Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 16:14:14 +0100
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Emergence


Hi Tobin

>whereas I think the issue at hand is the canine
>world as a totality (comprising not just DNA, but social patterns such as
>running packs and other characteristic traits or tendencies) and whether
>something emerges superstructurally *out/above* that world as a result of
>the interbreeding. 

In a multiply stratified and differentiated world, coy-wolf society
itself would constitute an irreducible level insofar as it possessed
powers (e.g. the collective hunter) not reducible to coy-wolf genetics -
animals do learn and have sociality and culture. I was just
concentrating on the more fundamental level.

>To return to the human example, I would argue that human society emerged
>*contingently* -- that nothing in nature predetermined the emergence of
>human beings or the powers they possess.  By taking emergence as *requiring*
>superstructural developments, you may end up having to say that human
>society was a necessary and inevitable development from quarks on up.
>Arguably, the proposition "emergence necessarily involves superstructural
>developments" 

In an open world of conjunctural causation *all* events (at the level of
the Actual) are contingent - including the emergence of a new stratum at
the level of the Real; nothing is preordained or caused before it
happens. However, iff emergence occurs, it necessarily involves
superstructuration/ intrastructuration - that's just the way the cosmos
is at the level of the Real i.e. as an intrinsic structure of
possibility. Thus it is contingent that humans exist, but given that
they do (have evolved as they have) they necessarily possess, at the
level of core nature, the powers and liabilities they do; ditto with a
particular kind of human society - it is contingent that it exists or
existed, but it necessarily possesses/ed certain powers. As you know,
one of the great strengths of the Bhaskarian system is that it sustains
a concept of natural necessity together with a concept of openness,
plurality and contingency.

Mervyn







Tobin Nellhaus <nellhaus-AT-gis.net> writes
>Hi Mervyn--
>
>> Model A                                    Model B
>>
>> polity sets boundary conditns for     economy sets boundary condns for
>>
>> economy                               polity
>>
>>
>> coyote genetic mechanisms ditto       wolf GMs ditto
>>
>> wolf GMs                              coyote GMs
>
>Before discussing your analysis, I'd like to make sure people know that, at
>least in my understanding, coy-wolves (and coy-dogs) are real creatures,
>albeit not common enough or integrated enough to constitute a species.
>
>As I see it, there are two difficulties in the analysis above.  First,
>society has a sui generis structure (in particular, the unique character of
>the agent/structure relationship, and the already-stratified relationship
>between polity and economy), so applying it as an analogy for genetics is
>apt to be misleading.  Second, regardless of the suitability (or not) of the
>analogy, by making the relationship between the wolves and coyotes one of
>DNA, the analysis appears (at least on the surface) to give DNA an almost
>deterministic importance, flattening other aspects of canine life while also
>atomizing strands of DNA, whereas I think the issue at hand is the canine
>world as a totality (comprising not just DNA, but social patterns such as
>running packs and other characteristic traits or tendencies) and whether
>something emerges superstructurally *out/above* that world as a result of
>the interbreeding.  I think most of us would agree that with the rise of the
>species homo sapiens, the expansion of certain comparatively rudimentary
>capacities among simians (for example, the ability to create and use
>symbols) led to a number of new powers coming into the world that are
>clearly -- almost prototypically -- emergent in the superstructural sense.
>But does anything like this happen with the rise of coy-wolves?  Is there
>anything that departs from the norms of the canine world as a whole?  So
>far, I don't think there's any evidence to that effect -- and the very need
>to say, "we'd have to look at the evidence" is itself evidence that
>superstructural formations are a contingent rather than a necessary aspect
>of emergence generally.
>
>Meanwhile, though wolf DNA and coyote DNA are different and their
>compositions affect their interaction, both still count as DNA, and their
>melding counts as DNA too.  Superstructural emergence does occur if one
>"down-shifts" from the perspective of the canine world as a whole to one of
>its enabling structures (in other words, the "newness" exists at the level
>of DNA strands and the resulting pups).  But down-shifting like this doesn't
>answer the question of superstructural emergence upwards, *above* the canine
>world.  In other words, when a new development emerges into the canine world
>from one of its underlying levels, must something new also develop out of
>it?  And by down-shifting you immediately run into a problem:
>
>> In the case of interbreeding it would seem impossible to determine which
>> is the 'base level'
>
>Shifting this back up to the canine world as a totality, as an effect of
>interbreeding does that totality become a "base level" upon which a *new*
>(irreducible) power emerges, or does the emergence of coy-wolves simply
>consist of a variant within the genetic and behavioral norms among canines?
>If it's a question of evidence, then superstructual emergence is a
>contingent, not a necessary outcome.  You seem to admit as much when you
>say:
>
>>                I expect
>> much would depend on the particular case - the metaphor of
>> superstructuration might prove more fruitful in some cases,
>> intrastructuration in others, and both in yet others.
>
>To return to the human example, I would argue that human society emerged
>*contingently* -- that nothing in nature predetermined the emergence of
>human beings or the powers they possess.  By taking emergence as *requiring*
>superstructural developments, you may end up having to say that human
>society was a necessary and inevitable development from quarks on up.
>Arguably, the proposition "emergence necessarily involves superstructural
>developments" is a sort of contradiction in terms or even a denial of
>emergence, because if a result is necessary then it can't be qualitatively
>new and un-inferable from the original level.  So at this point in our
>discussion the very concept of emergence could be at stake.
>
>However, I'd like to back off from that warning, because in fact there *is*
>some perspective-switching going on, and possibly even a goof on my part.  A
>hint to the problem is a sentence above: "when a new development emerges
>into the canine world from one of its underlying levels, must something new
>also emerge out of it?"  "Emerging into" comes from the perspective of the
>superstructural level (a new canine-type comes into the canine world from
>its underlying genetics), and "emerging out of" takes the intrastructural
>view.  So speaking of intrastructural emergence may mean taking the
>perspective of what is in fact, relationally speaking, a superstructure!  In
>that case, it's the notion of intrastructural emergence that's a sort of
>contradiction in terms.
>
>So, having merrily pulled the rug out from under myself, I have to say,
>well, maybe you're right.  This time.  Don't make a habit of it.
>
>T.
>
>---
>Tobin Nellhaus
>nellhaus-AT-mail.com
>"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

-- 
Mervyn Hartwig
Editor, Journal of Critical Realism (incorporating 'Alethia')
13 Spenser Road
Herne Hill
London SE24 ONS
United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7 737 2892
Email: <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>

Subscription forms: 
http://www.criticalrealism.demon.co.uk/iacr/membership.html



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---