File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2003/bhaskar.0311, message 138


Subject: RE: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:07:00 -0000
From: "Bailey,DJ  (pgr)" <D.J.Bailey-AT-lse.ac.uk>


"competition of one kind at least (aggressive inter/intra species annhilation) would
therefore be integral; to at the very least our early history and could surely not be described as stunting development in an absolute ahistorical fashion - it would (and this is only speculation) simply be a basic facet of how sociality developed with
early primates in accordance with environment."

I took this to mean that the competition between species was integral to the development of those species.

The point I was making was that under conditions of cooperation (and the absence of competition) it may be possible that the development of species would have been greater than that which occurred with the presence of competition.  Thus, if this possibility was found to be true (which it is not possible to prove/disprove empirically because it never happened) then we could state that competition between the species has historically contributed towards their stunted development.

The inference I make to predestination is based on:
1) you countered my argument that cooperation may contribute to greater development than competition by citing competition as integral to the evolutionary development of species;
2) this implies that competition was necessary for their development, and that an alternative route to development (i.e. cooperation) could not have existed;
3) this implication is based on the fact that it did not exist, therefore;
4) I understood your argument to be that a) because cooperation (between species) was not the primal basis underpinning the development of species, then b) it could not have been so;
5) So I thought your reasoning was along the lines of - something didn't happen, therefore it couldn't have happened.
6) if that is the case, then everything that has happened was always predestined to do so.

Do you see what I'm saying?

David

-----Original Message-----
From: jamie morgan [mailto:jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk]
Sent: 17 November 2003 12:49
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


I didn't disagree with counter-historical examples how could I when I was
asking what you meant by it.

I am also confused by your inference of predestination - I simply pointed
out that selection in evolution does not necessarily support the idea of the
priority of cooperation - the point being that it may not be possible to
argue priorism from transcendental argument that sees it as previous or
basic to other forms because it is what sustains sociality - i.e. if you
argue from coordination as cohesion rather than cooperation in the sense of
mutual love and feeling society is still possible - I make no comment on
whether this is how society is I simply note that it can also be used to
account for society making a transcendental argument for what is basic
problematic unless substantiated in other ways  - at which point it maynot
be a transcendental argument (thought hat is a different issue). Evolution
is not a determistic argument - it is anything but. There is no implication
from anything else I said that indicates predestination that I can detect -
pleases specify the basis of the inference

Jamie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bailey,DJ (pgr)" <D.J.Bailey-AT-lse.ac.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 9:50 AM
Subject: RE: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


hi Jamie,

isn't this the implication of your argument - what has occurred throughout
history was always destined to do so.

I read Capital (and in particular the reproduction schema in the second half
of volume 2, and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall in volume 3) to
be an argument about the irrationality, inefficiency and self-defeating
nature of production based on individual ownership.  Yet, the opposite -
collective, common ownership (communism) - was nowhere in existence.  Does
this mean that Marx was wrong to criticise capitalism because there were no
counter-historical examples of communism?

Further, if you don't agree with my use of counter-historical examples,
doesn't this meant that we are always destined to study the positive?
Whereas one of the central aims of DPF was to make the positive appear 'as a
tiny, but important, ripple on the surface of a sea of negativity'.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: jamie morgan [mailto:jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk]
Sent: 14 November 2003 18:31
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


Hi, this point seems to underplay the complexity of evolution and also
dynamic human systems - when primates left the trees their capacity to
coordinate (which may mean pure cooperation, or anylevel along a line to
coordination or coherence through social orders of domination acquiesence,
subordinattion, subserveience) in competition with other species and other
groups of primates was one might speculate a prime reason for their success,
selection and breeding survival - competition of one kind (perhaps there are
other kinds) at least (aggressive inter/intra species annhilation) would
therefore be integral (just as the capacity for social coherence and
coordination which may or may not be what you eman by cooperation would be);
to at the very least our early history and could surely not be described as
stunting development in an absolute ahistorical fashion - it would (and this
is only speculation) simply be a basic facet of how sociality developed with
early primates in accordance with environment.
Moreover I'm not sure what you mean by a counter-historical example of a
society without competition - are there are any historical examples of these
or are you suggesting we imagine one in counter to history?

Jamie

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bailey,DJ (pgr)" <D.J.Bailey-AT-lse.ac.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


Surely cooperation presumes the absence of competition/conflict (at least in
the specific relationship that you are describing).  To achieve one requires
the absence of the other - therefore I would argue that they are indeed in
competition/conflict with each other.

If I want to create a cooperative society it requires that I absent forms of
competition/conflict within that society.  I am therefore in conflict with
conflictual behaviour/relationships.

to go back to jamie's point, then, I would argue that competition and
conflict may have co-existed; but that competition always requires the
imposition of constraints upon those with whom we compete, and therefore
competition (whilst seemingly contributing towards the evolutionary
progression of humanity) may actually have contributed towards the stunting
of humanity's development if we compare it to the counter-historical example
of a society without competition.

-----Original Message-----
From: Moodey, Richard W [mailto:MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu]
Sent: 14 November 2003 14:51
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: RE: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


Hi Jamie,

You wrote:

Might it not be that competition and aggression has proved successful within
evolution as much as cooperation and thus both have had their place in
species evolution and also in human social development - implying that both
are aspects of nature and of society where the concept of primacy or triumph
is not necessarily the best way of think about what we want to take from
each?


I reply:

Well put.  Cooperation, competition, and conflict are aspects of nature and
society.  None can "triumph" over the others, as they are not, themselves,
in competition or conflict.

Regards,

Dick

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mervyn Hartwig" <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, etc.


> Hi Dick,
>
> But it hasn't, i.e. notwithstanding inter-(and intra-)specific
> aggression, species have proliferated and flourished. If aggression
> dominated both inter- and intra- the whole show would come to a halt
> (as of course it might yet owing to contingent aggression within a
> contingently powerful species, i.e. ours; it would remain the case
> that there could be no process of biological evolution if love did not
> triumph over evil, Eros over Thanatos).
>
> Mervyn
>
>
>
>
>  "Moodey, Richard W" <MOODEY001-AT-gannon.edu> writes
> >Hi Mervyn,
> >
> >You wrote:
> >
> >"One can argue that, given that biological evolution proceeds, it
> >must be the case that co-operation, care etc prevails over
> >self-preservation, aggression etc within species."
> >
> >But isn't it possible that conflict among (between)different
> >communities may prevail over co-operation among (between)them, even
> >as this conflict requires high degrees of co-operation within each of
> >these communities?
> >
> >I don't write this out of any basic disagreement with the other
> >arguments for the either the existence or the fundamental goodness of
> >something (not yet fully specified, perhaps) that we can point to
> >with the
heuristic
> >concept, "human nature."
> >
> >Regards,
> >
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



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


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


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



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


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



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


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005