On page 31 of Henry William Spiegel's book: "The growth of economic thought" (the 3rd edition is the one I got):

https://archive.org/details/growthofeconomic0000spie_r1d4

https://www.csus.edu/indiv/d/dowellm/econ101/spiegel 1(1).pdf

there are two statements (very questionably) written as mathematical equations, one of which, Spiegel said, has been claimed and re-interpreted throughout the ages in their own ways by different economic schools of thought mostly in utilitarian or "labour theory of value" kinds of ways. Aristotle analytically (and semi-poetically) wrote his "justice in exchange" (in previous times people tended to mind morality in a more involved way) as:

((A: builder)/(B: shoemaker) = X ((D: house)/(D: shoe))

and on page 33 there is an even more questionable "clarifying" deduction based on that statement.

AFAIK, no one knows exactly what happened around 600 BC which made Ancient Greece intellectually awaken into a new age. Whatever happened, we know that they were obsessed with two themes:

1) like ratios: from Archimedes' law of the lever, to the kinds of metaphors their commanders used as battle cries, to how Aristotle himself "explained" poetry (which Eco thinks is the only substantial statement ever since made about the topic) Ancient Greeks understood everything through like ratios;

2) they also wondered incessantly about the subjectively moral, "objectively" social and divine aspects relating to techne from pre-Socratic times to its best implementation in Euclid's Elements (three centuries later).

I am not claiming to be a mind reader, but based on how he used like ratios for his own sharp and powerful analysis of various subjects, I think, on the left side of that equation, he can't possibly be dividing "builders" by "shoemakers" (trying to establish a meaningful proportion), but the time it takes for them to finish an unit of work and on the right, determining proportion he is considering the qualitatively different kind of techne they each use to go about their business and since the Greek would only compare like ratios, he introduced that adjusting factor "X" which has made scholars wonder about it ever since. ~ Frederick Gustav Weiss in his thoroughgoing "Hegel's critique of Aristotle's philosophy of mind":

https://www.amazon.com/Hegels-critique-Aristotles-philosophy-mind/dp/B0006C1...

https://philpapers.org/rec/WEIHCO

shows how Hegel's concepts and notions resemble Aristotle's and how Hegel's trains of thought could be interpreted as a continuation of "the Philosopher's" if not exactly as a chronicler or commentator, definitely how Hegel critically re-engages Aristotle's work as no one had done after the Renaissance. About Aristotle Weiss says:

page 33: ... The sense, for Aristotle, is not the organ as such, nor it is its relation or contact with objective qualities a "physical" or mechanical interaction as Ross seemed to suggest.(94) The potential sense is more like a ratio which is not yet the ratio of anything. The actual sense is an "enmattered" ratio; that is, one which is determined by its factors, and which simultaneously holds these factors, e.g., white and black, page 34: etc., in such a way as to allow their discrimination, and this without changing them. The sense is a mean which unfailingly establishes itself with respect to any two contrary qualities within the same genus.

Which, since our semiosis is the only "enmattered" medium (à la de Saussure) simultaneously holding and allowing the discrimination of all meaningful factors of "any two contrary qualities within the same genus", I take as meaning that that factoring "X" is essentially semiotic in nature, linking in a societally-wide corpus kind of way qualitatively different kinds of techne, thereby establishing a fair exchange value between two different things and manifestingly showing the necessity for and hows of money, which (in the combined rates way I explained in a previous post about how NLP folks use "tensors") we used as equitable aspect, not different to how we use words to go about our respective businesses.

As I interpret their philosophy, Anaxagoras "nous", techne, that "Aristotelian: 'justice in exchange'" equation, Leibniz' "best of all possible worlds" ideas, Smith's "invisible hand" (previously discussed to exhaustion by medieval philosophers) and Marx' "socially necessary labour time" are all aspects relating to the same thing.

At the risk of being told that I am myself, "self-servingly" trying to rationalize such readings into Aristotle's analysis, I think that this is the first explicitly clear hint to our mind-body link being our semiosis.

I privately (via email) asked Chalmers about such matters and he told me he didn't know of such approaches and I publicly asked Eco during a conference at the UN about it and he even became impatient, seemed to have gotten upset with me/about such ideas (I even tried to speak to him privately after his talk to no avail).

There is simply no way on earth that no one hasn't noticed such interrelationships and how they relate to corpora research. I am sure that some of you have stumbled onto such themes and wondered about them. As a TI, here in "'the' land of 'the' 'free', ..." I can't even visit a library. There isn't anything illegal about it, it would be "fair use". Could you do me the favor to send my way or point to me to any prior art relating to such topics (essentially how corpora research and the mind-body link intrinsically relate). I am writing a paper on such matters, but I don't have access to papers that (most of?) you do. They tell me "I am not a researcher" so they can't grant me access to such repositories of previous art. Access to such papers is prohibitively expensive to me right now and at times you pay good money for a book without any substance whatsoever. There is this protagonistic tendency to write whatever nonsense crosses one's mind (apparently to claim priority) as if there were something wrong with Aristotle's approach. In a "footnotes to Plato" kind of way, I think timely (from "'more' to 'post-'modern") progress is a functional illusion. Aristotle's analysis is fine, we just can't match his intellectual prowess.

Thank you, lbrtchx