Louis Proyect wrote:
> Whitehead:
> > "Nature is plastic, although to every prevalent state of mind there
> >corresponds iron nature setting its bounds to life. [snip]
> >It is a false dichotomy to think of Nature and Man. Mankind is that factor
> >*in* Nature which exhibits in its most intense form the plasticity of
> >nature. Plasticity is the introduction of novel law. The doctrine of the
> >Uniformity of Nature is to be ranked with the contrasted doctrine of magic
> >and miracle, as an expression of partial truth, unguarded and uncoordinated
> >with the immensities of the Universe." Adventures of Ideas, pp. 73-8
>
> This sounds like Will and Ariel Durant.
Uh -- Lou. Ted is a slippier customer than this and you can't debate
him with only half your attention. You also should not be using this long
passage from Whitehead in snippets. The whole of it as originally
quoted by Ted is necessary for response. Iron laws, upper case Nature,
"intense form of plasticity" may or may not sound like the Durants, but
if it does the appearance is deceiving.
For example the sentence, "Mankind is that factor *in* Nature which
exhibits in its most intense form the plasticity of nature." I don't really
care for Whitehead's way of putting it, but nevertheless it is pretty good
Marxism. It says, for example, what Sam was trying to say when he
blundered into the silliness of "penetration" needed for human survival.
It also says something very like what Charles has been saying in reference
to the relationship of the dialectics of nature and historical materialism.
It is even a fairly good summary of Sebastiano Timpanaro's defense of
the importance to Marxism of the results as well as the method of the
physical and biological sciences.
I'm convinced that Ted is wrong in some ways -- but he sure as hell is
not wrong in ways that can be thrown off this simply.
Carrol
