I wrote: >>If I remember correctly, Levins and Lewontin's discussion in THE DIALECTICAL BIOLOGIST does not employ the concept of contradictions to understand non-human nature. So we might say that there are _no_ contradictions (structurally-based conflicts) within non-human nature, a pretty large qualitative difference. << Bill B writes: >If I read it correctly (I don't have it, so someone correct me if I'm wrong) they are on the other side, i.e. with Engels, that nature, matter IS dialectical, IS contradiction. < To quote an old Saturday Night Live routine, with Phil Hartman playing Ed McMahan, "You are right, sir!" "For us, contradiction is not only epistemic and political, but ontological in the broadest sense. Contradictions between forces are everywhere in nature, not only in human social institutions. This tradition of dialectics goes back to Engels ....neither Engels' factual errors not the rigidity of idealist dialectics changes the fact that opposing forces lie at the base of the evolving physical and biological world. "Things change because of the actions of opposing forces on them, and things are in the way because of the temporary balance of opposing forces. In the early days of biology an inertial view prevailed: nerve cells were at rest until stimulated by other nerve cells and ultimately by sensory excitation. ... Nature was at equilibrium unless perturbed. Later it was recognized that nerve impulses act both to excite and to inhibit the firing of other nerves, so that the state of a system depends on the network of opposing stimuli, and that network can generate spontaneous activity... "The dialectical view insists that persistence and equilibrium are not the natural state of things but require explanation, which must be sought in the actions of the opposing forces. ..." (p. 279-80) "Contradiction also means the existence of opposing principles (rather than processes) which, taken together, have very different implications or consequences then [sic] they would have if taken separately." (p. 285) However, it might be argued that the dynamic contradictions within nature that they see are qualitatively different from those within human society, because the latter involve conscious striving, so that issues of consciousness and ideology arise. (This was my basic point, even though I said it poorly.) Among other things, creatures in nonhuman nature don't seem to consciously strive to change the environment (even though they have the effect of doing so). The worst of architects vs. the best of bees, after all! The other thing is that internal "contradictions in nature" do not involve the possibility of causing a structural change which qualitatively alters either the total structure of natural systems or the basic laws of motion of nonhuman nature. In Marx, the class contradictions of capitalism involve the possibility of abolishing classes and therefore the dynamics of human society. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. Ground troops make things worse. US/NATO out of Serbia!
