What Works Depends Upon Conditions that Must Change March 16, 2005
Posted by Phineas in : Discourse, Psycho/Spirit , trackbackFred:
What works depends upon conditions that must change, therefore progress requires disruption of what works.
Progress is inherently anarchic, and anarchy is inherently progressive.
By “must” I mean both “should” for social/ethical/moral reasons, and also “will” in the sense that change is inevitable ultimately. Ethics can be seen both as a projection or imposition of social will, or as a disinterested perspective which seeks nothing more than harmony with natural forces. If result X is inevitable, acknowledgement of this fact is a good thing, and obfuscation of or denial of this fact is a bad thing. Regardless what the result is per se.
Conservative constraints on change are the enemy of this perspective. So are rational progressive forces, which seek to cause specific results. In either case, from the anarchic ethical perspective, the actors are obstructing the flow of history towards its inevitable fulfillment.
Al:
But why grant moral supremacy to so-called “natural” forces? Nature will seek its inexorable fulfillment without any help or hindrance from you or me. It’s neither ethical nor unethical to interfere, because said interference is just another pebble in the stream, really, just so much granite to wear down. And the interplay between man and nature merely produces a set of particularities characteristic of each historical moment. It need not be valued or lamented. It is what it is. Also, is it not natural and indeed moral for any system constituency to act according to its nature, as for an organism to seek to prolong its life in spite of the inevitable fact of its eventual death?
Fred:
Yes it is by definition natural for an organism to act according to its nature. Only acting against its nature qualifies as a repressive, obstinacy which hinders progress.
Al:
Is that even possible? And what is progress?
Fred:
Progress is the emergence of novelty in a system.
Al:
From what does it derive value? What’s so valuable about novelty?
Fred:
True, value is an assignment, not an intrinsic quality, so novelty is amoral, and so is progress.
Al:
No, progress is a value placed on novelty, by some system constituency which is favored by the novelty. Novelty can just as easily be lamented as valued. So while we might agree something is novel, we might not agree that something is progress. And if the novelty is favorable, then great, it’s progress. And if the novelty is favorable and therefore progress, how could you say that the previous conditions were “working”? From this point of view, change was necessary because something wasn’t working. But if it’s not favorable, then it’s not progress. Resisting that is reasonable. From this point of view, things are working, and novelty disrupts the order. How do you link progress as a beneficial form of novelty to the disruption of a satisfactory order, i.e. “what works”?
Fred:
“What works” is order, and order is just a state which may favor some and not others. Novelty disrupts this order, and yes, it’s true, the disruption is then more likely to favor those previously suffering from the prior order than those that order favored.
Al:
Why should this be the case? Is it not possible that some members of the state, let’s call them citizens, who are suffering from the current order, could suffer even more from the disorder some amoral novelty introduces? Couldn’t a catastrophe cause suffering across the board?
Fred:
Well yeah. But the disruption of the oppressive order is certain to create an opportunity for progressive change and reform.
Al:
And an opportunity for things to get much, much worse. Or not worse, just different. So different maybe that those who were either up or down previously are all fallen away, and new subjects inhabit the new order, complete with its unequal distribution of fortune.
Fred:
Do you really see no historical strands which connect such developments through time? History is always the backdrop for comprehending and evaluating the state of things. If things were just different, as though disconnected from their heritage, then sure, the idea of “value” is factored from the equation. Things don’t get better or worse, they just change. But this can never be the case. Any being with memory, with a social identity, can never experience a social order apart from a system of values.
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?