Scott Harrison writes: >I haven't read "The Dialectical Biologist", but if these three points fairly represent Levins & Lewontin's views, then they have left out the single most important thing about dialectics and the dialectical method (although perhaps point (3) hints at it). Since the 3 points they do raise are also valid and set the basis for what is left out, this additional point should perhaps be numbered "(4)". It goes something like this:
>(4) Everything in the world (and also in human society and in human
thought) is composed of dialectical contradictions. (These are not logical contradictions, the assertion and denial of the exact same proposition, but rather "oppositions", or the unity of opposing forces within the thing. We are stuck with the misleading name "contradictions" here for historical reasons. Blame Hegel.) Development or change of any kind is in essence the result of struggle between these internal opposing forces (which are, however, often triggered by outside factors). Thus an acorn develops into an oak tree primarily because of its own internal nature, and the opposing forces pent-up within it--though it also requires soil, rain and sunshine from the outside. To seek to understand HOW an acorn develops into an oak, that is, to use the dialectical method here, is therefore mostly to seek out and try to understand these internal contradictions within the acorn. <
This is what I was groping for when I said that L&L's conception of dialectical inquiry lacked "structure." It would indeed be better to have a fourth bit about the role of contradictions (or the unity of opposites).
However, I think it's a mistake to assert that "Everything in the world (and also in human society and in human thought) is composed of dialectical contradictions." In view of the idea that dialectical thinking is more of a set of questions than a set of pre-digested answers, we should instead look for contradictions in empirical reality to see if they exist.
Alternatively, we could follow Mao (not one of my favorites) to distinguish between antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions. The kind that Scott sees everywhere seem to be mostly the latter. The former would be class contradictions and the like.
...
JD
