Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Stream and sequence….

November 1st, 2017 · No Comments

http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap3_5_2.htmStream and Sequence…

The previous brought in the idea of ‘steam and sequence’ which is perhaps hard.
But it resembles (without being the same as) the idea of feedback which requires two domains, like the ‘stream and sequence’ effect.
With a feedback device, the ‘stream’ is like the ambient temperature (which tends to decline) and the feedback device which resets the temperature given some input of heat is like the sequence. The feedback device sets a series of discontinuous temperatures in relation to the device’s setting while the stream is a continuous system in space and time. The analog is interesting although the two cases are different.
In the eonic model the stream is continuous history while the sequence is the sequence of transitions which are discontinuous macro intervals setting the direction of history, more or less…
If we find such a system in history ordinary sociological theory isn’t going to work…
We see the dilemma for the ‘revolutionary’: in history the stream is the field of open history, that of free agents. The sequence is a set of directional transitions which operate beyond free agency and set direction (more or less, more complicated than that). If revolution is associated with the sequence action then the free agents in the stream after the transition will be doing something different. But the analogy is not absolute and in any case a revolution is not as such beyond free agents, in principle. There is no inherent reason why the men in the historical stream can’t create their own eonic effect but human technology is far too primitive.
Here the analogy can be misleading: again, the action of free agents is more than able to produce ‘regime change’, so revolution as free agency is an open question. As long as revolutionaries create specific plans and programs the potential of revolution is there. But as we see in the Russian revolution unsuspected complexities can arise.
Let us note that this argument applies just as well to democratic revolutions and the latter are more than visible in the stream histories of many nations. So our argument is not final. But the screwup of the bolshevisk shows that revolutions from free agents can’t be relied on to produce a good result.
The difference lies in the complexity of the different systems. The democratic revolutions produced basically chaotic systems left to themselves while socialism demands a complex analysis of a social totality. The former tends to its won screwup and needs revolutionary correction. We have suggested making socialism/communism resemble the model of democracy, but with a more complex analysis of social givens.
The current climate catastrophe underway shows that capitalism left to itself is going to have an outcome far worse than any blundering of the bolsheviks…
We would need different terms to designate the different cases, ‘revolution’ and ‘*revolution’:
In the macro sense revolutions are side effect of a much larger transformation, with political, religious, scientific, aesthetic, philosophical, etc, effects in an integrated system. *Revolutions by contrast are a set of abstractions about regime change without any general cultural context save after the *revolution when a new society is to be contructed. we see that the two cases are quite different.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment