File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9706, message 291


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005