>>> Andrew Wayne Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23 2:54 AM >>> . . . need to correct some mistatements of fact . . . On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Charles Brown wrote: >I thought the examples that James F. gave in natural history and biology >fit the Engels model. . . . I welcome this as affirmation of Engels's >position . . . . I have long argued that aspects of evolutionary theory and evolutionary process may be described as dialectical and I was open-minded about this matter. What I dispute is Engels argument that the dialectic is the general laws of development in nature, society, and thought. I have never a priori rejected the possibility of any form of change being dialectic. What I have rejected is the view that all change is a priori dialectical. ________ Charles: So your position is that we just have to wait and see as each type of change comes up as to whether it is dialectical ? Has any type of change been discovered yet that was not dialectical as you understand Marx to mean dialectical ? What is it ? _______ Below, Charles contradicts himself. First, he says that >However, Darwinism is also classically Marxistly dialectical . . . 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. But then he writes that >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. In this argument we find that Darwin's theory is said to be dialectical in the classically Marxist sense. _________ Charles: The answer to your riddle, Andy,my boy, is that I used Darwinism the first time to include Stephen Jay Gouldism as part of Darwinism. And the second time I used Darwinism, I should have said original Darwinism not modified by Gould's theory. This was an equivocation of my use of the word "Darwinism." But the point is consistent for anyone trying to understand. _____ And the example given is Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium. But then in the next sentence we find that whereas Gould's theory is dialectic, it is more dialectical in the Hegelian sense than in the Darwinian form. The problem is that revolutions, qualitative leaps, and so forth, are Marxian dialectical (and the form is Hegelian). But this is different, Charles says, than the Darwinian form. So, the conclusion is this: Darwinian evolution is not dialectical. I agree. ________ Charles: The conclusion one more time, is that Darwinism is more dialectical than the theories of biology which prevailed when he wrote his famous thesis, creationism etc. But Darwinism was not fully dialectical in the Hegelian sense. You mentioned that evolutionism had been around for a thousand years and Darwin's father was an evolutionist. But if you look in any biology basic textbook , which will have a sketch of Darwin's biography, you will find that Christian creationism was the prevailing theory of Darwin's day AND THAT CHARLES DARWIN HIMSELF WAS A CREATIONIST UPON STARTING THE VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE. The 101 text I just read says that Darwin was going out to find data to uphold creationism over a recent geological theory that held the earth's geology had evolved. The point here is that relative to his day, Darwin's theory was none other than a LEAP, a revolution, a qualitative change, from a metaphysical or anti-dialectical conception of natural species, to an elementarily , though not fully dialectical conception. >Marx and Engels considered that he [Darwin] was using their method in >biology. Where does Marx ever say that Darwinian evolution is an application of Marx's dialectical method? ________ Charles: In his book _Ever Since Darwin_ in the essay "Darwin Delay" , Stephen Jay Gould says the following: "In 1869, Marx wrote to Engels about Darwin's _Origin_" (Get this Andy, this is Marx speaking) "ALTHOUGH IT IS DEVELOPED IN THE CRUDE ENGLISH STYLE, THIS IS THE BOOK WHICH CONTAINS THE BASIS IN NATURAL HISTORY FOR OUR VIEW" >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. All these quotes by Gould don't prove or even support Engels' claim that dialectics are general law in nature, society, and thought. What is the point of quoting Gould? __________ Charles: Andy, I am starting to think that you are incorrigible. These quotes from Stephen Jay Gould blow your argument out of the water. First of all you haven't denied that Marx and Engels said what Gould says they do. Second, Gould is the perfect one for this discussion because he is a recognized expert in paleontology or natural history. He is not a philosopher or social scientist. He has basic data knowledge about change outside of human history, in a discipline of natural history. This is exactly what we are arguing about. And he says Engels conception of dialectics is very helpful to him in his natural history science. I generally agree with Gould. I have never said that the "three laws of dialectics" have no application. They are heuristics that have their value, as Gould has argued. What I reject is that they are the general laws of development of nature, society, and thought. ______ Charles: Yes, you keep saying that. But now we find a major natural scientist says they are important in understanding natural history. _______ C. Brown seems to think that because I reject the view that the universe - the natural, social, and cognitive - operates according to a dialectic that somehow I have rejected dialectics, and the notions of quantity into quality, interpenetration of divergent elements, or the negation of the negation. I have used the concepts in my work. I have said Marx uses the concepts in his work. _________ Charles: Sounds like back pedalling to me. _________ >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. Vulgar materialism is a form of idealism. Realist have pointed out that some forms of materialism commit the fallacy of misplaced concreteness by seeing the structure of the world as only matter in motion, whereas the structure of the world is relational. Positivism is also confused with a realist position, when in fact it is idealism. Marx's materialism was a realist position that stood contrary to positivism. This is contrast to Engels' work. Engels took an a priori rigid dialectic and applied it as a positivist model to the world. That is vulgar. And it is idealist. ________ Charles: This is a good statement, except the ridiculous anti-Engelsism is continues. Engels' dialectic was much more relativist and flexible than yours. See Lenin in _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_ on Engels and the dialectic of relative and absolute truth. Your term "rigid dialectic" shows you don't really understand dialectic. _ On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Charles Brown wrote: >>"In 1869, Marx wrote to Engels about >>Darwin's _Origin'_: >>'Although it is developed in the crude >>English style, this is the book which contains >>the basis in natural history for our view.' Yes, this is true. Read in the German Ideology where Marx and Engels stress the importance of understanding the physical substratum, and how they assume this in their work. They never sought to figure this part out because they were concerned with developing their science of history, which, as they stated, is the only science they know. Darwin came along and provided the best explanation for the development of the species at a biological level. And so, Marx writes, Darwin's theory "contains the basis in natural history for our view." Precisely. But this does not say that Darwin uses the Marxian dialectical method in his theory. __________ Charles:Marx's theory is all of one piece the materialism with the dialectics. He doesn't mean Darwin is materialist and not dialectical. Darwin is using "our" (Marx AND Engels; you know he was talking to Engels when he said "our view") view. This does not say Marx believed that Darwin's theory was dialectical. It simply says that he accepts Darwin's account of the natural history of Man as constituting the natural historical basis - the physiological and ecological substrata - for the materialist conception of history. ________ Charles: Marx means Darwin's view is a form of dialectical materialism. ________ >"A common bit of folklore-that Marx offered to dedicate volume 2 of Das >Kapital to Darwin (and that Darwin refused)-turns out to be false. But Marx >and Darwin did correspond, and Marx held Darwin in very high regard." Sure. If Marx believed that Darwin's theory contained the basis in natural history for the historical materialist view then it would seem to follow that Marx held Darwin in high regard. >More importantly, what Marx and Engels admired about Darwin was his >materialism, not his gradualism. More like his naturalism. This dovetails with Marx's earlier writings. What Marx admired most was Darwin's non-teleological manner of explanation. >"The essential difference between human and animal society consists in the >fact that animals at most *collect* while men *produce*. This sole but >cardinal difference alone precludes the simple transfer of laws of animal >societies to human societies." Engels was no dummy. This is from Marx's earlier writings where Marx argues that human beings distinguish themselves from animals when they began to produce their existence. As for Engels comments below, I remember in first grade having symbiosis explained to me as "co-operation." As Gould stresses, "struggle" in Darwin is a metaphor. On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Charles Brown commenting on the dialectics of barley seeds and butterflies: >I think these are good examples. Not stupid. There is an elementary level >that may seem truistic but is actually profound. Andy ___________ Charles Brown
>>> Andrew Wayne Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23 2:54 AM >>> . . . need to correct some mistatements of fact . . . On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Charles Brown wrote: >I thought the examples that James F. gave in natural history and biology >fit the Engels model. . . . I welcome this as affirmation of Engels's >position . . . . I have long argued that aspects of evolutionary theory and evolutionary process may be described as dialectical and I was open-minded about this matter. What I dispute is Engels argument that the dialectic is the general laws of development in nature, society, and thought. I have never a priori rejected the possibility of any form of change being dialectic. What I have rejected is the view that all change is a priori dialectical. ________ Charles: So your position is that we just have to wait and see as each type of change comes up as to whether it is dialectical ? Has any type of change been discovered yet that was not dialectical as you understand Marx to mean dialectical ? What is it ? _______ Below, Charles contradicts himself. First, he says that >However, Darwinism is also classically Marxistly dialectical . . . 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. But then he writes that >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. In this argument we find that Darwin's theory is said to be dialectical in the classically Marxist sense. _________ Charles: The answer to your riddle, Andy,my boy, is that I used Darwinism the first time to include Stephen Jay Gouldism as part of Darwinism. And the second time I used Darwinism, I should have said original Darwinism not modified by Gould's theory. This was an equivocation of my use of the word "Darwinism." But the point is consistent for anyone trying to understand. _____ And the example given is Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium. But then in the next sentence we find that whereas Gould's theory is dialectic, it is more dialectical in the Hegelian sense than in the Darwinian form. The problem is that revolutions, qualitative leaps, and so forth, are Marxian dialectical (and the form is Hegelian). But this is different, Charles says, than the Darwinian form. So, the conclusion is this: Darwinian evolution is not dialectical. I agree. ________ Charles: The conclusion one more time, is that Darwinism is more dialectical than the theories of biology which prevailed when he wrote his famous thesis, creationism etc. But Darwinism was not fully dialectical in the Hegelian sense. You mentioned that evolutionism had been around for a thousand years and Darwin's father was an evolutionist. But if you look in any biology basic textbook , which will have a sketch of Darwin's biography, you will find that Christian creationism was the prevailing theory of Darwin's day AND THAT CHARLES DARWIN HIMSELF WAS A CREATIONIST UPON STARTING THE VOYAGE OF THE BEAGLE. The 101 text I just read says that Darwin was going out to find data to uphold creationism over a recent geological theory that held the earth's geology had evolved. The point here is that relative to his day, Darwin's theory was none other than a LEAP, a revolution, a qualitative change, from a metaphysical or anti-dialectical conception of natural species, to an elementarily , though not fully dialectical conception. >Marx and Engels considered that he [Darwin] was using their method in >biology. Where does Marx ever say that Darwinian evolution is an application of Marx's dialectical method? ________ Charles: In his book _Ever Since Darwin_ in the essay "Darwin Delay" , Stephen Jay Gould says the following: "In 1869, Marx wrote to Engels about Darwin's _Origin_" (Get this Andy, this is Marx speaking) "ALTHOUGH IT IS DEVELOPED IN THE CRUDE ENGLISH STYLE, THIS IS THE BOOK WHICH CONTAINS THE BASIS IN NATURAL HISTORY FOR OUR VIEW" >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. All these quotes by Gould don't prove or even support Engels' claim that dialectics are general law in nature, society, and thought. What is the point of quoting Gould? __________ Charles: Andy, I am starting to think that you are incorrigible. These quotes from Stephen Jay Gould blow your argument out of the water. First of all you haven't denied that Marx and Engels said what Gould says they do. Second, Gould is the perfect one for this discussion because he is a recognized expert in paleontology or natural history. He is not a philosopher or social scientist. He has basic data knowledge about change outside of human history, in a discipline of natural history. This is exactly what we are arguing about. And he says Engels conception of dialectics is very helpful to him in his natural history science. I generally agree with Gould. I have never said that the "three laws of dialectics" have no application. They are heuristics that have their value, as Gould has argued. What I reject is that they are the general laws of development of nature, society, and thought. ______ Charles: Yes, you keep saying that. But now we find a major natural scientist says they are important in understanding natural history. _______ C. Brown seems to think that because I reject the view that the universe - the natural, social, and cognitive - operates according to a dialectic that somehow I have rejected dialectics, and the notions of quantity into quality, interpenetration of divergent elements, or the negation of the negation. I have used the concepts in my work. I have said Marx uses the concepts in his work. _________ Charles: Sounds like back pedalling to me. _________ >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. Vulgar materialism is a form of idealism. Realist have pointed out that some forms of materialism commit the fallacy of misplaced concreteness by seeing the structure of the world as only matter in motion, whereas the structure of the world is relational. Positivism is also confused with a realist position, when in fact it is idealism. Marx's materialism was a realist position that stood contrary to positivism. This is contrast to Engels' work. Engels took an a priori rigid dialectic and applied it as a positivist model to the world. That is vulgar. And it is idealist. ________ Charles: This is a good statement, except the ridiculous anti-Engelsism is continues. Engels' dialectic was much more relativist and flexible than yours. See Lenin in _Materialism and Empirio-Criticism_ on Engels and the dialectic of relative and absolute truth. Your term "rigid dialectic" shows you don't really understand dialectic. _ On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Charles Brown wrote: >>"In 1869, Marx wrote to Engels about >>Darwin's _Origin'_: >>'Although it is developed in the crude >>English style, this is the book which contains >>the basis in natural history for our view.' Yes, this is true. Read in the German Ideology where Marx and Engels stress the importance of understanding the physical substratum, and how they assume this in their work. They never sought to figure this part out because they were concerned with developing their science of history, which, as they stated, is the only science they know. Darwin came along and provided the best explanation for the development of the species at a biological level. And so, Marx writes, Darwin's theory "contains the basis in natural history for our view." Precisely. But this does not say that Darwin uses the Marxian dialectical method in his theory. __________ Charles:Marx's theory is all of one piece the materialism with the dialectics. He doesn't mean Darwin is materialist and not dialectical. Darwin is using "our" (Marx AND Engels; you know he was talking to Engels when he said "our view") view. This does not say Marx believed that Darwin's theory was dialectical. It simply says that he accepts Darwin's account of the natural history of Man as constituting the natural historical basis - the physiological and ecological substrata - for the materialist conception of history. ________ Charles: Marx means Darwin's view is a form of dialectical materialism. ________ >"A common bit of folklore-that Marx offered to dedicate volume 2 of Das >Kapital to Darwin (and that Darwin refused)-turns out to be false. But Marx >and Darwin did correspond, and Marx held Darwin in very high regard." Sure. If Marx believed that Darwin's theory contained the basis in natural history for the historical materialist view then it would seem to follow that Marx held Darwin in high regard. >More importantly, what Marx and Engels admired about Darwin was his >materialism, not his gradualism. More like his naturalism. This dovetails with Marx's earlier writings. What Marx admired most was Darwin's non-teleological manner of explanation. >"The essential difference between human and animal society consists in the >fact that animals at most *collect* while men *produce*. This sole but >cardinal difference alone precludes the simple transfer of laws of animal >societies to human societies." Engels was no dummy. This is from Marx's earlier writings where Marx argues that human beings distinguish themselves from animals when they began to produce their existence. As for Engels comments below, I remember in first grade having symbiosis explained to me as "co-operation." As Gould stresses, "struggle" in Darwin is a metaphor. On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Charles Brown commenting on the dialectics of barley seeds and butterflies: >I think these are good examples. Not stupid. There is an elementary level >that may seem truistic but is actually profound. Andy ___________ Charles Brown --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
