Stephen Tompkins st265089 at
Sat Sep 16 14:57:57 MDT 1995

Hello! Just signed on the other day.
Pardon me for asking, but what does it mean to engage in a social
interpretation of Chaos theory? Is this similar to engaging in a
bio-chemical understanding of Freud's libido?  I mean, is this stretching
cross-paradigm analysis just a tad? (not the zucker brother's definition
of 'tad' in airplane II either!)
     I understand Jamal as arguing that "reality" per se is some
understanding taken posterior to a dynamism of force(s) - i.e. as the
end result of the chaotic process.  FINE. But to write that there is no
difference between Chaos Theory and Marxist dialectics or that they are
the same thing is an intolerance to the complexity of the claim at hand;
it deserves more attention.
     First.  One has to admit, that 'chaos' in Chaos Theory involves a
sensitivity to initial conditions - e.g., describing convection and
mixing in fluids, wave motion, electrical current in semiconductors.
This began, at least the historians will have it, with Lorenz in '63, the
meteorologist whose research showed indeterminacies in themal convection
of the Earth's atmosphere.  this is the mathematical scale that Jamal
wishes to avoid, but on the level and complexity of the physics of
Marxist-dialectics, it seems one would face massive unfathomable
exclusion with respect to such theoretical transgressions; taking a
neurophysiological reading of Freud would seem to be just as problematic;
how to translate? please, anyone?
     I'd be interested to hear more from Jamal on how these are the SAME
thing - If you agree with a chaotic dynamism, what constitutes the same
here? What about a semiotic reading?
     Chris Sciabarra, could you elaborate more on Hayek's notion that
there are epistemic strictures which prevent central control? you did
intend to use stricture, not structure, I assume.

Stephen J. Tompkins
ohio university
philosophy graduate program


     --- from list marxism at ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list