RE: BHA: Emergence

[Richard Moodey <moodey001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 02:19 PM 03/27/2002 -0500, Marshall wrote:

[much deleted]

> I think we're beginning to see the problem here. The notion of emergence can
> mean many distinct things, and if we're careful there's nothing wrong with
> using it these different ways.

It seems to me, also, that the word "emergence" has been used to refer to
many different things, but I *do* think there is something wrong with
this.  It leads to confusion and to writing past one another.  It seems to
me that some of the time "emergence" has been used to refer to the same
kind of processes that "dialectic" is also used to designate.  If a new
integration or systematization "emerges" from a previously unintegrated
coincidental manifold of elements, can we not also say that there was an
ontological *absence* prior to this emergence, and that after emergence
there is a new *presence*?

> For the sake of clarity, I prefer to reserve
> "emergence" to designate a NECESSARY relation, whereas many of the other
> meanings discussed above denote either contingent or even accidental
> relationships (by all accounts, the fact that the WTC collapsed was an
> accident that nobody, not even the terrorists, planned -- this is not to say
> the terrorists were not delighted at the accidental results -- at a
> different level, that of the building's mechanics, the collapse was
> necessary). I also prefer to distinguish emergence between levels from
> historical, logical, and other forms of emergence. Thus, while the
> occurrence of a specific configuration of things at one level may be
> contingent, once we have this configuration there's a necessary relationship
> to other levels. This is not to deny that the other relationships do not
> exist, it's only to say that we'd gain more clarity if we clearly
> distinguish between the different meanings of "emergence."

This recommendation makes a great deal of sense, but I have a
non-Bhaskarian reason for not accepting it.  Lonergan introduced the notion
of "emergent probability," which involves neither a necessary nor an
accidental relationship between temporal sequences of events, but rather
changing contingencies.  At time 1, the probability of a future event (E)
might be very small, but the constellation of events at times 2, 3, ....
are such that the probability of E gets progressively larger.  This is an
"emergent probability," or a process in which the probability of the
emergence of E increases.

Regards,

Dick



    --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---