Book of Secrets
16-11-01 -- Summary of Essay Eleven Part One -- The Mysterious "Totality"
These are Introductory Essays, which have been written for those who find the main Essays either too long, or too difficult. They do not pretend to be comprehensive since they are simply summaries of the core ideas presented at this site. Most of the supporting evidence and argument found in each of the main Essays has been omitted. Anyone wanting more details, or who would like to examine my arguments and evidence in full, should consult the Essay for which each is a précis. [In this particular case, that can be found here.]
Essay Eleven Part One is concerned mainly with the word "Totality" applied to the natural world. The application of holist ideas to human history and social development will not be called into question here, or anywhere else for that matter by the present author.
Abbreviations Used At This Site
So, What Is It?
Hamlet Without The Prince
Imagine, if you will, Hamlet without the Prince, or at least without a single description of 'him' -- such as, whether 'he' is indeed a Prince, male or female, or even whether 'he' is a human being. Questions would rightly be asked about what that character's role could possibly be in a play supposedly about 'him', just as they would be asked about the competence of its author, William Shakespeare.
Fortunately, we need not so indulge our fancies.
But, imagine now, if you can, a theory that tells us, among other things: (1) that it is the "world-view" of the proletariat, (2) that it is the general theory of all that exists and how it changes, (3) that everything is interconnected in something called the "Totality", and (4) that this notion is a centrally-important concept of that theory, to such an extent that nothing can be understood without it.
Imagine, too, the unlikely event that every one of its theorists studiously refused to say what this "Totality" actually is, or what those interconnections are --, or even how they know so much about such a perennially empty notion.
Imagine no more! For that theory is DIM, and those theorists are dialecticians --, and they are world champion prevaricators.
[DIM = Dialectical Marxism; DM = Dialectical Materialism.]
If you still have doubts, I invite you to search through their writings; even if you are the slightest bit interested, you will find precious little to help you decide what DIM is actually about, for its most avid supporters have yet to tell anyone (least of all one another) what their mysterious "Totality" actually is.
So, this is not so much Hamlet without the Prince, as it is Hamlet without the, er...well, what?
Indeed, over the last twenty years or, I have made it a point of asking the many DM-fans I know, or have met, what they think the "Totality" is. Most were either slightly puzzled or somewhat miffed that I even dared to ask such an impertinent question. Some responded with "Nature, what else?", but refused to say anymore (perhaps because, as we will soon discover, there is no more to be said). Others gestured airily toward the heavens and said "All that!", rather like parents who try to explain to little children where 'God' is with an "He's up there, in heaven", wafting their hands vaguely upwards. Still others confessed they did not know, but declared that they still believed in it, just like those tiny children with hand-waving parents.
Now, readers of a more kindly disposition might be tempted to respond thus: "This cannot be so. Surely someone has specified clearly what the DIM-"Totality" is. After all, dialecticians have had at least 150 years to come up with something!"
To be sure, a few of the DIM-faithful have offered the world a handful of vague ideas, casually linking them to that mysterious being, the "Totality" --, but beyond that, they have sat on their hands or looked the other way.
I suspect these guys could prevaricate for their country.
In fact, dialecticians are remarkably coy about the "Totality", and it is not difficult to see why: there isn't one.
Or rather: there is in fact no way of referring to whatever it is they think they want to refer to.
The "It's Everything" Gambit
At this point, some might be tempted to respond with the "Everything" ploy (as in "Sod it, it is perfectly clear what that the "Totality" is: it is everything!").
Unfortunately, that reply would be of no use either since it would simply prompt this further annoying question: "And what does that include?" And as we will also discover, there is no way to answer this query that does not sink DM one millimetre per second slower than it does Theology. More on that presently.
Well, What Do The Dialectical Prophets Say?
The short answer is "Not a lot"; the long answer is "Not a lot." A selection of the vague sorts of things they have said can be found in Essay Eleven Part One, here and here.
A few years ago, Martin Jay published an excellent book (called Marxism And Totality. The Adventures Of A Concept From Lukács To Habermas [Jay (1984)]), but in over 500 pages he managed to avoid telling us what the title of his book was actually about.
To be sure, in Chapter One, Jay very usefully summarised classic and early modern Holist theories of nature and society, but those theories were themselves equally vague. And despite the fact that he found little material in the DM-classics (or in the writings of 'systematic' and other academic dialecticians) to help him, Jay simply ducked the question whether Greek and early modern ideas of nature, or of 'the Whole', were the same as, or were different from each other --, or, indeed, were the same as, or were different from the DM-"Totality".
In fact, how would we be able to tell?
How would it be possible for anyone to decide whether Hegel's ideas in this area were the same as, say, Plato's? Or those of Plotinus? Or, those of the "Wholes" that feature in most mystical systems -- in fact, in all of them -- that use similar-looking language?
Now, if the use of certain words, which boast similar letters, were enough to identify the items so depicted, we would be able to conclude that, for example, Plato's "Forms" were the same as those complicated sheets of paper you have to fill in to get a driving licence.
And, does anyone have an identikit picture of the "Totality" which allows them to pick this mysterious object out in a Cosmic line-up? Has anyone seen its likeness in the sand, in the clouds, or on Mars --, as some claim to have seen of Jesus or Mary?
Indeed, what is the criterion of identity for mystical Totalities?
Of course, this puzzle is not helped at all by the fact that none of the ancients were all that specific -- and neither were the mystics, for obvious reasons. After all, a crystal clear mystic would lose his/her licence to confuse!
But, of the lot, the Dialectical Mystics are the most vague. Prevarication taken way beyond the call of duty.
So, this is not so much a line-up as a Dialectical-Mystery tour.
The rest of Jay's book is devoted to expounding what various prolix and eminently incomprehensible DM-authors thought about history, society, and the economy as sub-"totalities". But, as far as can be determined, the "Totality" itself is conspicuous by its universal absence from Jay's book. Now that in itself is quite remarkable; in fact it is decidedly odd -- just as odd in fact as if Darwin had forgotten to mention natural selection, or had omitted all talk of species in his masterpiece, Origin.
This is not to pick on Jay, since his book is an excellent guide in this area -- a sort of Dialectician's Alice, as it were. To be sure, if anyone wants to know what modern day DIMs think of social wholes (albeit, expressed in what looks like an obscure Venusian dialect), this is the book to consult.
However, we still missing the Prince of Denmark.
Some in the audience are getting restless.
They want their money back...
Where The Shoe Originally Pinched
Now, this project began years back as a lengthy review of John Rees's book The Algebra Of Revolution [Rees (1998a), or TAR], which, for all its faults, is widely influential in one of the most geographically-extensive Trotskyist tendencies on the planet (the IST). In that case, it is well-placed to do real harm. Moreover, since Rees is one of the most recent DM-authors to put the "Totality" at the centre of his thought --, it seems reasonable to start with his account.
TAR Bottles It
In view of the foregoing, it is no surprise therefore to find that even though Rees clearly believes that the "Totality" is a centrally-important DM-concept [Rees (1998a), pp.5-8], and apart from a few rather vague gestures at defining this term, he never really tells us what it is!
One of the only attempts made in TAR to explain this notion is the following:
"Totality refers to the insistence that the various seemingly separate elements of which the world is composed are in fact related to each other." [Rees (1998a), p.5.]
This passage does not appear to be worded correctly, for it tells us that the "Totality" is in fact an "insistence".
Can this be what "everything" is: an "insistence"?
Is this what the Big Bang ushered forth? An ever-expanding "insistence"?
Moreover, if the "Totality" were an "insistence", it would have to be foisted on nature, something DM-theorists like Rees tell us they never do.
Defining The Indefinable
When pressed, dialecticians sometimes appeal to "nature" (or perhaps "the Universe") as a physical embodiment of the "Totality", but this is of little help. As we will soon see, such vague gestures allow in far too many things one would normally prefer to keep out. However, one thing DM-theorists all seem to agree on is that this "Totality" is an integrated whole in which everything is interconnected. On that, see here.
Nevertheless, an examination of the dialectical Holy Books will fail to tell the curious reader whether or not the "Totality" includes the past. The past is surely part of nature, and the universe, one supposes. But, on the other hand, the past does not exist (except for those with a novel understanding of the word "exist"). And yet, if the past is included as part of the "Totality", then the latter must surely contain many things that do not exist. This might make it difficult to explain how everything in the "Totality" is interconnected. Clearly, no matter how big the Universe now is, most things that have featured in it at some point did so in the past. If so, items in the present "Totality" must be interconnected with far more non-existent things than existents. The word "interconnected" would then become rather difficult to account for in physical terms.
If now it is responded that the past is interconnected with the present because of certain processes that stretch into the past, then that would mean that while those processes are indeed connected with things in the past, the past is not actually interconnected with the present (unless we allow 'backwards' causation, where the present is back-connected with the non-existent past). At best, this would mean that the vast bulk of the "Totality" is not interconnected, as we were led to believe.
On the other hand, if the past is said to exist (as part of a sort of Einsteinian four-dimensional manifold) then that would scupper the dialectical belief in change. This is because there is no objective change in such a world. On this view, change is merely the result of our subjective perception of how successive orthogonal hyperplane slices through this manifold seem to be related to one another.
And even if that is rejected, then most of the Totality would still be changeless. If the past does exist somehow, it could not change (into what?). That would mean that the vast bulk of the "Totality" would be frozen like Plato's Forms.
Alternatively, if the existence of the past is rejected, then dialecticians might find it difficult to account for the present. How can anything non-existent create all that now exists? That would be worse than believing in 'God'.
Of course, the same sort of problems afflict the "Totality" in relation to the both present and the future. Given that the present lasts only a moment (easily less than a yocto second, i.e., 10-24 seconds), it is surely far too ephemeral to be interconnected with anything -- if the "Totality" consists of only the present state of the Universe. It is hard to see how such a ghostly entity could account for anything. And if the present is indeed interconnected with something, what is it? As we saw, it can't be the past; that does not exist. It can't be the future either, for the same reason.
It rather looks like the DM-"Totality" is even less substantial than the Cheshire Cat's smile.
[Possible responses to these and other objections are considered in detail in Essay Eleven, Part One.]
Furthermore, the word "everything" is a little too loose a word to use in political company, since it would allow the "Totality" to contain some rather odd items. [On this see below.]
Leave It To Science?
Some might want to refer us to scientists to tell us what the "Totality" is or what it contains; but that might not be such a good idea. If we naively relied on what scientists have at some point or other told us exists then the "Totality" would contain things like Caloric, Phlogiston, Piltdown Man and the Crystalline Spheres (as well as numerous other peculiar objects and processes scientists used to swear once existed).
On the other hand, if the "Totality" does not contain these things (any longer?) then either (1) the "Totality" must have changed in the past in line with our ideas about it, or (2) scientists shouldn't be allowed the sole right to decide what its contents are.
But, if scientists are now denied exclusive rights in this area, then one can only sympathise with the poor comrade who has to sit on the 'revolutionary selection panel' charged with deciding whether any of the following belong to the "Totality", or not:
Vacua, mirages, illusions, holes, surfaces, corners, shadows, the 'Unconscious', mirror and lens images, para-reflections, the perspectival properties of bodies, phantom limbs, dreams, rainbows, refractions, pains, hallucinations, memories, the mysterious powers of the echeneis fish, emotions, the Ether, N Rays, The Odic Force, Orgone, the Fifth Force, Bioenergy, Polywater, Superstrings, branched time zones, Axions, Branes, the Higgs Boson, virtual particles, particles themselves, selfish genes, I.Q., race, Morphogenic Fields, homeopathic phenomena, 'Mitochondrial Eve', the Placebo effect, gravitons, tachyons, Gaia, singularities, geodesics, gravitational waves, electrons travelling 'backward' in time, magnetic monopoles, tetraneutrons, phase space, photinos, dark matter, the Field, world-lines, Strange Attractors, Cold Fusion, MACHOs, WIMPs, spinors, the future, the past and the specious present. [References to what many of these are can be found in Essay Eleven Part One, here.]
However, without such a panel, the DM-"Totality" would be as Ideal as Hegel's Absolute ever was (or it would largely be empty). On the other hand, even with such a panel, the "Totality" would be sensitive to human choice -- and thus as conventional as other areas of science are.
Moreover, if Lenin is right and all knowledge is provisional (and it is worth recalling here that Lenin himself described the existence of the Ether as "objective" [Lenin (1972), pp.50, 312, 314, 329]), then the "Totality" would have to change whenever its contents list was revised (as indeed it might have to do soon, given the fact that the Higgs Boson is barely clinging onto its theoretical life right now, as it seems is 'Dark Matter', too). Naturally, that will mean that the supposedly objective "Totality" must change in line with the decisions we take, making it even more identical to Hegel's Absolute. On the other hand, if the "Totality" does not change in line with our decisions about it, what on earth is it?
The Dialectic In Wonderland
But worse, if we can't decide on what basis to include or exclude things from this avowedly contradictory "Totality", then perhaps it includes things that not only do not exist, but things that cannot exist?
This latest possibility now poses far more serious problems for any attempt to construct a definition of the "Totality". This is because several DM-theses indicate that the 'perimeter fence' (as it were) encircling the "Totality" is full of holes.
While rival ontological systems operate with some sort of closed-border policy -- admitting the existence of certain entities, but disallowing others -- it turns out that DM-theorists may not reject anything at all, since they openly admit (if not adamantly insist upon) the existence of contradictions -- and countless trillions of them (indeed, possibly hundreds, if not thousands, in each atom in the entire universe)!
Hence, the 'DM-boundary fence' is not so much porous as non-existent. The "Totality", it seems, could contain anything, including impossible objects -- not just contradictory objects and processes, but mythical and imaginary ones, too. Maybe it includes four-edged hexagons, the round square, the golden mountain, unicorns, all the Olympian Gods, the end of the rainbow and the Adhedral Triangle?
Anyone tempted to respond here that the above list is absurd since it contains contradictory items, which can be ruled out in advance, should once more consult their local DM-oracle before they pontificate quite so hastily in future. In fact, given well-known DM-principles, it is not easy to see how any of the above (and more) could be rejected on such an a priori basis.
Thus, if the DM-"Totality" is to be rescued from absurdity some way must be found to halt these and countless other 'impossibles' before they cross its leaky border.
It could be objected once more that this is ridiculous; dialecticians only acknowledge the existence of contradictions that can be empirically verified. Hence, they do not countenance the actuality of 'theoretical' contradictions, nor do they admit the mere existence of all 'contradictory', imaginary, and impossible objects.
But, this counter-claim is demonstrably incorrect. [This claim is substantiated in detail in Essay Seven and Essay Eleven Part One.] And, even if DM-theorists do not admit that these entities exist, there is nothing in their 'logic' to rule them out.
Again, it could be argued that 'contradictory objects' are easily excluded because they are not material and do not represent verifiable material forces. But who says? How do we know that scientists might not one day discover weird and wonderful things like these? They already have a few of their own to contend with; several of these were listed above. Electrons travelling backwards in time, and events happening before they occur seem pretty absurd.
[UO = Unity of Opposites; DL = Dialectical Logic; FL = Formal Logic.]
Worse still, as noted above: such possibilities cannot be ruled out by anyone wielding principles found only in DL -- because of those, DM-theorists openly admit the existence of countless contradictions and other assorted impossibilities. [On this, see below.]
In fact, if everything in existence is a UO (as Lenin claimed) then there should be as many contradictions in reality as there are elementary particles (possibly more). In that case, the above 'impossibilities' cannot be ruled out in advance of all the evidence having been considered, certainly not on principles exclusive to DL.
Indeed, DM-theorists already acknowledge the actual existence of contradictory objects, processes and assorted impossibilities prior to all (or even most) of the evidence having been collected (and, in many cases, in abeyance of any evidence at all), since those among them who agree with Lenin and Hegel insist that everything, and every process, is, or contains, a UO.
If this is so, then for all even they know, the "Totality" could contain countless as-yet-undiscovered absurdities.
Furthermore, if, according to Engels and Lenin, an infinite amount of knowledge still awaits discovery, then at any point in history (such as the present), humanity must be infinitely ignorant of the final contents of -- and of the principles governing -- the universe, or the "Totality" (if there is such a 'thing'). That being so, those who rely on DL are in no position to rule such absurdities out with anything other than almost infinite uncertainty. The only way these could be excluded would be on the back of an a priori appeal to principles exclusive to FL -- or indeed, to ordinary language --, and thus on the basis of rules that are incompatible with those found in DL. [On this, see Essay Four.]
As we have already seen (in connection with Engels's analysis of motion, and several other core DM-theses, here, here and here), DM-theorists already admit the existence of contradictory objects and events. Examples of these include the unity of opposite poles in a magnet, 'contradictory' opposing forces throughout nature, contradictory moving objects, contradictory numbers and mathematical concepts, seeds which negate themselves, the existence of actual infinities (that is, the existence of something which both terminates (so that it is a determinate existent) and which does not), the fundamentally contradictory nature of matter (in that it is both wave and particle, continuous and discontinuous, all at once), and contradictory cells (in that they are both alive and dead at the same time), and so on.
This means that DM-theorists cannot consistently exclude any of the contradictory and unlikely entities listed earlier solely on the basis of their contradictory natures. Theorists who postulate contradictions everywhere, but who suddenly become arbitrarily fastidious just when it suits their 'theory', should not be expected to be taken seriously.
But, what could be more contradictory than a "Totality" that admits among its denizens things that not only do not exist (like the past), but also those that cannot exist (like DM-abstractions, since if they exist they must be concrete)?
Unfortunately, once this metaphysical roller-coaster starts moving it takes something a little more substantial than DL to stop it.
If DM is not to be imposed on the world, but read from it -- as its supporters constantly intone -- then, as it now turns out, dialecticians cannot consistently stipulate what their "Totality" does or does not contain ahead of an empirical investigation to that end.
Others might be able to do this, but they cannot.
This is their millstone; they should wear it with pride.
Hence any attempt to rule out of existence one or more of the contradictory/absurd objects listed above would trap DM-theorist between that millstone and yet another hard place: FL.
Now, those of us who are not wedded to such a crazy system of logic -- i.e., DL -- not only can, but do rule out of existence certain things because of principles expressed in FL and/or in ordinary language. And we are right to do so.
[In fact, it is better to say that it makes no sense to suppose such things exist. More on that here.]
However, this defence is unavailable to DM-theorists, who claim that humanity has to wait upon the deliverances of their infinite meander through epistemological space (and along the yellow brick road toward 'Absolute Knowledge'), before anyone could be in a position to decide whether such propositions are fully true (or, as it turns out, true at all).
If so, dialecticians may not now complain about the allegation that their "Totality" might contain some or all of the odd things listed above -- the possible existence of which is predicated on the cavalier rejection of the protocols of FL and ordinary language.
The dilemma that DM-theorists now face is quite stark: either they continue to disdain FL -- the repudiation of which partially created this problem --, thus admitting the possible existence of all manner of contradictory objects, events and processes; or they reject the existence of such things (and abandon the idea that contradictions exist in nature) because of rules codified in FL and expressed discursively in ordinary language.
What seems certain, however, is that the unwise rejection of certain principles of FL has left the DM-"Totality" wide open to infestation by countless weird and wonderful 'entities', the elimination of which requires rapid inoculation with a belated dose of those very same FL-tenets, and the adoption of a believable/workable theory of knowledge.
Hence, as a result of yet another dialectical inversion, FL would be required to rescue DM-theorists from the contradictory "Totality" they rashly summoned into existence; a Whole that could include, for all we know -- or for all they know -- characters from Alice in Wonderland.
The Contradictory Totality
Other themes which are examined in detail in Essay Eleven Part One include the following: (1) The universally confused use of the word "contradiction" found in DM-texts (where it is often confused with "contrary"); and (2) the belief that everything is interconnected.
Criticism of (1) is partly based on the observation that if nature is fundamentally contradictory then any evidence drawn from the world must simultaneously refute and confirm the predictions of whatever theory is being tested. The options available to DM-theorists to paint their way out of this corner are examined in detail; all are shown to fail.
The best spin that can be put on this is that in DM-propositions containing the word "contradiction" must be figurative -- unless, that is, we are to suppose that objects and processes in nature and society literally argue with one another, anthropomorphising reality to suite.
Moreover, contrary to what is usually claimed, the LOC makes no existential claims; it merely says that if one proposition is true its contradictory is false. To be sure, dialecticians reject this (where it suits them), but they can do so only on the basis of the above figurative extension to the content of sentences using the word "contradiction".
[LOC = Law of Non-Contradiction.]
In response to this, it is of little help being told that "contradiction" really means "conflict" or "struggle" since these words gain whatever sense they have from their use in connection with agents. In which case, unless we are prepared to populate the entire universe with literal agents, sentences containing the words "conflict" or "struggle" can only be understood figuratively, too. Hence, it is not possible to make literal sense of the use of the word "contradiction" in the dialectics of nature (or, as we saw in Essay Eight Part Two (here, here, here, and here), in HM, either).
The etymology of the word "conflict", from the Latin, supports this view: conflictus: 'a contest', is defined here.
[Of course, this is not to deny that there are profound and fundamental conflicts in class society; but here there are agents -- and they can contradict one another, just as they can enter into conflict with one another, thus powering the class war.]
Finally, it is difficult to see how such figurative "contradictions" could actually cause change -- any more than, say, the depiction of an uncouth man as a "pig" can create rashers of bacon.
Interconnected -- Or Hermetically Sealed Units?
As far as (2) is concerned, serious questions are raised as to how DM-theorists can possibly know (a) that everything in reality is interconnected, (b) what the boundaries to this claim are (e.g., Is the past included? If not, how can the present be explained?) and (c) what is the exact nature of these interconnections. Concerning (c): are they instantaneous, across all regions of space and time? If so, how might this be confirmed? If not, what are their limits? Are they transmitted faster than light?
These worries are then linked to concerns raised in Essay Eight Part One: if everything is indeed interconnected, change cannot arise from "internal contradictions", as DM-theorists insist. Conversely, if change does result from a dynamic internal to each object and process, nothing in the universe could be interconnected (except in the most trivial of senses). [More details can be found here.]
Latest Update: 19/07/08
Word Count: 4720
© Rosa Lichtenstein 2008
Hits Since 25/05/08: