tagging, (1994) A. Berger, S. Della Pietra, and V. Della Pietra. A maximum entropy approach to natural language processing. (CL'1996) A. Ratnaparkhi. Maximum Entropy Models for Natural Language Ambiguity Resolution. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1998. Hai Leong Chieu, 2002. A Maximum Entropy Approach to Information Extraction from Semi-Structured and Free Text, (AAAI'02) MEMM McCallum et al., 2000, Maximum Entropy Markov Models for Information Extraction and Segmentation, (ICML'00) Punyakanok and Roth, 2001, The Use of Classifiers in Sequential Inference. (NIPS'01) Perceptron McCallum, 2002 Discriminative Training Methods for Hidden Markov Models: Theory and Experiments with Perceptron Algorithms (EMNLP'02) Y. Li, K. Bontcheva, and H. Cunningham. Using Uneven-Margins SVM and Perceptron for Information Extraction. (CoNLL'05) SVM Z. Zhang. Weakly-Supervised Relation Classification for Information Extraction (CIKM'04) H. Han et al. Automatic Document Metadata Extraction using Support Vector Machines (JCDL'03) Aidan Finn and Nicholas Kushmerick. Multi-level Boundary Classification for Information Extraction (ECML'2004) Yves Grandvalet, Johnny Marià , A Probabilistic Interpretation of SVMs with an Application to Unbalanced Classification. (NIPS' 05) CRFs J. Lafferty et al. Conditional Random Fields: Probabilistic Models for Segmenting and Labeling Sequence Data. (ICML'01) Hanna Wallach. Efficient Training of Conditional Random Fields. MS Thesis 2002 Taskar, B., Abbeel, P., and Koller, D. Discriminative probabilistic models for relational data. (UAI'02) Fei Sha and Fernando Pereira. Shallow Parsing with Conditional Random Fields. (HLT/NAACL 2003) B. Taskar, C. Guestrin, and D. Koller. Max-margin markov networks. (NIPS'2003) S. Sarawagi and W. W. Cohen. Semi-Markov Conditional Random Fields for Information Extraction (NIPS'04) Brian Roark et al. Discriminative Language Modeling with Conditional Random Fields and the Perceptron Algorithm (ACL'2004) H. M. Wallach. Conditional Random Fields: An Introduction (2004) Kristjansson, T.; Culotta, A.; Viola, P.; and McCallum, A. Interactive Information Extraction with Constrained Conditional Random Fields. (AAAI'2004) Sunita Sarawagi and William W. Cohen. Semi-Markov Conditional Random Fields for Information Extraction. (NIPS'2004) John Lafferty, Xiaojin Zhu, and Yan Liu. Kernel Conditional Random Fields: Representation and Clique Selection. (ICML'2004) Topic Models Thomas Hofmann. Probabilistic Latent Semantic Indexing. (SIGIR'1999). David Blei, et al. Latent Dirichlet allocation. (JMLR'2003). Thomas L. Griffiths, Mark Steyvers. Finding Scientific Topics. (PNAS'2004). POS Tagging J. Kupiec. Robust part-of-speech tagging using a hidden Markov model. (Computer Speech and Language'1992) Hinrich Schutze and Yoram Singer. Part-of-Speech Tagging using a Variable Memory Markov Model. (ACL'1994) Adwait Ratnaparkhi. A maximum entropy model for part-of-speech tagging. (EMNLP'1996) Noun Phrase Extraction E. Xun, C. Huang, and M. Zhou. A Unified Statistical Model for the Identification of English baseNP. (ACL'00) Named Entity Recognition Andrew McCallum and Wei Li. Early Results for Named Entity Recognition with Conditional Random Fields, Feature Induction and Web-enhanced Lexicons. (CoNLL'2003). Moshe Fresko et al. A Hybrid Approach to NER by MEMM and Manual Rules, (CIKM'2005). Chinese Word Segmentation Fuchun Peng et al. Chinese Segmentation and New Word Detection using Conditional Random Fields, COLING 2004. Document Data Extraction Andrew McCallum, Dayne Freitag, and Fernando Pereira. Maximum entropy Markov models for information extraction and segmentation. (ICML'2000). David Pinto, Andrew McCallum, etc. Table Extraction Using Conditional Random Fields. SIGIR 2003. Fuchun Peng and Andrew McCallum. Accurate Information Extraction from Research Papers using Conditional Random Fields. (HLT-NAACL'2004) V. Carvalho, W. Cohen. Learning to Extract Signature and Reply Lines from Email. In Proc. of Conference on Email and Spam (CEAS'04) 2004. Jie Tang, Hang Li, Yunbo Cao, and Zhaohui Tang, Email Data Cleaning, SIGKDD'05 P. Viola, and M. Narasimhan. Learning to Extract Information from Semi-structured Text using a Discriminative Context Free Grammar. (SIGIR'05) Yunhua Hu, Hang Li, Yunbo Cao, Dmitriy Meyerzon, Li Teng, and Qinghua Zheng, Automatic Extraction of Titles from General Documents using Machine Learning, Information Processing and Management, 2006 Web Data Extraction Ariadna Quattoni, Michael Collins, and Trevor Darrell. Conditional Random Fields for Object Recognition. (NIPS'2004) Yunhua Hu, Guomao Xin, Ruihua Song, Guoping Hu, Shuming Shi, Yunbo Cao, and Hang Li, Title Extraction from Bodies of HTML Documents and Its Application to Web Page Retrieval, (SIGIR'05) Jun Zhu et al. Mutual Enhancement of Record Detection and Attribute Labeling in Web Data Extraction. (SIGKDD 2006) Event Extraction Kiyotaka Uchimoto, Qing Ma, Masaki Murata, Hiromi Ozaku, and Hitoshi Isahara. Named Entity Extraction Based on A Maximum Entropy Model and Transformation Rules. (ACL'2000) GuoDong Zhou and Jian Su. Named Entity Recognition using an HMM-based Chunk Tagger (ACL'2002) Hai Leong Chieu and Hwee Tou Ng. Named Entity Recognition: A Maximum Entropy Approach Using Global Information. (COLING'2002) Wei Li and Andrew McCallum. Rapid development of Hindi named entity recognition using conditional random fields and feature induction. ACM Trans. Asian Lang. Inf. Process. 2003 Question Answering Rohini K. Srihari and Wei Li. Information Extraction Supported Question Answering. (TREC'1999) Eric Nyberg et al. The JAVELIN Question-Answering System at TREC 2003: A Multi-Strategh Approach with Dynamic Planning. (TREC'2003) Natural Language Parsing Leonid Peshkin and Avi Pfeffer. Bayesian Information Extraction Network. (IJCAI'2003) Joon-Ho Lim et al. Semantic Role Labeling using Maximum Entropy Model. (CoNLL'2004) Trevor Cohn et al. Semantic Role Labeling with Tree Conditional Random Fields. (CoNLL'2005) Kristina toutanova, Aria Haghighi, and Christopher D. Manning. Joint Learning Improves Semantic Role Labeling. (ACL'2005) Shallow parsing Ferran Pla, Antonio Molina, and Natividad Prieto. Improving text chunking by means of lexical-contextual information in statistical language models. (CoNLL'2000) GuoDong Zhou, Jian Su, and TongGuan Tey. Hybrid text chunking. (CoNLL'2000) Fei Sha and Fernando Pereira. Shallow Parsing with Conditional Random Fields. (HLT-NAACL'2003) Acknowledgement Dr. Hang Li , for original paper list.
Analytica Chimica Acta Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Anti-cancer Drugs Anticancer Research Antiviral Research Archives of Pharmacal Research Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications Biochemical Journal Biochemical Pharmacology Biomedical chromatography Bioorganic Medicinal Chemistry Letters Bioscience Reports Biochemical Pharmacology Bioorganic Medicinal Chemistry BMC Molecular Biology BMC Plant Biology Brain Research British Journal of Pharmacology Cancer Investigation Cancer Letters Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics Chemical Pharmaceutical Bulletin Chemical Research in Toxicology Chemistry biodiversity Current Neurovascular Research Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism Drug Metabolism and Disposition European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry European Journal of Pharmacology FEMS Microbiology Letters Food and Chemical Toxicology Free Radical Biology Medicine Helvetica Chimica Acta Heterocycles International Immunopharmacology International Journal of Food Microbiology International Journal of Impotence Research Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry Journal of Biomedical Science Journal of Chromatography A Journal of Chromatography B Journal of Ethnopharmacology Journal of Food and Drug Analysis Journal of Food Microbiology Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Journal of medicinal chemistry Journal of Natural Products Journal of Neurochemistry Journal of neurosurgery Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis Journal of Pharmacological Sciences Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology Journal of Pineal Research Journal of the Chinese Chemical Society Life Sciences Menopause Molecular Pharmacology Natural Product Reports Natural Product Research Natural Product Research and Development Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology Neurochemistry International Neuroscience Letters Ophthalmologica Organic Letters Phytochemical Analysis Phytochemistry Phytomedicine Phytotherapy Research Planta medica Proteomics Tetrahedron Tetrahedron Letters Toxicology Xenobiotica 中國天然藥物 中華藥學雜誌 中醫藥雜誌 作物、環境與生物資訊 来源： http://ejournal.nricm.edu.tw/list.htm
In searching the seed laws in different countries by google, instead, I got one small article in one net about the Law of the Seed . It tells about the natural law of the seeds, and the life philosophy. I copied it here to share with you. From : http://bbs.in2english.com.cn/showtopic-10761.aspx The lesson of the law of the seed is “You reap your harvest after you do the work” You dig the soil and water the seed (effort), wait a while (patience) and then you pick your beans. Effort + patience = Results This principle is often lost on people. They say: “If I plant beans today, what will I get back tomorrow?” And the answer is : “Wet bean seeds”. The law of the seed says: “You plant today, and you harvest … LATER!” Plant beans now; pick beans in four months. When everybody grew their own food, people probably understood this concept better. But this is the age of instant noodles. Lao Huang says: “If I had a decent job, then I would really work hard. But all I do is wash dishes, so to heck with it.” Wrong, Lao Huang ! If you become the best dish washer in town, someone will notice you, or someone will promote you, or you’ll feel so good about yourself that you’ll one day go and do something you really want to do. Effort first, harvest second.It’s a principle. You can’t reverse the process. The wonderful thing about nature is that it gives us back much more than what we put out. When you plant a pumpkin seed, you don't just get back one seed! Otherwise, why bother? Nature is very generous. Plant a few seeds and you may end up with truckload of pumpkins. Again, this principle works with everything we do, but first we need to get out in the fields and dig!
吴伟南，欧剑峰，黄静玲. 2009. 中国动物志无脊椎动物第四十七卷蛛形纲蜱螨亚纲植绥螨科. 北京：科学出版社. 1-511. Wu W, Ou J, Huang J. 2009. Fauna Sinica, Invertebrata Vol.47, Arachnida, Acari, Phytoseiidae. Beijing: Science Press. 1-511. 前言 Preface 总论 General 一、研究简史 Brief research history 二、形态结构 Morphology and structure 三、地理分布 Geographical distribution 四、生物学特性与生活习性 Biological characteristics and living habits 五、经济意义与利用情况 Economic importance and utilization 六、饲养和贮藏 Rearing and storaging 七、标本采集、制作和保存 Specimen collection, making and preservation 各论 Special 植绥螨科 Phytoseiidae 一、钝绥螨亚科 Amblyseiinae 1. 钝绥螨属 Amblyseius 2. 真绥螨属 Euseius 3. 伊绥螨属 Iphiseius 4. 印小绥螨属 Indoseiulus 5. 冲绥螨属 Okiseius 6. 植盾螨属 Phytoscutus 7. 小植绥螨属 Phytoseiulus 8. 粗绥螨属 Asperoseius 9. 拟植绥螨属 Paraphytoseius 二、植绥螨亚科 Phytoseiinae 10. 植绥螨属 Phytoseius 三、盲走螨亚科 Typhlodrominae 11. 钱绥螨属 Chanteius 12. 副绥伦螨属 Paraseiulus 13. 库螨属 Kuzinellus 14. 盲走螨属 Typhlodromus 15. 静走螨属 Galendromus 参考文献 References 英文摘要 Abstract in English 中名索引 Index of Chinese names 学名索引 Index of Scientific names 附录 Appedices 中国已记录的植绥螨因其它原因未收入本志描述者 Other recorded phytoseiid species in China which not included in this monograph 《中国动物志》已出版书目 Serial faunal monographs already published 图版 Figure plates
标签: natural
