Showing posts with label materialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label materialism. Show all posts

16 Oct 2009

Departing Individuals. Creative Evolution. Bergson. Ch.1 Part 3: Organized Bodies and Real Duration



by Corry Shores
[Search Blog Here. Index-tags are found on the bottom of the left column.]

[Central Entry Directory]
[Bergson, Entry Directory]

[Other entries in the Bergson Creative Evolution series]


[Paragraph headings are my own. Thank you image sources. Credits are placed below.]



Departing Individuals


Henri Bergson


Creative Evolution

Évolution Créatrice


Chapter 1

The Evolution of Life – Mechanism and Teleology


Chapitre Premier

De l’évolution de la vie. – Mécanisme et finalité.


3. Organized Bodies and Real Duration

3. Les corps organisés




Previously Bergson discussed how material objects might seem to exist without being affected by duration. However, like all things, they undergo change throughout durations. As well, material things are never parts of isolated systems.


§ 17 Cutting-Up the World


Material bodies only seem isolated because we want to perform some action that is better served when we demarcate discrete beings around us. We would like to cut paper, so we distinguish the scissors from the table. Then we may handle the tool and use it. This feat that designates a certain body from the flux of reality is in fact performed by another body; it is our own body.

the body which is to perform this action, the body which marks out upon matter the design of its eventual actions even before they are actual, the body that has only to point its sensory organs on the flow of the real in order to make that flow crystallize into definite forms and thus to create all the other bodies in short, the living body. [12-13, emphasis mine]

Mais le corps qui exercera cette action, le corps qui, avant d'accomplir des actions réelles, projette déjà sur la matière le dessin de ses actions virtuelles, le corps qui n'a qu'à braquer ses organes sensoriels sur le flux du réel pour le faire cristalliser en formes définies et créer ainsi tous les autres corps, le corps vivant enfin. [13a, emphasis mine]

Bergson wonders if this body is just like the scissors or any other material body.



§18 Reproducing the Tendency to Reproduce


Our own bodies are at least in some way extensional parts of a larger Whole. So there is some aspect of us that is subject to the laws of physics and chemistry. Now, we can arbitrarily designate some part of the material flux around us as we did with the scissors. But we can then also think of it as being two blades. Our bodies, however, have parts that hang-together so coherently that it seems much less arbitrary to distinguish our body from the world around us. We are individuals. But other objects are not. To be an individual means

a) “being composed of unlike parts that complete each other,” and

b) performing “diverse functions that involve each other” (8bc).

Hence even a crystal is not an individual; for, it has “neither difference of parts nor diversity of functions” (8c). But then, animals and plants could fit these criteria. Later Bergson will discuss the difficulties we would have when trying to determine the individuality of organisms. He will explain that individuality is never found in a pure form. We find different degrees of it, and that holds for humans as well. This is because the vital properties of individuality never materialize completely; really they are tendencies.

A perfect definition applies only to a completed reality; now, vital properties are never entirely realized, though always on the way to become so; they are not so much states as tendencies. And a tendency achieves all that it aims at only if it is not thwarted by another tendency. [13d, emphasis mine]

Une définition parfaite ne s'applique qu'à une réalité faite : or, les propriétés vitales ne sont jamais entièrement réalisées, mais toujours en voie de réalisation ; ce sont moins des états que des tendances. Et une tendance n'obtient tout ce qu'elle vise que si elle n'est contrariée par aucune autre tendance [14a, emphasis mine]

Living individuals have both the tendency to reproduce and the tendency towards being an individual. These tendencies compete, and neither is fully realized. For, when we reproduce, part of us detaches and lives separately. That means there was an independent part of us, and hence we are not entirely individual.

Individuality therefore harbours its enemy at home. Its very need of perpetuating itself in time condemns it never to be complete in space. [14b]

L'individualité loge donc son ennemi chez elle. Le besoin même qu'elle éprouve de se perpétuer dans le temps la condamne à n'être jamais complète dans l'espace. [14c]

Biologists, then, would not be able to fully define individuality.



§19 The Coherence of Cut Worms


The complexity of life forms causes us to be mistaken about their individuality. We might for example observe an animal that breaks into pieces that then regenerate. We see this with Lumbriculus worms,

hydra,

and sea urchin eggs. [The image depicts urchin egg cleavage, which may or may not be the ‘fragments’ Bergson here references].

But consider instead if we tip a dresser and all its drawers fall out. We previously thought it was one individual, but now it is many. Yet unlike the regeneration of Lumbriculus worms for example, there is nothing more to the dresser and its parts than were there when it was first made. The dresser is an unorganized body, and so it is regulated by the following law:

the present contains nothing more than the past, and what is found in the effect was already in the cause. [15a]

le présent ne contient rien de plus que le passé, et ce qu'on trouve dans l'effet était déjà dans as a cause. [15b]

However in organized bodies such as our own, we begin as one being, and result in many beings through reproduction. Organized bodies are individuals because before dividing into fragments, our parts cohered into a system that was reproduced in the new being. So it may be difficult to find absolute individuals in the organic world. Yet,

life nevertheless manifests a search for individuality, as if it strove to constitute systems naturally isolated, naturally closed. [15d]

la vie n'en manifeste pas moins une recherche de l'individualité et qu'elle tend à constituer des systèmes naturellement isolés, naturellement clos. [16a]




Images from the English translation [click to enlarge]:






Images from the original French [click to enlarge]










Bergson, Henri. L'Évolution Créatrice. Ed. Felix Alcan. Paris: Librairies Félix Alcan et Guillaumin Réunies, 1908. Available online athttp://www.archive.org/details/levolutioncreatr00berguoft



Bergson, Henri. Creative Evolution. Transl. Arthur Mitchell. London: MacMillan and Co., 1922. Available online at:http://www.archive.org/details/creativeevolutio00berguoft



Hydra Regeneration

Lumbriculus regenation

Sea Urchin cleavage

2 Nov 2008

Summary of Alistair Welchman’s “Machinic Thinking”

by Corry Shores
[Search Blog Here. Index-tags are found on the bottom of the left column.]

[Central Entry Directory]


Alistair Welchman: “Machinic Thinking” in Deleuze and Philosophy: The Difference Engineer. Ed. Keith Ansell Pearson. London: Routledge, 1997.

Machinism is not Mechanism[1]. Minds are not mechanisms operating according to pre-determined relations, but are machines made of – and by – matter, expressed through intensive forces and their extensive effects. Engineering for Deleuze is not below the dignity of philosophy: Engineering is philosophy, because thinking is machining.

Efforts to engineer machinery have long been the aim of military armament. But Deleuze claims that war machines are not made by “royal science” but by nomad ingenuity: “less a matter of the materialization of scientific theorems than of patchwork and botching and bricolage and still somehow getting something right in the end, or if not, then not surviving to tell the tale” (213bc). Machines are makeshift jimmy-riggings spontaneously designed in the midst of raging battles, advanced by mad-minded experimentations and chance-effective gaffs and bozo mistakes.

Welchman claims that the more primitive notion of machine “reaches a certain apogee with Kant’s philosophy” (213):

“For Kant a machine is a system with at best only motricity[2] and not ‘formative force or drive’, and is therefore a system that acts as the ‘mere tool of external moving forces’ (Kant 1786: ‘Dynamics; General Observation’; Ak. 4: 532).” (221c)

In Kant’s definition, machines do not act by themselves but rather transmit activity given from outside it; in other words, they are not automatons, because they lack “motor force or design force” (221d).

In addition, machines have been stigmatized as dehumanizing and destructive, on account of their relations with rationalization, calculation, and Heideggerian techne (214a).

This dark vision of machines is seen in philosophy’s devalorization[3] of matter, which is defined negatively as what lacks in the non-material: “matter is motionless, lifeless, incapable of knowing itself, etc.” Locke claims that, “Matter by its own strength cannot produce in itself so much as Motion” (Locke 1690: IV. x.10); and Kant: “We cannot even think of living matter as possible (The very concept of it involves a contradiction since the essential character of matter is its lifelessness, inertia).” (Kant 1790: §73; AK. 5: 394). (pp.214b-c).

However, matter is also considered as “the pure (although unformed) act of Chaos” (214). Because matter in this sense is considered a threat, it is tamed with its mechanistic definition as inert (214-215). In this way, there is a “transcendent evacuation” of the term matter which empties it of content or effect. This subordinates engineering to epistemological, and the machine to an external force, and further, to a transcendent telos for which the machine is merely an instrument, and matter is made impotent.

But yet, matter and machinery seem to have something of an autonomy, as revealed by the fact that the engineering labs, and not the theoretical physics of academia, have produced the most striking and world-altering discoveries (215d).

Welchman claims there are two problems with Kant’s approach:

The first is that Kant fails to acknowledge the autonomy in the transcendental apperception. Deleuze says in Difference and Repetition that the syntheses culminate in recognition, “which is expressed in the from of the unspecified object as a correlate of the ‘I think’ to which all the faculties are related.” (DF 135). In order to synthesize any object, there must be a transcendental structure that presupposes the unified object in advance, this is his ‘object = x;’ and this yet-determined transcendental apperception is connected with a unified self, an ‘I think’ who is always the subject synthesizing intuitions. But for Deleuze, this transcendental apperception is not truly transcendental, because it is based on the operation of one same mind that is empirically given. For Deleuze’s transcendentalism of the self, there is not a unified I common to its diverse thoughts, but a developing self who is continually obtaining new incompatible features, that is, ever becoming something new.

The second problem is that the objects of Kant’s critique, World, Soul, and God, are not truly criticized, because they remain unaffected by the critique.

These two mistakes of Kant have the consequence that Engineering solutions to his machinistic problems become impossible given his subordination of engineering to science and his devalorization of matter. (216d)

Kant breaks from philosophical empiricism – which holds that nature is given – by claiming that nature is engineered, which implies that there is a unity of nature exterior to it, serving to define the transcendental. For Kant, desire is the “artisanal production” of nature (217a).

Here an engineering problem is posed: the way that nature is produced is understood by means of the application of pure a priori geometry and mathematics to nature. This results in technical machinism: “mathematically calculable science is presupposed; matter is thought transitively as the mere recipient of science; and engineering (Kant’s primary term is schematization) is thought just as the application or one-to-one mapping of science to its material object domain” (217b).

Nonetheless, Kant was unable to show exactly how science is capable of application, and was left always with an unaccountable “rebellious matter” which continually resists conceptual specification.

For Deleuze and Guattari, Kant fails to deal with the engineering problem of nature’s production by using a critique of machinistic thinking; what is needed is a “critique that demands that thinking itself become machinic” (218a).

This critique begins with a genealogy of the concept of matter. For long, matter has been thought inert, and “once matter is patient, and any capacities it appears to have must be referred elsewhere, then machines have become technical (aggregates with external sources of design or motricity) and engineering has become sheer application (of external sources of energy/design to material aggregates)” (218b).

By denying matter’s inherent activity, philosophy has refused to see positivity in matter and thereby repudiates immanent materiality. And because having already denied matter an inherent positive activity, when trying to do so, philosophy ends up endowing it with activities that were previously separated from matter, like consciousness, thinking, intelligence and so on. In other words, matter is not thought to have its own inherent positive activity (219).

This sort of critique is one that refuses to presuppose the constitution of the products when accounting for production; in other words, according to this perspective, what is produced cannot also be what did the producing, and thus material machines cannot have their own inherent force of production produce their very selves.

According to this theory, the functioning to a system is confused with what “impossibly overhangs systems and controls them from the outside”: in other words, the way a machine functions is not to be considered as being outside its functioning, like a hand turning a crank, for both the hand and the crank are part of the machine movements, as were the chemical energy of the body converted to mechanical, which came from the ecosystem, and so on; in other words, there is no closed system, and only when incorrectly presuming one do we confuse a machine functioning with something outside it.

But the problem is that matter cannot be homogenized, because matter is the explication of intensive differences. So there are strata: underneath extensive matter are a heterogeneity of irreducible intensive differences (219-220).

But even as intensities become extensive, these extensities themselves, on account of intensity, flee their strata or territory; they do not become inert matter permanently, but intensive forces come to shape them. This re-shaping of extensities by means of intensities is engineering or machining. It is for this reason that the Body without Organs is already machinic, because it is the product of the machinal intentive deterritorializing of extensities, while also becoming-machinic, because intensities as pure differences may cancel in extensity, but they are also implicated in themselves, which means they are never become exhausted. There is always another intensity within an intensity (220).

Thus there is no transcendental engine designer. What supports the system is the system itself. There are no “sky-hooks” as Dennett calls them, but just cranes which function as sky hooks. Cranes are machines sharing the same ground as the structures they build. The crane-hook and its construction are part of the same machine system rooted in matter and not in some transcendental support source (221).

It has been a mistake by Darwinians, Vitalists, and Schopenhauer to think there is an intentionality in the world: that genes mean to accomplish some ulterior aim, or that there is a will in the world. These are likewise sky-hooks. What drives the world is not ulterior to it, but materially immanent to it (221-22b).

Dennett takes this perspective further (than Dawkins), and proposes that even objects of human production, even the machines we make, are not human machines, but are products of the machines of which we are a part. We did not design our automobiles, Mother Nature did, by designing the human gene.

Guattari criticizes structural linguistics for being too abstract in that it allows all of language to be inter-translated on one strata of formal abstraction, but not abstract enough, in that it cannot represent non-linguistic elements on the same level as language (223c)

Deleuze criticizes the abstraction of representation as being too abstract, lacking “hands” that touch ground (223d). Deleuze and Guattari theorize that there are different strata of expression, with one being the “alloplastic stratum,” in which “not only is expression independent of content, but form of expression becomes independent of substance of expression” (224). On this alloplastic level, forms of expression become more autonomous, and abstract machines (for Dennett) become non-computable, as seen even in Dennett’s analysis of biological processes. Natural section is an “algorithmic process.” But it is a “heuristic” algorithm, and hence is non-computable. Also, natural selection involves randomness, which defies computational logic; and, this algorithm is not designed for anything in particular.

Machines deterritorialize when they become more abstract by spilling over into new implementations. So when human thought – which is the deterritorialization of carbon genetic replication into neural pattern replication – invents computational replication, or artificial life, this is again another spilling over of machine engineering. Hence contemporary AI efforts are Deleuzean engineering: “deterritorialized intelligence and life implemented in new media.” For Welchman, this is a “new alliance between Deleuze's machinic thinking and Anglo-American analytic engineering philosophy” (225d).

Thus Deleuze's philosophy should not be reduced to a tool for the humanities to produce critical texts. For Deleuze and Guatarri, machines are not literary tropes, but really are machines (226c).





[1] OED Mechanism, def.4: Philos. The opinion or doctrine that all natural (esp. biological or mental) phenomena can be explained with reference to mechanical or chemical processes.

[2] OED: motricity: Motor function; the faculty or power of movement by the body or a body part.

[3] OED: devalorize: trans. To lower the value of; to devalue. Hence devalori{sm}zation.