Rosa Lichtenstein
4th March 2006, 12:07
I posted an earlier version of this in response to Axel (1917, yeah right); but just to wind him up some more (an easy thing to do in his case -- he has a very short 'nodal anger point', it seems), here is this new passage, with his 'thoughts' immortalised in a footnote (easily too flattering a promotion for him):
"A favourite recent example is Steven Jay Gould's theory of "Punctuated Equilibria". Unfortunately, amateur dialectical palaeontologists have failed to notice that the alleged "nodal" points involved last tens of thousands of years, at least. This is a pretty unimpressive "leap" -- it's more like a painfully slow crawl.
Moreover, since no individual organism actually changes into a new species, there is no obvious object that alters in quality either, as quantitative variation mounts up. Of course, if we regard a species as an object of some sort -- perhaps stretched out in time, as some taxonomists do --, then that 'object' will naturally alter as changes accumulate, but it is an odd sort of DM-object that has to be put together by non-Marxists.
On the other hand, if a species is defined in this way as an object stretched out in time, then that object won't have changed. To be sure, that depends on how we define the object in question and how we depict change. It is no surprise therefore to find both these notions are left equally vague by comrades who quote this example. Which is probably why they think they can get away with it.
However, if a species is characterised in this way as a sort of four-dimensional 'sausage' (a manifold in 4-space), then even if the first 'Law' applied to it, it could not have changed through 'internal contradictions'. This is because such manifolds cannot change; four-dimensional objects do not 'exist' in time to change; time is one of their dimensions. Since everything true of this manifold is true of the whole of it, it cannot lose or gain properties or qualities. Any predicates true of it, stay true of it for good. If so, 'change' would now amount to no more than a subjective mis-perception (by us) of orthogonal hyper-plane 'time slices' through this manifold.
As should now seem obvious, dialecticians can only afford to view the universe in this way if they are prepared to abandon their belief in change -- or consign it to a 'subjective' view of reality.
Alternatively, if a species is not defined as a four-dimensional 'object', then since no single organism actually evolves, change to any species would not be the result of 'internal contradictions' once again. This is because, on this view no single thing actually changes in an evolutionary sense, whole populations do.
Hence, not only does Gould's theory not illustrate this 'Law', not even Darwin's does.
Also, since most changes to individual organisms are externally caused (they result in mutations that natural selection works on -- also externally), evolution is an excellent example of non-dialectical change."
Added in a footnore:
"It is worth noting that one particularly benighted dialectical-soul tried to respond to this here:
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46633
with a predictably subjectivist counter-argument:
"She [i.e., Rosa L] also does not understand that thousands of years are actually very short periods of time, geologically speaking."
Which is, of course, something that evolution itself knows having an excellent memory, and a good working knowledge of geology. The processes know when something is short or long, and speed up to make sure they 'obey' the 'Law'. How intelligent of them!
But, as seems plain, this is a subjective view that we have of the course of evolution itself. In that case, to describe these 'nodal points' as either "long" or "short" would be to do so from our perspective. From the perspective of the plants or animals involved, tens of thousands of years would not be a short time. The same would be true from the perspective of the natural processes causing these changes (they do not speed up at all -- molecules do not react any faster during these ten thousand-year long 'nodes', or if they do, DM-fans need to produce the evidence). So, for me to describe them as either "long" or "short" would be subjective too, and the same applies to these armchair 'dialectical-palaeontologists'.
Naturally, it would be interesting to see this 'subjectivist' re-definition applied to several of the other examples DM-fans regularly use to illustrate this 'Law'. So if a man goes bald over the space of, say, twenty years, because this is short in geological time, this would count as a 'rapid change', one presumes. But, what if the man is only thirty when he finally becomes follically-challenged? In that case, this would be a 'slow change' and the alleged nodal point would have to adjust to this new perspective.
And, what if some water were heated up very rapidly (either because its volume was small, or because the heat source was huge -- say nuclear explosion), and it went from cold water to steam in a few seconds, this 'nodal point' would be short. Compare that to say the same body of water heated up very slowly (say as a result of long term global-warming), so that it evaporated gradually over the space of a few centuries. Not only would there be no 'nodal point' here (in this case, the water never boils, but still it evaporates -- something that happens all the time, right round the world every day, as the oceans re-cycle water into the atmosphere very undialectically), even if there were, it would be a long and protracted 'nodal point'.
In that case, 'nodal points' themselves change (and without the intervention of any 'internal contradictions', it is worth noting) from short to long and back again, depending on the context. Unfortunately, this refutes Engels's First 'Law' for we would have a qualitative change to a 'nodal point' with no addition of matter or energy.
Either way this 'Law' is sliced, its own 'internal contradictions' always seem to kill it off, and quite rapidly. So the demise of this nodal 'Law' is ironically quite 'nodal'.
However, subjectivist conclusions like this are of little use even to dialecticians, for if we are now meant to refer to the whole geological period to record 'nodal' changes, then the massive 'qualitative' change from single-celled organisms thought to inhabit the oceans, of fresh-water ponds billions of years ago, to present day fauna and flora took place over a huge 'nodal point'. At this nodal point, the phrase "nodal point" must lose any sense it once had (if it had any), since it can mean anything to anybody.
And even if Gould's 'nodal points' (a term I do not think he uses, anyway) were as subjectively short as the above comrade alleges, during that period no individual organism undergoes speciation, since speciation is a property of populations, not individuals.
So the passing over of "quantity into quality" applies to no identifiable object in nature, so the 'Law' does not apply even here.
And readers should check; they will no doubt note that the definitionally-challenged comrade above has failed to say what the length of a 'dialectical node' is. Naturally, this allows him or her to add Gould's ideas to this Mickey Mouse of a 'theory', with no figures or data to back it up. Which means once again that it has to be imposed on nature.
An increase in the quantity of sloppy thinking here, but no change in its quality."
More details at:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm
"A favourite recent example is Steven Jay Gould's theory of "Punctuated Equilibria". Unfortunately, amateur dialectical palaeontologists have failed to notice that the alleged "nodal" points involved last tens of thousands of years, at least. This is a pretty unimpressive "leap" -- it's more like a painfully slow crawl.
Moreover, since no individual organism actually changes into a new species, there is no obvious object that alters in quality either, as quantitative variation mounts up. Of course, if we regard a species as an object of some sort -- perhaps stretched out in time, as some taxonomists do --, then that 'object' will naturally alter as changes accumulate, but it is an odd sort of DM-object that has to be put together by non-Marxists.
On the other hand, if a species is defined in this way as an object stretched out in time, then that object won't have changed. To be sure, that depends on how we define the object in question and how we depict change. It is no surprise therefore to find both these notions are left equally vague by comrades who quote this example. Which is probably why they think they can get away with it.
However, if a species is characterised in this way as a sort of four-dimensional 'sausage' (a manifold in 4-space), then even if the first 'Law' applied to it, it could not have changed through 'internal contradictions'. This is because such manifolds cannot change; four-dimensional objects do not 'exist' in time to change; time is one of their dimensions. Since everything true of this manifold is true of the whole of it, it cannot lose or gain properties or qualities. Any predicates true of it, stay true of it for good. If so, 'change' would now amount to no more than a subjective mis-perception (by us) of orthogonal hyper-plane 'time slices' through this manifold.
As should now seem obvious, dialecticians can only afford to view the universe in this way if they are prepared to abandon their belief in change -- or consign it to a 'subjective' view of reality.
Alternatively, if a species is not defined as a four-dimensional 'object', then since no single organism actually evolves, change to any species would not be the result of 'internal contradictions' once again. This is because, on this view no single thing actually changes in an evolutionary sense, whole populations do.
Hence, not only does Gould's theory not illustrate this 'Law', not even Darwin's does.
Also, since most changes to individual organisms are externally caused (they result in mutations that natural selection works on -- also externally), evolution is an excellent example of non-dialectical change."
Added in a footnore:
"It is worth noting that one particularly benighted dialectical-soul tried to respond to this here:
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46633
with a predictably subjectivist counter-argument:
"She [i.e., Rosa L] also does not understand that thousands of years are actually very short periods of time, geologically speaking."
Which is, of course, something that evolution itself knows having an excellent memory, and a good working knowledge of geology. The processes know when something is short or long, and speed up to make sure they 'obey' the 'Law'. How intelligent of them!
But, as seems plain, this is a subjective view that we have of the course of evolution itself. In that case, to describe these 'nodal points' as either "long" or "short" would be to do so from our perspective. From the perspective of the plants or animals involved, tens of thousands of years would not be a short time. The same would be true from the perspective of the natural processes causing these changes (they do not speed up at all -- molecules do not react any faster during these ten thousand-year long 'nodes', or if they do, DM-fans need to produce the evidence). So, for me to describe them as either "long" or "short" would be subjective too, and the same applies to these armchair 'dialectical-palaeontologists'.
Naturally, it would be interesting to see this 'subjectivist' re-definition applied to several of the other examples DM-fans regularly use to illustrate this 'Law'. So if a man goes bald over the space of, say, twenty years, because this is short in geological time, this would count as a 'rapid change', one presumes. But, what if the man is only thirty when he finally becomes follically-challenged? In that case, this would be a 'slow change' and the alleged nodal point would have to adjust to this new perspective.
And, what if some water were heated up very rapidly (either because its volume was small, or because the heat source was huge -- say nuclear explosion), and it went from cold water to steam in a few seconds, this 'nodal point' would be short. Compare that to say the same body of water heated up very slowly (say as a result of long term global-warming), so that it evaporated gradually over the space of a few centuries. Not only would there be no 'nodal point' here (in this case, the water never boils, but still it evaporates -- something that happens all the time, right round the world every day, as the oceans re-cycle water into the atmosphere very undialectically), even if there were, it would be a long and protracted 'nodal point'.
In that case, 'nodal points' themselves change (and without the intervention of any 'internal contradictions', it is worth noting) from short to long and back again, depending on the context. Unfortunately, this refutes Engels's First 'Law' for we would have a qualitative change to a 'nodal point' with no addition of matter or energy.
Either way this 'Law' is sliced, its own 'internal contradictions' always seem to kill it off, and quite rapidly. So the demise of this nodal 'Law' is ironically quite 'nodal'.
However, subjectivist conclusions like this are of little use even to dialecticians, for if we are now meant to refer to the whole geological period to record 'nodal' changes, then the massive 'qualitative' change from single-celled organisms thought to inhabit the oceans, of fresh-water ponds billions of years ago, to present day fauna and flora took place over a huge 'nodal point'. At this nodal point, the phrase "nodal point" must lose any sense it once had (if it had any), since it can mean anything to anybody.
And even if Gould's 'nodal points' (a term I do not think he uses, anyway) were as subjectively short as the above comrade alleges, during that period no individual organism undergoes speciation, since speciation is a property of populations, not individuals.
So the passing over of "quantity into quality" applies to no identifiable object in nature, so the 'Law' does not apply even here.
And readers should check; they will no doubt note that the definitionally-challenged comrade above has failed to say what the length of a 'dialectical node' is. Naturally, this allows him or her to add Gould's ideas to this Mickey Mouse of a 'theory', with no figures or data to back it up. Which means once again that it has to be imposed on nature.
An increase in the quantity of sloppy thinking here, but no change in its quality."
More details at:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm