Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 15:05:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin-AT-utkux.utcc.utk.edu> Subject: Re: M-I: (POF-6) The Ideologi//"Spontaneous development???" List, So Ben *did* mean to state his argument in that causal order. Then Carrol's argument is dead-to-rights! And in seeking to explain this odd assertion, Ben reveals some errors in reasoning. Ben reasserts his philosophical error: > To say that "matter spontaneously tends to develop in the > direction of consciousness" is not mysticism but materialism. This statement is mysticism. It is, in fact, Hegelian idealism. > Large systems of matter (the universe, the solar system, etc) evolve and > create "complex adaptive systems" which are characterized by (at the > risk of redundancy)--complexity. Not redundant, Ben, circular. You have provided the list with a textbook example of a tautological argument. "Complex adaptive systems...are characterized by...complexity." A similar assertion: "Red flags are characterized by the color red." True by definition. > Ecosystems also tend to evolve (again, given favorable conditions) in > the direction of complexity. What is complexity? A characteristic of "complex adaptive systems"? And isn't the assertion structured around illegitimate teleological reasoning? It assumes that complexity is an endstate that ecosystems tend to evolve towards. This is a misunderstanding of evolution. > Of course it is true that a "good definition" of complexity does not exist. I think there are decent definitions of complexity out there. For example, complexity defined as the level of differentiation of a system and the degree of specialization of its constituent elements (functional interdependency) strikes me as a useful definition. Complexity can be determined quantitatively (the sheer number of parts of a thing) and/or quantitatively (the arrangement of the parts of a thing). A discussion of complexity involves a discussion of relational ontology that would probably best be carried out in another forum. Complexity is best used as a descriptive tool; one has to be careful about explaining the genesis of something by the function it serves. How something came to be complex is not something to be explained with an appeal to "general trends." Complexity is a tool for synchronic explanation. The diachronic needs historical and causal analysis. I don't want to get physical here, but the statement "gravitational attraction and the laws of motion lead to the creation of stars and solar systems" is a bit backwards (as are many of the things in Ben's post). It needs to be corrected to say that stars and solar systems are the source of gravity, their mass being the cause of gravity, and these bodies act according to laws of motion relative to their relational system. To suppose outcomes and measures such as "attraction" and "motion" are prior to the matter without which they could not be manifest is another example of Ben's idealist ontology. > consciousness represents the highest known development of complexity How do you figure this? There is an objective reality and an objective structural and processual ontology composed of complex and tangled sets of relations and interests that we are only becoming aware of. Billions of years passed before one organism named Darwin became subjectively aware of the simple objective process of natural selection. The majority of the working class are not conscious of their objective interests and the objective relations which determine these interests. The complex forces of social structure and process in producing the individual in large measure reside external to consciousness. And the nature of the material world is still baffling to human beings. Consciousness is like the tip of a complex and transforming iceberg, just poking out of a dark sea of ignorance. There are worlds yet to discover. Your argument doesn't sound very Marxian so far (of course, it doesn't have to be). Your argument strikes me as coming more from a Luhmannean systems theoretic. But, again, this isn't the forum to discuss these matters. Andrew Austin --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005