[PEN-L:7440] RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Harvey, Leibniz & Marx

["Lisa & Ian Murray" <seamus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

One of the many problems that emerges from L an L's views on contradiction
is that they never specify when and where epistemology leaves off and
ontology begins. This a boundary that is extreeemly fuzzy (logic).

Mathematical physics tirelessly strives to create self-consistent models of
natural phenomena at a swarming multitude of space-time scales.
Thermodynamicists do not consider quantum theory a contradiction of their
experimental or theoretical results by any means.  Indeed, the conjoining of
mathematical physics and computability theory have demonstrated that "there
is a self-consistency in that the laws [of physics] generate the very
mathematics that makes those laws both computable and simple." (Davies in
Zurek, p. 66)

"Things change because of the actions of opposing forces on them, and
> things are in the way because of the temporary balance of opposing forces.

Forms change due to the actions of algorithms of complementary vectors and
scalars.  Is this sentence antithetical to, or complementary of, the above
proposition; or both?

"The dialectical view insists that persistence and equilibrium are not the
natural state of things but require explanation, which must be sought in
the actions of the opposing forces."

The recursive view explores and accepts the myriad topologies that make
stability/instability possible.  What is the unnatural state of "things"?
Disequilibrium, flux and aleatory randomness also require explanation.

The folks at the Fed and the World bank have been data mining major parts of
Lucas' et. al. "Recursive Methods in Economic Dynamics" since it first came
out.  It was prominently displayed in major downtown DC bookstores for quite
a while.  It is the robustness and seductive allure of recursion that drives
the folks who work on Swiftnet and it's progeny and the Fed's macroeconomic
simulation night and day.

Leibniz and Whitehead damn near stumbled on Recursion theory.  They were led
to this by a deep appreciation of Chinese philosophical poetry/dialectics;
which was also Hegel's great inspiration (via the Jesuits; Leibniz had
extensive notes on Chinese culture, recently published).  Leibniz asked what
it would be like to be a Lucretian atom (in contrast to Descartes query of
what would the world look like at the atomic level).

This leads to the genuine question of respect/empathy for other living
beings, in a neglected aspect of Harvey's quest for an ontological basis for
environmental justice; for surely biodiversity must be a part of this
picture.   Hence, if monads feel (Whitehead) then experience [yes this is
problematic] is as old as living itself, and the interiority of organic
being is not confined to humans alone.  Ecosystem preservation a la Cronon
and Worster take on a wholly enriched dimension when the natural history of
experience meets up with core/periphery explanations and narratives in
environmental history.  Do we question the Indians ecological vision because
WE (now) view the Buffalo as experiencing suffering when they went over the
cliff (in fact, the landing)?  In the post-Enlightnment milieu the
Cartesians denied animal/plant suffering; dualism and all that.  Whitehead
strove mightily to overcome this dualism at the behest of Haldane and
William Bateson.

In "Conceptual Issues In Ecology", edited by Esa
Saarinan, L and L state that:

"Many-to -oneness means that there are many possible configurations of
populations which preserve the same qualitative properties  at the level of
the whole..." "...Whole and part do not completely determine one another."
(p. 116) Leibniz, Whitehead and Harvey would have no trouble agreeing with
this one.....This is pluralistic supervenience, a powerful explanatory
strategy in biology and the philosophy of mind, not dialectics.

"In Marx, the class contradictions of capitalism involve
the possibility of abolishing classes and therefore the dynamics of human
society."

How will the abolition of classes lead to a cessation of the dynamics of
human society?

Cronon and Worster see the dynamics of human economies as
(almost)perpetually linked to multiple ecological systems; some of which we
engage in rapacious extractions, some of which we engage in homeorhetic,
complementary, and "sustainable" relationships (I'm thinking of Asian
agricultural terraforming in all it's beauty).  To encourage the latter and
let go of our maladaptive addiction to the former...They both feel, or at
least I read them as saying, that an aesthetic "revolution" is necessary to
rupture the tyranny of economism. Worster, in particular, is quite explicit
about this. It also shows up in Dr. O'Connor's ravaging of the semiotic
sleight of hand "natural capital";  the biosphere should not be imprisoned
by economic discourse.

"and just what does a fish know of the water in which it swims all it's
life?" AE

Ian Murray
Seattle, WA

"Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information", edited by W. Zurek,
Addison Wesley,
 1990

"Conceptual Issues in Ecology", edited by Esa Saarinen, D. Reidel, 1982.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jim Devine
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 2:03 PM
> To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [PEN-L:7427] Re: Re: Re: RE: Harvey, Leibniz & Marx
>
>
> I wrote: >>If I remember correctly, Levins and Lewontin's
> discussion in THE
> DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST does not employ the concept of contradictions to
> understand non-human nature. So we might say that there are _no_
> contradictions (structurally-based conflicts) within non-human nature, a
> pretty large qualitative difference. <<
>
> Bill B writes: >If I read it correctly (I don't have it, so
> someone correct
> me if I'm wrong) they are on the other side, i.e. with Engels,
> that nature,
> matter IS dialectical, IS contradiction. <
>
> To quote an old Saturday Night Live routine, with Phil Hartman playing Ed
> McMahan, "You are right, sir!"
>
> "For us, contradiction is not only epistemic and political, but
> ontological
> in the broadest sense. Contradictions between forces are everywhere in
> nature, not only in human social institutions. This tradition of
> dialectics
> goes back to Engels ....neither Engels' factual errors not the rigidity of
> idealist dialectics changes the fact that opposing forces lie at the base
> of the evolving physical and biological world.
>
> "Things change because of the actions of opposing forces on them, and
> things are in the way because of the temporary balance of opposing forces.
> In the early days of biology an inertial view prevailed: nerve cells were
> at rest until stimulated by other nerve cells and ultimately by sensory
> excitation. ... Nature was at equilibrium unless perturbed. Later it was
> recognized that nerve impulses act both to excite and to inhibit
> the firing
> of other nerves, so that the state of a system depends on the network of
> opposing stimuli, and that network can generate spontaneous activity...
>
>
>
> "Contradiction also means the existence of opposing principles
> (rather than
> processes) which, taken together, have very different implications or
> consequences then [sic] they would have if taken separately." (p. 285)
>
> However, it might be argued that the dynamic contradictions within nature
> that they see are qualitatively different from those within human society,
> because the latter involve conscious striving, so that issues of
> consciousness and ideology arise. (This was my basic point, even though I
> said it poorly.)
>
> Among other things, creatures in nonhuman nature don't seem to consciously
> strive to change the environment (even though they have the
> effect of doing
> so). The worst of architects vs. the best of bees, after all!
>
> The other thing is that internal "contradictions in nature" do not involve
> the possibility of causing a structural change which qualitatively alters
> either the total structure of natural systems or the basic laws of motion
> of nonhuman nature. In Marx, the class contradictions of
> capitalism involve
> the possibility of abolishing classes and therefore the dynamics of human
> society.
>
> Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &
> http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
> Bombing DESTROYS human rights. Ground troops make things worse.
> US/NATO out
> of Serbia!
>