>>> Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/20 12:04 PM >>> G'day Chas, >I'll be glad to yield to your >suggestion. I cannot say >that I yield on the substantive >point, though ,as I said in >my post, I have great respect >for James F's opinion. I wasn't suggesting you stop talking about this, _________ Charles: Oh good, cause I do have a few thoughts regarding what Jim F. said. Just checking. That hammering the lid on the box sounded kind of like a coffin metaphor, so I figure you were dead serious. Never can tell you know. My understanding is that Andy and Jim F. are saying that they disagree with the Engels and Lenin position of what is called dialectical materialism which looks for Marx's (not Hegelian , though it is a tranformed Hegelian dialectic) dialectic in nature and culture(human history). I thought the examples that James F. gave in natural history and biology fit the Engels model. I thought they were similar to those which Levins and Lewontin make in _The Dialectical Biologist_. They develop a definite dialectical aspect of biology related to the priority of the whole over the parts. I welcome this as affirmation of Engels's position on the issue of this thread. and in _Anti-Duhring_ and _The Dialectics of Nature_ ( the latter by the way is unpublished notes in preparation for a book All of the criticisms of Engels oversimplification do not take this into account). However, Darwinism is also classically Marxistly dialectical both in its transition from creationism to evolutionism ;and as described by Lenin in _The Teachings of Karl Marx_ especially with respect to Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium,in which, I believe the punctuations are major extinctions in the history of life. I'll copy the larger passage on this later.But the point is that catastrophes, revolutions, leaps within slower change or evolution renders this fundamental theory of natural history more dialectical in the Hegelian sense than it was in the Darwinian form. James F. seems to know Stephen Jay Gould fairly well. I am not trying to say what Gould's philosophical position is. I am glad for Gould's work. Unrelated to this thread , I had been reading Darwin's _The Origin of Species_ to better understand the types of issues we are discussing here. I noticed that Darwin put a lot of emphasis on gradual change. I thought to myself that's not all the way dialectical. Not that Darwin was a conscious dialectician,but I knew that Marx and Engels considered that he was using their method in biology. Then I heard of Gould's punctuated equilibrium as modification of Darwin and I thought he's rendered it more dialectical. Whether Gould agrees with that I don't know. James F. indicated elsewhere that Gould is a Marxist. So, I assumed that he may have seen his theory as making natural history more Marxist or dialectical. From the discussion of Gould on the other list came the following post. >Chas.:The dialectical is me looking at what Gould >is saying and analyzing it. I have never >heard Gould use the term to describe it. >However, Engels says somewhere that >most good scientists then ( and now we might add) >proceed dialectically but without knowing >it. I will look for the statements from >Engels and maybe Haldane, if you like. > >The principle in question is the interpenetration >of quality and quantity. Darwin describes >evolution as continuous (gradual). The punctuations >would make it continuous with rare discontinuities. > >What say you ? > >Charles Brown > Detroit Writing about punctuated equilibrium in *The Panda's Thumb* Gould writes: "If gradualism is more a product of Western thought than a fact of nature, then we should consider alternate philosophies of change to enlarge our realm of constraining prejudices. In the Soviet Union, for example, scientists are trained with a very different philosophy of change-the so-called dialectical laws, reformulated by Engels from Hegel's philosophy. The dialectical laws are explicitly punctuational.... Eldredge and I were fascinated to learn that many Russian paleontologists support a model similar to our punctuated equlibria." (pp.184-5) In a review of Lewontin et al., *Not In Our Genes* reprinted in *An Urchin in the Storm* Gould writes: "...we cannot factor a complex social situation into so much biology on one side, and so much culture on the other. We must seek to understand the emergent and irreducible properties arising from an inextricable interpenetration of genes and environments. In short, we must use what so many great thinkers call, but American fashion dismisses as political rhetoric from the other side, a dialectical approach. "Dialectical thinking should be taken more seriously by Western scholars, not discarded becasue some nations of the second world have constructed a cardboard version as an official political doctrine. The issues that it raises are, in another form, the crucial questions of reductionism versus holism, now so much under discussion throughout biology.... "When presented as guidelines for a philosophy of change, not as dogmatic precepts true by fiat, the three classical laws of dialectics embody a holistic vision that views change as interaction among components of complete systems, and sees the components themselves not as a priori entities, but as both products of and inputs to the system" (pp.153-4) See also his comments on Engels in *Ever Since Darwin* (pp.210-11) and *Urchin* (pp.111-12). Gould is not one of those scientists who thinks dialectically without knowing it. This seems to be evidence that Gould endorses Engels use of the dialectic in natural history. He seems to find use for the three principles that Andy mentioned a number of times. Gould's popular essays are sort of a modern version of J. Haldane's essays. Haldane wrote the preface to the International edition of _The Dialectics of Nature_. That essay is pertinent to the current dispute. That's where we learn of the unpublished only partially prepared nature of the "book." and other ideas. Lewontin and Levins dedicate _The Dialectical Biologist_ to Engels. This does not make me think these Marxist professional natural scientists have a fundamental disagreement with Engels' understanding of dialectics. My understanding is that Andy is saying that Engels's position is idealist. This is what James F. implies after Colletti that Engels smuggles the Hegelian dialectical god back in to his analysis. This is a switch from usual . Usually Engels is accused of being a vulgar materialist. I suppose this is one of those things where you have twins: idealist and vulgar materialist. I also have an essay from a philosophy professor who is a Marxist and a specialist on Hegel. He says he has just been grappling with the problem of this thread. I'll wait before bringing that onto the list. Charles Brown _____ just that I thought James's point had succinctly rounded off the argument to my personal satisfaction. I was only saying 'yeah, what he said'. >Perhaps James F will >teach me some offlist. Nor do I wanna inhibit James's public utterances on this while he's cooking. Good stuff, I reckon! G'Night, Rob.
>>> Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/20 12:04 PM >>> G'day Chas, >I'll be glad to yield to your >suggestion. I cannot say >that I yield on the substantive >point, though ,as I said in >my post, I have great respect >for James F's opinion. I wasn't suggesting you stop talking about this, _________ Charles: Oh good, cause I do have a few thoughts regarding what Jim F. said. Just checking. That hammering the lid on the box sounded kind of like a coffin metaphor, so I figure you were dead serious. Never can tell you know. My understanding is that Andy and Jim F. are saying that they disagree with the Engels and Lenin position of what is called dialectical materialism which looks for Marx's (not Hegelian , though it is a tranformed Hegelian dialectic) dialectic in nature and culture(human history). I thought the examples that James F. gave in natural history and biology fit the Engels model. I thought they were similar to those which Levins and Lewontin make in _The Dialectical Biologist_. They develop a definite dialectical aspect of biology related to the priority of the whole over the parts. I welcome this as affirmation of Engels's position on the issue of this thread. and in _Anti-Duhring_ and _The Dialectics of Nature_ ( the latter by the way is unpublished notes in preparation for a book All of the criticisms of Engels oversimplification do not take this into account). However, Darwinism is also classically Marxistly dialectical both in its transition from creationism to evolutionism ;and as described by Lenin in _The Teachings of Karl Marx_ especially with respect to Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium,in which, I believe the punctuations are major extinctions in the history of life. I'll copy the larger passage on this later.But the point is that catastrophes, revolutions, leaps within slower change or evolution renders this fundamental theory of natural history more dialectical in the Hegelian sense than it was in the Darwinian form. James F. seems to know Stephen Jay Gould fairly well. I am not trying to say what Gould's philosophical position is. I am glad for Gould's work. Unrelated to this thread , I had been reading Darwin's _The Origin of Species_ to better understand the types of issues we are discussing here. I noticed that Darwin put a lot of emphasis on gradual change. I thought to myself that's not all the way dialectical. Not that Darwin was a conscious dialectician,but I knew that Marx and Engels considered that he was using their method in biology. Then I heard of Gould's punctuated equilibrium as modification of Darwin and I thought he's rendered it more dialectical. Whether Gould agrees with that I don't know. James F. indicated elsewhere that Gould is a Marxist. So, I assumed that he may have seen his theory as making natural history more Marxist or dialectical. From the discussion of Gould on the other list came the following post. >Chas.:The dialectical is me looking at what Gould >is saying and analyzing it. I have never >heard Gould use the term to describe it. >However, Engels says somewhere that >most good scientists then ( and now we might add) >proceed dialectically but without knowing >it. I will look for the statements from >Engels and maybe Haldane, if you like. > >The principle in question is the interpenetration >of quality and quantity. Darwin describes >evolution as continuous (gradual). The punctuations >would make it continuous with rare discontinuities. > >What say you ? > >Charles Brown > Detroit Writing about punctuated equilibrium in *The Panda's Thumb* Gould writes: "If gradualism is more a product of Western thought than a fact of nature, then we should consider alternate philosophies of change to enlarge our realm of constraining prejudices. In the Soviet Union, for example, scientists are trained with a very different philosophy of change-the so-called dialectical laws, reformulated by Engels from Hegel's philosophy. The dialectical laws are explicitly punctuational.... Eldredge and I were fascinated to learn that many Russian paleontologists support a model similar to our punctuated equlibria." (pp.184-5) In a review of Lewontin et al., *Not In Our Genes* reprinted in *An Urchin in the Storm* Gould writes: "...we cannot factor a complex social situation into so much biology on one side, and so much culture on the other. We must seek to understand the emergent and irreducible properties arising from an inextricable interpenetration of genes and environments. In short, we must use what so many great thinkers call, but American fashion dismisses as political rhetoric from the other side, a dialectical approach. "Dialectical thinking should be taken more seriously by Western scholars, not discarded becasue some nations of the second world have constructed a cardboard version as an official political doctrine. The issues that it raises are, in another form, the crucial questions of reductionism versus holism, now so much under discussion throughout biology.... "When presented as guidelines for a philosophy of change, not as dogmatic precepts true by fiat, the three classical laws of dialectics embody a holistic vision that views change as interaction among components of complete systems, and sees the components themselves not as a priori entities, but as both products of and inputs to the system" (pp.153-4) See also his comments on Engels in *Ever Since Darwin* (pp.210-11) and *Urchin* (pp.111-12). Gould is not one of those scientists who thinks dialectically without knowing it. This seems to be evidence that Gould endorses Engels use of the dialectic in natural history. He seems to find use for the three principles that Andy mentioned a number of times. Gould's popular essays are sort of a modern version of J. Haldane's essays. Haldane wrote the preface to the International edition of _The Dialectics of Nature_. That essay is pertinent to the current dispute. That's where we learn of the unpublished only partially prepared nature of the "book." and other ideas. Lewontin and Levins dedicate _The Dialectical Biologist_ to Engels. This does not make me think these Marxist professional natural scientists have a fundamental disagreement with Engels' understanding of dialectics. My understanding is that Andy is saying that Engels's position is idealist. This is what James F. implies after Colletti that Engels smuggles the Hegelian dialectical god back in to his analysis. This is a switch from usual . Usually Engels is accused of being a vulgar materialist. I suppose this is one of those things where you have twins: idealist and vulgar materialist. I also have an essay from a philosophy professor who is a Marxist and a specialist on Hegel. He says he has just been grappling with the problem of this thread. I'll wait before bringing that onto the list. Charles Brown _____ just that I thought James's point had succinctly rounded off the argument to my personal satisfaction. I was only saying 'yeah, what he said'. >Perhaps James F will >teach me some offlist. Nor do I wanna inhibit James's public utterances on this while he's cooking. Good stuff, I reckon! G'Night, Rob. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
