Trying to deal with "organicism" -- Left-Wing Discussion

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Sun 2003-08-31 19:57:03
Author: arendt
Subject: Trying to deal with "organicism"
In reply to: Redeye 's message, "Dealing now only with the areas we disagree on..." on Sun 2003-08-31 04:14:21

First, let me say, that this is a great discussion. I really appreciate your
hanging in there.

> A. ...basically, I meant that if there needs to be an all-encompassing
> algorithm, it should be based on combining analogies to reflect human
> society rather than assume that what's true for metaphysics, cognitive
> science, and computers is also true for society and politics.

Then we are in agreement. Combined analogies are "composite objects",
where a whole family of objects can be "composed" from a set of
more basic "objects" by some combinatorial selection of a subset of
basic objects. (Sorry for verbose definition, trying to be clear.)

> B. Evidence overwhelmingly supports Darwinian principles in biology
> with a few tweaks (genotypes, microevolution, etc.).

Just to be clear, I hate creationists and their ilk. But, simple-minded
Darwinism was a tautology rescued from embarrassment by the
discovery of DNA and the reading of the code. After 50 years, we
still have absolutely no idea how speciation occurs. Although some
people think it has to do with the matching up of the chromosomes
on the spindles during mitosis, there is still no known mechanism.
So, my claim about the proteome is as valid as any claim about
the mechanism, for now.

> C. ...If you define the self in physical, spatial, low-level terms, then clones
> are different because they occupy different points in space in different points
> in time; and if you define the self in cognitive terms, then clones are different
> because each has a separate brain.

This kind of argument has a strong sociobiological smell to it. While
what you say might be true for *ant* clones, it is hard to talk about
the "self" of any brain as minimal as an ant's. OTOH, to imply that
because the argument is not ridiculous for ants means that it somehow
applies to *humans* is the basic "bait and switch" of most sociobiological
argumentation about human behavior.

I have no gripe with the sociobiologists when it comes to creatures
lacking consciousness. But, when they try to apply their verbiage
to human beings, it just sounds like warmed over Social Darwinism.

> D. The equation I use between communism and organicism is the following:
> - Suppose the state is an organic whole
> - In organic wholes, the whole is more important than its replaceable parts
> (irreplaceable parts are things like heart valves)
> - In a large state, in which many people can fulfill the same task (in small
> communities there is often only one or two car mechanics, one lumberjack,
> etc.), every person is replaceable
> - Therefore, in a large organic state, the state is more important than most or
> all individuals, and even the exceptions are defined according to utility to the state
> - Therefore, individuals are subordinate to the state
> - Therefore, the system we get is communistic (it can't be fascistic because
> we assume that some form of humanism is correct)
> - Therefore, the system is the human equivalent to an ant colony, in which
> the whole is more important than the one and which has broadly communistic
> characteristics

First, I assume that you apply a similar analysis to fascistic systems promulgated
by business elites, and are equally opposed to their degradation of human rights.
Please let me know if you do not.

Second, remember my handle "arendt". Her analysis lumps both left and
right wing together under the rubric of "totalitarianism". My point is that
Stalin was no communist. He appropriated communist rhetoric, but he was
just a secret police thug and slimeball. Similarly, Hitler was no capitalist; rather
he was a failed artist and the leader of a messianic Wotan cult. Both Hitler
and Stalin were running variations of "state ownership of the means of production".

If by communism, you mean Marxism, lets analyze that. At the time he wrote
it, Marx's economic analysis was state of the art. Like most 19th centrury social
science, it has aged badly. I think Marx would have been appalled by Stalinism.
If you want real, humanistic communism, you would have to go back to the
16th century Anabaptists. These folks took the Bible literally when it said to
give away your wordly goods. Of course they were burned as heretics.

Bottom line, I still have no idea which of these many variations you have
decided communism is. However, I suspect it is Stalinism. In any case, your
use of the word communism adds no new info to the post, so I will just deal with
your issue that "organicism" makes people into replaceable parts.

In my view, the government is here to provide safe "sidelines" for the
economic game that is ongoing. These sidelines include protection of
minority and human rights, support of the old, infirm, and needy, etc.
All the things you want. Any "organic" model I might create would
value all these things highly, preserve the existing Bill of Rights and
extend it.

Methinks you make too much of the word organic. I am merely looking in
biology for ideas to make government better. Genetics and neuroscience
are the last two areas of real, *human-scale* science left. Both are investigating
natural information processing and self-regulating systems. Are you saying
I should ignore the only areas of science that might give us a clue how we
can stop the human race from committing collective suicide and taking most
of the rest of the ecosphere with us?

Furthermore, just as we really don't understand evolution (not saying it
doesn't exist), we don't really understand all that goes on under the
category we label "organic". So, please, study the operational details
of my proposals, and don't go ballistic about my vague characterization
of them as organic. I value individual human rights.

> Basically, I define a good structure mostly according to the first part of
> the Liberal Manifesto (up to and including Social Change) -

I'll google up the Liberal Manifesto. But, I doubt I will have any problems
with it.

> E. ...Second, politics already has a mechanism that suggests mutations -
> lobbies, bills, and other ways to introduce legislation. Rather, what we
> need is a semi-Darwinian mechanism that will on the one hand vet such
> mutations and on the other hand do it in reasonable time and under
> individualistic constraints.

This is where I get a headache. Darwin says evolution operates only
on species, not on individuals. When you say "semi-Darwinistic...
under individualistic constraints", are you saying you want a form
of evolution different from Darwinian, red in tooth and claw, natural
selection? I.e., you want Darwinism that isn't Darwinistic? I say this
because it is consistent with your objection to organicism. Is it correct?

I know that either in the VOY discussion or in one of my or your DU
threads, I have already compared political think tanks to transposons.
So, I agree that evolution occurs in politics.

> G. ... if the legislature is too strong, it will resist the president's emergency
> measures, whereas if the president is too strong, he'll be able to do things
> in ordinary times that the legislature would veto if it had the time or ability
> to do so.

This is the classic connundrum. Hell, organic nature has the same problem.
Its caught between self-preservation and cancer.

> H. I'll repost the debate on voting age on DU, mainly because this issues
> involves far more than designing a new form of government (and also
> because I can get the whole 18-30 group there on my side...).

Let me try to tally up the result of that thread as of post #50. I only tally
one vote for each poster who actually expressed an opinion about
variable versus fixed voting ages or about discriminating against younger
voters:

Post # name for/against age 16 reason

2. rusk2003 FOR younger are more liberal

5. kimchi NEUTRAL supports 18, no comment re 16
15. rogerashton NEUTRAL agnostic on age, wants awareness

16 LeftPeopleFinishFirst AGAINST he's 16, thinks most are oblivious
27. Pepperbelly AGAINST he's against 16
4. uptohere AGAINST back to 21. tried, it didn't work
19. ButterflyBlood AGAINST wants to keep 18

Post # name for/against variable age reason

3. diamondsoul FOR state at 16 fed at 17
21. goobergunch FOR leave age at 18, but "test in"

10. TahitiNut AGAINST wants ALL rights in one bundle

By my count, 4:1 against age 16, and 2:1 in favor of some variability. Not a
significant sample size. So I don't think it proves anything, one way or the other.

Over to you,

arendt

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

The Liberal Manifesto -- Redeye, Mon 2003-09-01 03:08:33
Re: Trying to deal with "organicism" -- Redeye, Mon 2003-09-01 10:56:46
- I agree with you - I need a break from all this debating -- arendt, Tue 2003-09-02 14:18:33
  - Right... -- Redeye, Wed 2003-09-03 23:20:44