Complexity and dialectics

[3dward]

I´ve been recently reading some essays about complexity and its relationship with Marxism, specially the dialectical materialism. I´ve seen people saying that the complexity is called to replace the dialectics and others arguing that dialectics and complexity can complement each other. Some even insist in that complexity has nothing to offer and that the whole thing is nothing but intellectual capitalist crap. I would like to know what do u think about this.

[Tim Redd]

Dialectics may be complex and complexity may be dialectical. The two overlap. Not everything that is complex has to do with dialectics and not everything that is dialectical involves complexity.

[ckaihatsu]

[T]he dialectical method requires focus on both [opposites] at the same time. It looks for a transcendence of the opposites entailing a leap of the imagination to a higher level, which (1) provides justification for rejecting both alternatives as false and/or (2) helps elucidate a real but previously veiled integral relationship between apparent opposites that have been kept apart and regarded as distinct.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Dialectical_method_and_dualism


Dialectics is constrained to only *two* elements at a time, and it requires conceptualizing those elements as "opposites" for the construction of thesis-antithesis-synthesis to work.

In reality those elements may not really *be* opposites in any meaningful way, *and* they may merely be slight / certain variations on an overall theme, among a *multitude* of *similar* elements. (Consider the demographics / characteristics of several cities of various sizes, as an example of a categorization problem that could benefit from complexity theory.)


Complexity theory and organizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_theory_and_organizations


Complexity Pages

A non-technical introduction to the new science of Chaos and Complexity

http://complexity.orconhosting.net.nz/intro.html‎


Order - Complexity - Complication - Chaos

http://s6.postimg.org/s8yqs5zhp/130421_order_complexity_complication_chaos.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/s8yqs5zhp/)

[Tim Redd]

Dialectics is constrained to only *two* elements at a time, and it requires conceptualizing those elements as "opposites" for the construction of thesis-antithesis-synthesis to work.It seems historically the concept of dialectics was about how binary (2 element) opposites drive the motion of a thing. However one could accept that and still see how other factors not directly one of the opposites associated with a thing may nevertheless also be involved in the motion of the thing. And from there one could also see that perhaps the opposites associated with a thing may not be the primary drivers of its motion. In addition many things are associated with multiple sets of 2 element opposites. Capitalism has many pairs of opposites, e.g. use value & exchange value; town & country; labor & capital; fiscal policy & monetary policy, etc.

Also I observe cases where the opposites driving a things motion may or do not necessarily cause a things motion to take a thesis-antithesis-synthesis trajectory. Sometimes opposites may or do cause the annihilation of the thing before it takes that trajectory. For instance inter-imperialist war may cause the destruction of a country before its proletarian revolution occurs that would have brought about a synthesis of the class struggle in that country. Or the opposites driving a thing may cause it to transform into something that is not the antithesis of what it was (it's not the dialectical negation of what it was; it's something else but not the opposite of what it was).

[RedMaterialist]

I´ve been recently reading some essays about complexity and its relationship with Marxism, specially the dialectical materialism. I´ve seen people saying that the complexity is called to replace the dialectics and others arguing that dialectics and complexity can complement each other. Some even insist in that complexity has nothing to offer and that the whole thing is nothing but intellectual capitalist crap. I would like to know what do u think about this.

I would say that a system can become complex through dialectic development. For instance, a (relatively) simple acorn becomes a giant, complex oak tree, a simple computing machine from the 1950s becomes an artificial, world-wide internet intelligence. Fully developed capitalism is a dialectical complexity formed from simple artisan guilds.

Complexity is a description of a static system, while dialectics is a description of the movement, the change, the development of the system. IMO

[Tim Redd]

I would say that a system can become complex through dialectic development.Agreed. On the other hand a system can become dialectical through complexity.


For instance, a (relatively) simple acorn becomes a giant, complex oak tree, a simple computing machine from the 1950s becomes an artificial, world-wide internet intelligence. Fully developed capitalism is a dialectical complexity formed from simple artisan guilds.You've stated these things and they may be true, but you have not shown concretely how that is true for any of them. You have not shown how dialectics made those things complex.


Complexity is a description of a static system, while dialectics is a description of the movement, the change, the development of the system. IMOSo when we describe how a modern day jet flies that is not a complex description? Or when we describe the process of giving birth that is not a complex description?

[ckaihatsu]

a simple computing machine from the 1950s becomes an artificial, world-wide internet intelligence.


I agree with TR's critique, and will also add that we should be careful in using the term 'intelligence' with the Internet (or in relation to any law enforcement agency, as well) -- 'intelligence' is about a *cognitive process*, while what's often meant otherwise is 'information'.

[RedMaterialist]

Agreed. On the other hand a system can become dialectical through complexity...

You've stated these things and they may be true, but you have not shown concretely how that is true for any of them. You have not shown how dialectics made those things complex...

So when we describe how a modern day jet flies that is not a complex description? Or when we describe the process of giving birth that is not a complex description?

Dialectics is a process, complexity is a description of something. I suppose you could have a simple or complex dialectical development.

Modern day jet flight is definitely complex. The process of its development I would say is dialectical. On a certain level all natural systems, birth, death, etc. are extremely complex. Is a human birth more complex than the birth of a fruit fly? Births and deaths are developments; where each begins or ends is impossible to say, at least according to Engels, (Scientific Socialism.) It's like saying that you can't describe the 2 hour flight of a jet accurately enough using algebra or geometry; but you can use calculus to describe the flight at any specific point in time.

The specific, concrete dialectical development of feudalism to capitalism is still not clear to me. How did a small town artisan become, in 500 yrs., a gigantic, world monopolist? One theory I think Marx developed is that serfs began to escape, or were evicted, from the estates; they showed up in the towns and, because they and their families were starving, they were willing to work for as little as it took to stay alive. Thus began the modern wage system and modern capitalism.

I still think that dialectical materialism is an accurate explanation of how things work. As to how it works in detail, the unity/opposite, transformation of quantify into quality, etc., I would say no one, Bertell, etc., has shown. You might say I have faith in the dialectic, it is my opium.

[RedMaterialist]

I agree with TR's critique, and will also add that we should be careful in using the term 'intelligence' with the Internet (or in relation to any law enforcement agency, as well) -- 'intelligence' is about a *cognitive process*, while what's often meant otherwise is 'information'.

Agreed. That is what I meant by adding the usual "artificial."

[ckaihatsu]

Modern day jet flight is definitely complex. The process of its development I would say is dialectical. On a certain level all natural systems, birth, death, etc. are extremely complex. Is a human birth more complex than the birth of a fruit fly? Births and deaths are developments; where each begins or ends is impossible to say, at least according to Engels, (Scientific Socialism.) It's like saying that you can't describe the 2 hour flight of a jet accurately enough using algebra or geometry; but you can use calculus to describe the flight at any specific point in time.

The specific, concrete dialectical development of feudalism to capitalism is still not clear to me. How did a small town artisan become, in 500 yrs., a gigantic, world monopolist? One theory I think Marx developed is that serfs began to escape, or were evicted, from the estates; they showed up in the towns and, because they and their families were starving, they were willing to work for as little as it took to stay alive. Thus began the modern wage system and modern capitalism.




I still think that dialectical materialism is an accurate explanation of how things work. As to how it works in detail, the unity/opposite, transformation of quantify into quality, etc., I would say no one, Bertell, etc., has shown. You might say I have faith in the dialectic, it is my opium.


The thing with the dialectic -- as with *any other* framework -- is that it's either appropriate to the (intellectual) task at hand, or else it's not. Nothing is an automatic-one-size-fits-all, because then we wouldn't need brains -- everything could just be fed into the 'dialectical engine', or whatever, and the correct conclusion would always result.

You're correct to call it 'faith' that the dialectic would be the most appropriate cognitive tool for *every* situation, and that it would always be applied correctly.





Dialectics is a process, complexity is a description of something. I suppose you could have a simple or complex dialectical development.


You're continuing to fall on the side of complexity only pertaining to *static* systems -- this is a mischaracterization, and I'll go so far as to say that complexity *complements* the dialectic, by recognizing that *several* main factors (vectors) may be in play at any given time. If the situation is *reducible* to just two main currents in opposition to each other, then the task is that much easier, but it's not always the case that it's so simple.

Moreover, one may want to *include* lesser elements that are important, though not as overarching as the class struggle, for example. Complexity theory inspired me to look at all of history in a new way, and I created the following framework to take matters of scale, or historical magnitude, into account:


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimage.org/zbpxjshkd/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/zbpxjshkd/)


[22] History, Macro Micro

http://s6.postimage.org/58kljbt2l/22_History_Macro_Micro.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/58kljbt2l/)


---





a simple computing machine from the 1950s becomes an artificial, world-wide internet intelligence.





I agree with TR's critique, and will also add that we should be careful in using the term 'intelligence' with the Internet (or in relation to any law enforcement agency, as well) -- 'intelligence' is about a *cognitive process*, while what's often meant otherwise is 'information'.





Agreed. That is what I meant by adding the usual "artificial."


Sorry, but the whole term 'artificial intelligence' is *still* a misnomer -- there are no *cognitive*, or knowledge-creation, processes taking place anywhere on the Internet. Information is either being shuffled around, or combined in pre-programmed, algorithmic ways.

Here's a framework / taxonomy:


philosophical abstractions

http://s6.postimage.org/i7hg698j1/120404_philosophical_abstractions_RENDER_sc_12_1.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/i7hg698j1/)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Complexity" in what sense? There is the legitimate scientific study of complexity - M. Gell-Mann has dedicated the latter part of his career to this for example - and then there is the cheap mysticism peddled by people like MacKenna and so on. Dialectics is not threatened by either - it is not threatened by mysticism because mysticism is crock, and it is not threatened by the scientific study of complexity because dialectics presupposes that material phenomena are complex and multifaceted. I am surprised that some consider dialectics "binary" - that is the ridiculous model of Chalybaeus, not dialectics. Dialectics talks about the contradictory tendencies, sides, qualities in material phenomena, not about theses and antitheses.

[ckaihatsu]

---





Hegelian dialectic

Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. Although this model is often named after Hegel, he himself never used that specific formulation. Hegel ascribed that terminology to Kant.[31] Carrying on Kant's work, Fichte greatly elaborated on the synthesis model, and popularized it.

On the other hand, Hegel did use a three-valued logical model that is very similar to the antithesis model, but Hegel's most usual terms were: Abstract-Negative-Concrete. Hegel used this writing model as a backbone to accompany his points in many of his works.

The formula, thesis-antithesis-synthesis, does not explain why the thesis requires an Antithesis. However, the formula, abstract-negative-concrete, suggests a flaw, or perhaps an incomplete-ness, in any initial thesis—it is too abstract and lacks the negative of trial, error and experience. For Hegel, the concrete, the synthesis, the absolute, must always pass through the phase of the negative, in the journey to completion, that is, mediation. This is the actual essence of what is popularly called Hegelian Dialectics.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Alright? First of all, that's a very poor presentation of Hegelian dialectics, even though Hegel at least tried to organise his system into triples ("tried" being the operative term). That's besides the point, though, since one can safely assume that on RevLeft, "dialectics" refers to the Marxist materialist dialectics.

[ckaihatsu]

Alright? First of all, that's a very poor presentation of Hegelian dialectics,


'Negating' it, huh -- ?

Niiiiiiiiice...!


x D





even though Hegel at least tried to organise his system into triples ("tried" being the operative term). That's besides the point, though, since one can safely assume that on RevLeft, "dialectics" refers to the Marxist materialist dialectics.

[Tim Redd]

"Complexity" in what sense? There is the legitimate scientific study of complexity - M. Gell-Mann has dedicated the latter part of his career to this for example - and then there is the cheap mysticism peddled by people like MacKenna and so on. Dialectics is not threatened by eitherAgreed.


I am surprised that some consider dialectics "binary"Not that I think binary opposition should be the last word for dialectical contradiction but *historically* notable contributors to the science of dialectics have spoken of binary oppositions. For instance from the Tao Te Ching we have Yin and Yang.

From Engels Dialectics of Nature we have:
"Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature...Attraction and repulsion. Polarity begins with magnetism, it is exhibited in one and the same body; in the case of electricity it...bodies which become oppositely charged. All chemical processes reduce...to processes of chemical attraction and repulsion. Finally, in organic life the formation of the cell nucleus is likewise to be regarded as a polarisation...the theory of evolution...is effected by the continual. conflict between heredity and adaptation."

From Lenin on Hegel we have:
"And Hegel puts forward two basic requirements:
1) 'The necessity of connection' and
2) “the immanent emergence of distinctions”.
Very important!! This is what it means, in my opinion:
1. Necessary connection, the ob-
jective connection of all the aspects,
forces, tendencies, etc., of the given
sphere of phenomena;
2. The “immanent emergence of dis-
tinctions” - the inner objective logic of
evolution and of the struggle of the
differences, polarity."

---- Sources for the two above quotes ---
1st) Engels Dialectics of Nature, pp. 211-242;
First Published: by Progress Publishers, 1934, 6th printing 1974;
------
2nd) Lenin: Prefaces and Introduction to the
Conspectus of Hegel’s book The Science of Logic
(I can't post links but PM me if you want them.)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

However, the examples Engels provides are meant to be pedagogic - and in any case they are both questionable from a scientific standpoint (even from the standpoint of natural science as it existed in Engels's time) and somewhat too Hegelian.

As for Lenin, consider that he talks about "all the aspects, forces, tendencies", never specifying that these must be arranged in neat sets of two. This is not to downplay the role of polarity as a dialectical contradiction, but even when a polar contradiction dominates the development of a phenomenon, secondary contradictions and structures can become important - consider for example the middle strata and their relation to the development of society (which is chiefly determined by the contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat).

[Tim Redd]

Dialectics talks about the contradictory tendencies, sides, qualities in material phenomena, not about theses and antitheses.In concurrence with you, Engels in Dialectics of Nature Engels does not say that dialectics is about theses and antitheses, but he does write: "It is, therefore, from the history of nature and human society that the laws of dialectics are abstracted...And indeed they can be reduced in the main to three:
The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa;
The law of the interpenetration of opposites;
The law of the negation of the negation.
All three are developed by Hegel..."

Negation negates the thesis into antithesis and negation of negation negates antithesis into synthesis (or negation negates position into opposition and negation of opposition into composition as Marx writes in Poverty of Philosophy). So here we find that at least as far back as Hegel dialectical philosophy refers to a thesis, antithesis, synthesis trajectory. Not sure about Kant and Fichte.

I myself do not think all things influenced by a dialectical contradiction of opposites take the thesis, antithesis, synthesis trajectory. Mao Zedong felt the same way. As far as I observe, some things associated with dialectical contradiction undergo negation and some do not. And some things associated with dialectical contradiction undergo negation of negation and some do not. A concrete analysis of each case must be made to determine what's going on.

Further, if by "law of the interpenetration of opposites" Engels means that such interpenetration of opposites exist everywhere and drives all development, I disagree with that as well. However if he is making the point that where dialectical sets of opposites do exist then they interpenetrate, I agree with that.

---- Source for above quote ---
Engels' Dialectics of Nature
II. Dialectics
(URL from Marxists archive provided via PM)

[Tim Redd]

However, the examples Engels provides are meant to be pedagogic - and in any case they are both questionable from a scientific standpoint (even from the standpoint of natural science as it existed in Engels's time) and somewhat too Hegelian.I disagree that either Engels or Lenin were simplifying. Lenin talks about polarity and these were notes for himself. And how hard would it be for either to simply say that dialectical contradiction may consist of binary opposed aspects or a set of 3 or more opposed aspects. Plus again *historically* there is Tao Te Ching. And from my readings of Hegel all that I get are polarities like nothing/being, object/subject, abstract/concrete and never the notion of sets of greater than 2 opposed aspects as dialectical contradictions.


This is not to downplay the role of polarity as a dialectical contradiction, but even when a polar contradiction dominates the development of a phenomenon, secondary contradictions and structures can become important - consider for example the middle strata and their relation to the development of society (which is chiefly determined by the contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat).Completely agreed. I have written the same and elaborated on it in Forward with Revolutionary Dialectics (2006) at the risparty dot org webs site. I'm just trying to set the historical record straight. Truly knowing the past will help us to better get out the new insights you and I agree on. Because to get it out effectively, we need at the same time to knock down the shibboleth statements from the past as espoused by even those we revere.

[3dward]

"Complexity" in what sense?

First, what is complexity? There so many things that receive this name that is better to say of what complexity am I talking about? Inside the complexity there are many aspects like the chaos theory or the systems theory but all they can be arranged in three main fields (according to the Colombian philosopher Carlos Maldonado):

1-Complexity as a science. This category contains the more specific ideas, like the chaos theory and the study of no-linear dynamics in defined systems.
2-Complexity as a thinking method. This one includes the methodological constructions that arise as a result of the scientific research related with the complexity. The “complex thinking” of Edgar Morin is related to this field.
3-Complexity as a conception of the world or “cosmovision”. This field comprises the most fundamental and general implications of complexity, especially those related to the nature and scope of knowledge. I would say that is the most abstract and really philosophical aspect of the complexity.

Of the fields above the second and the third are the ones related to my question. This means that I´m dealing with the “complex thinking” of Edgar Morin and the philosophical implications of the complexity.

The complex thinking of Edgar Morin is based in three main principles:

The holographic principle. According to this principle, the whole is inside each of its parts and each part is inside the whole. Not only the parts form the whole, but the whole can also be incorporated in the parts. Each individual, for instance, integrates the culture, the language, the collective code of the community she/he is a part of. The “holographic” term refers to the notion of physical holograph, were a single point inside the hologram can contain almost all the information of the represented object.

The principle of organizational recursion according to which, the cause generates effects and the effects go back to the cause and change it. In cybernetic there´s a similar concept called feedback. But the principle of organizational recursion goes beyond the concept of feedback as defined in the cybernetic approach as the process of self-regulation is not completely pre-determined but it can be adjusted by a process of self-production, so as to maintain a dynamic state of organizational balance. It can be represented via a generative spiral in which the products and the effects themselves produce and cause new products and effects.

The dialogical principle, according to which what can be opposed, can also be linked so antagonist or competing notions can be united without them losing their duality: they are all essential for understanding a same reality. Two antagonistic processes can coexist without resolving their inherent contradiction, thus giving birth to a new phenomenon.

These principles can be seen as a methodological approach to understand the complexity as a whole but there are not philosophical principles itself as it is dialectic. The complex thinking of Edgar Morin goes not beyond the realm of a thinking method so we cannot still oppose it to dialectics. To do so, we need to push them a little bit further into the generality and the abstraction.

To better understand this, we can see examine the evolution of the dialectic materialism, which is in the realm of philosophy, as an example.

Dialectics started as a logic principle, a methodological approach to the processes. But this logical dialectic isn´t yet a properly philosophical approach as materialist dialectics are. They are merely a way of thinking about a given phenomenon.

The dialectical materialism arises when the objectivity (meaning the material world, the one outside our consciousness) is taken into account. Dialectic logic, which still refers to logical, subjective processes, becomes an encompassing notion, a truly philosophical one.

This is particularly interesting as it is an example of Morin´s dialogical principle: two supposedly opposing notions as subjectivity and objectivity coexist together inside the notion of dialectical materialism. I say "supposedly" because from the materialistic point of view, they are two aspects of a same thing.

So the evolution from dialectical logic to dialectical materialism goes from a particular methodology to understanding the process to an abstract and encompassing notion that function as a philosophical principle. From my point of view the complex thinking of Edgar Morin still belongs to the methodological aspect of the complexity, they are still on the realm of the subjectivity. They were extracted from particular examples of science in a somehow positivist methodological approach. To become truly philosophical notion they must be taken beyond their inherent subjectivity.

The complexity, when taken into philosophy, at some points goes beyond dialectical materialism, as they bring a new and more encompassing understanding of the world. By saying this I don´t mean that the notions of complexity are superior to dialectics, because they are two approaches to a same reality. Moreover, I think that for Marxism is an impending task to take all this complex notions into the dialectical materialism, as a way to enrich our Marxist perspective of the processes that take place in the world.

[3dward]

By the way, I´ve been reading here definitions of dialectic that implies only two opposed notions, which is true when refering to dialectical logic, but it´s not when refering to dialectical materialism.

The Morin´s dialogical principle, on the other hand, does refers to only two opposing notions, which I see as a limitation and an example on how the complex thinking is still a methodology not true philosophy.

[Tim Redd]

By the way, I´ve been reading here definitions of dialectic that implies only two opposed notions, which is true when refering to dialectical logic, but it´s not when refering to dialectical materialism.
If dialectical materialism is not limited to two opposed aspects, why would that be the case for dialectical logic?


The Morin´s dialogical principle, on the other hand, does refers to only two opposing notions, which I see as a limitation and an example on how the complex thinking is still a methodology not true philosophy.Is Morin's dialogical principle the same or different from what you call above, dialectical logic? If so how are they different? How are they the same?

[ckaihatsu]

[T]wo supposedly opposing notions as subjectivity and objectivity coexist together inside the notion of dialectical materialism. I say "supposedly" because from the materialistic point of view, they are two aspects of a same thing.


Here's a treatment of the subjectivity-objectivity quality:


Worldview Diagram

http://s6.postimage.org/axvyymiy5/120824_Worldview_Diagram.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/axvyymiy5/)





The complexity, when taken into philosophy, at some points goes beyond dialectical materialism, as they bring a new and more encompassing understanding of the world. By saying this I don´t mean that the notions of complexity are superior to dialectics, because they are two approaches to a same reality. Moreover, I think that for Marxism is an impending task to take all this complex notions into the dialectical materialism, as a way to enrich our Marxist perspective of the processes that take place in the world.


Agreed.

[3dward]

If it dialectical materialism is not limited to two opposed aspects, why would that be the case for dialectical logic?


Is Morin's dialogical principle the same or different from what you call above, dialectical logic? If so how are they different? How are they the same?
By dialectical logic I´m referring to the subjective aspect of dialectical materialism. That means that when I´m constructing an approach to a given phenomena I can take only two contradictory aspects of its essence and work only with them. By saying this I don´t mean that in dialectical logic is an imperative to work with only two opposed notions. I´m only saying that u can do that when constructing a methodological approach.

In any case the notion of only two opposing things is a limitation because it would not correspond to the real essence of the process. Our thinking would become limited and unable to apprehend that essence. Surprisingly, this is actually what the rational method of science has been doing for centuries, limiting the reality to the desired aspect and then, once again, limiting the variables to only one or two. Complexity notion strongly criticizes this.

Dialectical materialism, like I said above, is a more encompassing notion, as refers to both subjective and objective aspects of dialectics. In this case, u cannot limit the essence of objective process to only two opposed notions, because that would be untrue. Dialectical materialism refers to the contradictory essence of the process that take place in nature, thinking and society and to their more general laws. The notion of only two opposing things cannot be used here because it doesn´t correspond to the real essence of the process.

Perhaps the origin of the confusion about using only two terms comes form the famous Kant´s antinomies, which were a starting point for the dialectical thinking of the German philosophers of the XVIII century.

As for the dialogical principle, its main difference with dialectic logic is the same that exist between dialectic as a principle and the dialectic logic, which is the result of applying dialectic to the logic, thus resulting in a more extensive concept that dialectic. Dialectic is a principle of dialectical logic as dialogical principle is of complex thinking.

It would be a mistake to try to compare dialectical logic with the dialogical principle, because they don’t pertain to the same category. If would be more asserted to compare dialectical logic with the complex thinking. Comparing dialectic with dialogical principle would be ok too.

That´s why I choose to use the title Complexity and dialectics for the thread. Dialectics implies the entire dialectical field, meaning dialectical logical and materialism as complexity encompasses all the three aspects of it. I wanted to include the whole field in the discussion, not only one of two aspects. Perhaps I should have been clearer in the title. Sorry about that.

[RedMaterialist]

Dialectics seems to be a method of investigation, or development, a philosophy, maybe even a science. But complexity....isn't that really a relative description of something? Like the complexity of an algebra or calculus problem...or complex music, etc. If you say that complexity is a science, then at some point you would, I think, have to say that this or that kind of complexity is complex...it would be like saying dialectics is dialectical, or science is scientific, or history is historical....you get to a tautology.

[Karlorax]

Dialectics is just metaphysics. Marxism is not scientific because of it, but despite dialectics.

[ckaihatsu]

Dialectical materialism is a strand of Marxism developed by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. The concept is based on Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics but shifts dialectical activity away from the Hegelian mental world--the world of mind or ideas--to the physical world, the material world of economic change. Strictly speaking, "dialectical materialism" refers narrowly to metaphysically directed historical change that follows dialectical rules. Loosely speaking, the term refers to Marx's overall economic theory, in which dialectics plays but a minor role. This theory holds that economic history progresses through many economic systems through a repetitive process in which each system's economic base changes and then the economic superstructure slowly and belatedly changes.[1]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism





Dialectics seems to be a method of investigation, or development, a philosophy, maybe even a science. But complexity....isn't that really a relative description of something? Like the complexity of an algebra or calculus problem...or complex music, etc. If you say that complexity is a science, then at some point you would, I think, have to say that this or that kind of complexity is complex...it would be like saying dialectics is dialectical, or science is scientific, or history is historical....you get to a tautology.


(Also see the illustration at post #3, regarding the following definition of complex systems.)





[Complex adaptive systems] are contrasted with ordered and chaotic systems by the relationship that exists between the system and the agents which act within it. In an ordered system the level of constraint means that all agent behaviour is limited to the rules of the system. In a chaotic system the agents are unconstrained and susceptible to statistical and other analysis. In a CAS, the system and the agents co-evolve; the system lightly constrains agent behaviour, but the agents modify the system by their interaction with it. This self-organizing nature is an important characteristic of CAS; and its ability to learn to adapt, differentiate it from other self organizing systems.[1]




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_theory_and_organizations

[RedMaterialist]

(Also see the illustration at post #3, regarding the following definition of complex systems.)


Aren't you simply re-naming dialectics as "complex adaptive system?" CAS, according to Wiki, adapt to internal and external "agents," and are thus able to evolve, avoiding the rigidity of the ordered system and the chaos of the dis-ordered system. Dialectics, on the other hand, attempts to identify and explain the process of this evolution and adaptation. Capitalism, for instance, is certainly a complex adaptive system. But, specifically, what does this mean? Capital exploits internal agents and seeks to turn all external agents into workers, which it is doing in China. How does the adaptive behavior of the working class cause capitalism to evolve and adapt?

A working class revolution, according to Marxist theory, will destroy capitalism, not simply aid in its further adaptation.

[ckaihatsu]

Aren't you simply re-naming dialectics as "complex adaptive system?"


No.





CAS, according to Wiki, adapt to internal and external "agents,"


Not quite -- there are no "external" agents, since all 'agents' are *internal* to the system as a whole:





[Complex adaptive systems] are contrasted with ordered and chaotic systems by the relationship that exists between the system and the agents which act within it.





and are thus able to evolve, avoiding the rigidity of the ordered system and the chaos of the dis-ordered system. Dialectics, on the other hand, attempts to identify and explain the process of this evolution and adaptation.


No argument on any of this, though I don't see why you chose to dichotomize the two instead of just juxtaposing them.





Capitalism, for instance, is certainly a complex adaptive system.


To an extent, though -- using the 'History: Macro-Micro' taxonomy at post #10 -- one could find that as an instrument of class rule, capitalism is *very* orderly and unbending.





But, specifically, what does this mean? Capital exploits internal agents and seeks to turn all external agents into workers, which it is doing in China.


Okay, sure.





How does the adaptive behavior of the working class cause capitalism to evolve and adapt?


I won't speak to this since it's a construction of *your* making -- if you have a conclusion of your own here, go ahead and state it.





A working class revolution, according to Marxist theory, will destroy capitalism, not simply aid in its further adaptation.


Certainly -- I'm not trying to use complexity theory as apologetics for the continued existence of class rule.

And, btw, here's a good example of complexity, from the realm of biology:


Interdependence of Plants and Animals

http://www.kish.in/interdependence_of_plants_and_animals/

[darkblues]

db

[ckaihatsu]

F.y.i. to everyone, on this topic -- the reason for taking complexity theory seriously as a methodological approach is because getting a grasp on where the complexities / complications of a system are allows us to potentially find the underlying *simplicity* of it all. Here's from a fruitful conversation and project from about a year ago:





Simplicity is essential. We want to enable others to see life's simplicity and not the mindboggling complexity that results. Triangle operators are to organize their minds according to life's few, simple rules and design complex programs and communities from that simplicity, as does life. Triangulators are going to "play God" and design surface complexity from deep simplicity, to echo Murray Gell-Mann's profoundly radical understanding of life's organizational process.

But our work so far is just preliminary awaiting a lot of continuing discussion, isn't it? We're trying to create the simplest, most popularly accessible model of life's organization we can manage, and it seems we need to discuss this a lot between ourselves and get other minds engaged, too.




"Living systems are self-organized, emergent, integrated, material wholes*
that exist in dynamic interdependence with their environment of other living systems and physical forces.

"As the triangle shows, the universal pattern of organization of a living system is that of self-organized matter network-patterned with its life activity.

"Life is a self-organizing, emergent, systemic process. The phenomena of self-organization and emergence are essential to life.

"Self-organization: living systems are structurally open but organizationally closed to their environment. They are environmentally interdependent and interconnected, but their internal organization determines which environmental stimuli they recognize and how they behave in response. Example: A flycatcher chases flying insects and ignores sitting bugs.

"Emergence: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. In this process, lower level components and systems self-organize to emerge into a new system with new properties and behaviors absent in the parts. Example: cells self-organize to emerge into flycatchers.

*There can be non-physical living systems, too, such as a mind that emerges from the self-organizing material neurons of the brain."


'Universal Pattern of Organization of Living Systems and Viable Human Social Systems'

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2548017&postcount=167


Also, a good outline of the topic:

http://web.mit.edu/esd.83/www/notebook/Complexity%20Theory.ppt

[Tim Redd]

By the way, I´ve been reading here definitions of dialectic that implies only two opposed notions, which is true when refering to dialectical logic, but it´s not when refering to dialectical materialism.The dialectical materialism of today should not be limited to dialectical contradiction as being two opposed aspects, but historically as I point above it has been based upon that belief. For example see Engels Dialectics of Nature and Lenin's Summary of Dialectics and On the Question of Dialectics for plentiful discussion of unity of opposites and mutually exclusive opposites - not just opposed but "opposite". And Lenin's Conspectus of Hegel's Science of Logic for mention of "polarity". Not to mention that Mao begins On Contradiction by speaking of "unity of opposites".

[Tim Redd]

By dialectical logic I´m referring to the subjective aspect of dialectical materialism. That means that when I´m constructing an approach to a given phenomena I can take only two contradictory aspects of its essence and work only with them.Why can you only take two aspects? It's a simple matter for myself and others to take (see and handle) as many aspects as are relevant to analyzing the phenomena.


By saying this I don´t mean that in dialectical logic is an imperative to work with only two opposed notions.But you just said it was imperative.


Dialectic is a principle of dialectical logic as dialogical principle is of complex thinking...It would be a mistake to try to compare dialectical logic with the dialogical principle, because they don’t pertain to the same category. If would be more asserted to compare dialectical logic with the complex thinking. Comparing dialectic with dialogical principle would be ok too.Frankly, I think you're making things hard for yourself by using the same prefix "dia" in fairly different ways.


That´s why I choose to use the title Complexity and dialectics for the thread. Dialectics implies the entire dialectical field, meaning dialectical logical and materialism as complexity encompasses all the three aspects of it. I wanted to include the whole field in the discussion, not only one of two aspects. Perhaps I should have been clearer in the title. Sorry about that.Taking the core of dialectics as a union of opposed tendencies, or where one or more union of opposed tendencies play a predominant role, I think dialectics (which to me includes dialectical logic, both of which can involve 2 or more aspects) may or may not be complex. On the other hand complexity may or may not be dialectical.

I agree with you that we need to incorporate more of complexity theory into Marxism. Part of that also means incorporating dialectics into complexity theory.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree [...] that we need to incorporate more of complexity theory into Marxism. Part of that also means incorporating dialectics into complexity theory.


Sure, certainly.

I don't see this as being a big undertaking -- I just conceptualize two elements / aspects -- among a multitude -- as being worth focusing-in-on in particular if they happen to qualify for being treated as dialectical 'opposites', for a dialectical process.

If they *don't* qualify for dialectics then perhaps they're better treated as *variations* within a larger multitude of similar elements / aspects, for use with complexity theory (and/or chaos theory, and/or connectionism).

Frame-of-reference, and the task-at-hand are of critical co-determining importance here, too.

[3dward]

(Also see the illustration at post #3, regarding the following definition of complex systems.)
This Wikipedia definition is problematic and contains several errors:

1- “Dialectical materialism is a strand of Marxism”. Dialectical materialism is not a strand of Marxism but the philosophy of Marxism. You may say that is the core from where everything else in Marxism developed.

2- “Strictly speaking, "dialectical materialism" refers narrowly to metaphysically directed historical change that follows dialectical rules”. Not at all. First than nothing, let´s clear the meaning of metaphysics in Marxism. Historically, this term is associated with the ontology, the study of the objective world, supposedly segregated from the objective world. But in Marxism, where there´s not such separation between the objective and subjective world, metaphysics relates to a type of thinking that is based on the conviction of the immutability of the world. This is the exact opposite of what dialectic thinking is. So is contradictory to speak of “metaphysically directed historical change” that “follows dialectical rules”. I think that it would be better to say (following the logic of the writer) “objective historical changes that are ruled by dialectical laws.”

3-“Loosely speaking, the term refers to Marx's overall economic theory, in which dialectics plays but a minor role. This theory holds that economic history progresses through many economic systems through a repetitive process in which each system's economic base changes and then the economic superstructure slowly and belatedly changes.” This refers to historical materialism, which is another beast altogether. Although dialectical materialism is the philosophy from where the political theory of historical materialism emerged, they are not the same thing.

4-U cannot say that two different things are the strict and the loose definition of a same thing because such kind of definition is untrue. There´s is not such a thing as “strictly speaking” and “loosely speaking” in the definition of dialectical materialism.

5- To all this I could add that the implicit idea of this definition is describing dialectical materialism as focusing only on contradiction. But this is an incomplete idea, since dialectic is more about understanding the process on their development, as way of approaching to their real essence.

A more encompassing definition of dialectical materialism is the study of the more general laws of development of society, nature and man.

As a matter of fact, I´ve found that Wikipedia philosophy articles are good as a debriefing but u can´t trust them for a more serious discussion. Of course, u may disagree with me on that.

[3dward]

Oops. The reply above was related to this post by ckaihatsu , a definition from wikipedia.


Quote:

Dialectical materialism is a strand of Marxism developed by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. The concept is based on Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics but shifts dialectical activity away from the Hegelian mental world--the world of mind or ideas--to the physical world, the material world of economic change. Strictly speaking, "dialectical materialism" refers narrowly to metaphysically directed historical change that follows dialectical rules. Loosely speaking, the term refers to Marx's overall economic theory, in which dialectics plays but a minor role. This theory holds that economic history progresses through many economic systems through a repetitive process in which each system's economic base changes and then the economic superstructure slowly and belatedly changes.[1]

[3dward]

Dialectics seems to be a method of investigation, or development, a philosophy, maybe even a science. But complexity....isn't that really a relative description of something? Like the complexity of an algebra or calculus problem...or complex music, etc. If you say that complexity is a science, then at some point you would, I think, have to say that this or that kind of complexity is complex...it would be like saying dialectics is dialectical, or science is scientific, or history is historical....you get to a tautology.
The funny thing with this is that actually, Morin itself gives a definition that seems to be tautological. In his article “Epistemology of complexity”, published on the #20 of 2004 of the “Gazeta de Antropologia” (“Gazette of Anthropology”), he wrote:

“The question of the complexity is complex!

In a certain school, children were asked for a definition of complexity. The answer of one girl was: “The complexity is a complexity that is complex.” With this, she had gotten the very essence of the question.”

If you examine very carefully the answer of the girl, you´ll realize how this apparently tautological response is actually one of the best definitions for the emergent notion of complexity. This notion has very little to do with the old concept of complexity (on his function of random, undesirable data and patterns) as it breaks completely with the paradigm of rationalism. The repeated use of the term complexity doesn´t indicates a tautology, but indicates a rupture between the old and the new meaning of it.

This said, I don´t mean that tautology doesn´t exist in some of the examples u put above. I´m only saying that in the complexity case, this apparent tautology leads to a very good definition.

[3dward]

@ Tim Redd

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3dward

By dialectical logic I´m referring to the subjective aspect of dialectical materialism. That means that when I´m constructing an approach to a given phenomena I can take only two contradictory aspects of its essence and work only with them.
Why can you only take two aspects? It's a simple matter for myself and others to take (see and handle) as many aspects as are relevant to analyzing the phenomena.

Quote:

By saying this I don´t mean that in dialectical logic is an imperative to work with only two opposed notions.

"But you just said it was imperative".


You´re right about this point. I should´ve said “That means that when I´m constructing a methodological approach to a given phenomena I may take only two contradictory aspects of its essence and work with them.” This way is closer to what I´m try to express. I apologize for that.


Quote:

Dialectic is a principle of dialectical logic as dialogical principle is of complex thinking...It would be a mistake to try to compare dialectical logic with the dialogical principle, because they don’t pertain to the same category. If would be more asserted to compare dialectical logic with the complex thinking. Comparing dialectic with dialogical principle would be ok too.

"Frankly, I think you're making things hard for yourself by using the same prefix "dia" in such different ways".[/QUOTE]


Well actually none of these terms are mine. Dialectic is a term that comes from ancient Greece and is has been systematically used since then. And as for the dialogical principle, that´s a term coined by Morin (see Edgar Morin´s “Introduction to complex thinking”). I can´t help but using dialectic, dialectical and dialogical since these are the official nominations for them.

Read my post on the first page about the three aspects of complexity and the three principles of Morin´s complex thinking and the use of each term will become very easy to understand. And for the record, I´m only using “official” terminology as none of these terms were made by me.

[Tim Redd]

Dialectic is a principle of dialectical logic as dialogical principle is of complex thinking...It would be a mistake to try to compare dialectical logic with the dialogical principle, because they don’t pertain to the same category. If would be more asserted to compare dialectical logic with the complex thinking. Comparing dialectic with dialogical principle would be ok too.


"Frankly, I think you're making things hard for yourself by using the same prefix "dia" in such different ways".


Well actually none of these terms are mine. Dialectic is a term that comes from ancient Greece and is has been systematically used since then. And as for the dialogical principle, that´s a term coined by Morin (see Edgar Morin´s “Introduction to complex thinking”). I can´t help but using dialectic, dialectical and dialogical since these are the official nominations for them.

Fair enough. However, I'll say this about Morin's use of the term dialogic. Given that there was/is already the school of dialectical logic that reflects the logic of what historically in modern times is known as dialectics, I think Morin makes a poor choice for the name of something he wants to define as other than dialectical logic. To me it muddies the water of the science of modern day and even seemingly ancient dialectics.

[ckaihatsu]

Also f.y.i., on the topic of intelligence vs. information, and on the complexities of 'intelligence':


Theory of multiple intelligences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

[ckaihatsu]

Also -- since this is obviously a favorite topic of mine -- I'll note that complexity theory can speak to the task of optimization, for *any* problem / context. Around political matters the question of how specifics are to be grouped, can be addressed, as for making generalizations:


Generalizations-Characterizations

http://s6.postimage.org/dakqpbvu5/2714844340046342459_Quxppf_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/dakqpbvu5/)

[3dward]

An interesting fact about Edgar Morin is that he used to be a member of the french communist party. I mean is impossible that he had not heard about dialectical materialism and dialectical logic. This is why I can´t still understand the reason of the limits of the dialogical principle. As a matter of fact, this principle seems to me just a direct ramification of the opposite´s law of Hegel.

If he knew about dialectic, why he just didn´t just used this term? His thinking is clearly derived from dialectic.

On the other hand, there´s is a clear paralelism between Morin´s principles and the aspects developed by marxist thinkers on dialectics. For example, the Engel´s holism is retaken by Morin ( I don´t if its on purpose or not) in his holographic principle. By saying this, I don´t intend to diminish Morin´s epistemiological contribution. I´m just pointing the fact that the complex thinking arises (voluntarily or not) from dialectics.

The most important thing is to remark the fact that both dialectical thinking and complex thinking see the world as an ongoing process. Of course this is assuming that the complexity is taken into the objectivity, not only as a mere method of thinking.

[ckaihatsu]

Came across the following YouTube user site the other day through a search for 'complexity' -- just started watching the videos, and they're a solidly good presentation of the subject matter.

Unfortunately, at one point, in this particular video, the (imagined) 'market' system is described as being 'bottom-up' with the 'communist' system depicted as 'top-down'. Stereotypes persist....


Complex Adaptive Systems - 3 Overview

09:15 into the video

IWhkUne8T68


# Complexity Academy


# Critical Thinking
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsJWgOB5mIMB3iyIqD0Z9huAIbdFV_tj_

# Blog
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsJWgOB5mIMA26HksyLWQGdwZ_UrUC2Gx

# Emergence Theory
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsJWgOB5mIMCioGvIz81PXXa22DZfRcsn

# Systems Thinking Course
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsJWgOB5mIMBinjH9ZAbiWiVxsizC5mU_

# Complexity Management
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsJWgOB5mIMC65HNmJmY9IuIWwTRba4Yw

# Complexity Theory Course
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsJWgOB5mIMDRt8-DBLLVfh-XeKs2YAcg

# Network Theory Course
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsJWgOB5mIMAuH3cHa-MXukX6-RPpDXgl

# Systems Ecology
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsJWgOB5mIMBrr2Wz0Acn23E67z1-Apos

# Complexity Economics
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsJWgOB5mIMCf7yNnXrHrtaBsa7GXqZAs

# Social Complexity
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsJWgOB5mIMB87pvTL9Jx5-FIywmJbFCk

# Nonlinear Systems Course
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsJWgOB5mIMDL4AVYAxG05IE3zL5Z9weW

# Complex Engineered Systems
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsJWgOB5mIMCJEYAgBOJQN4ZfYunCMZ92

# Complex Adaptive Systems
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsJWgOB5mIMCiKZu61rKFT_-TncWzylN8

# Complex Systems Design
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsJWgOB5mIMDxrvzexu1BhfBFygW9gby0