Ergebnis für URL: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap5.html#Heading10 This is chapter 5 of the [1]"The Phenomenon of Science" by [2]Valentin F. Turchin
____________________________________________________________________________
Contents:
* [3]MATERIAL AND SPIRITUAL CULTURE
* [4]THE STAIRWAY EFFECT
* [5]THE SCALE OF THE METASYSTEM TRANSITION
* [6]TOOLS FOR PRODUCING TOOLS
* [7]THE LOWER PALEOLITHIC
* [8]THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC
* [9]THE NEOLITHIC REVOLUTION
* [10]THE AGE OF METAL
* [11]THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS
* [12]THE QUANTUM OF DEVELOPMENT
* [13]THE EVOLUTION OF THOUGHT
____________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER FIVE.
FROM STEP TO STEP
MATERIAL AND SPIRITUAL CULTURE
A DISTINCTION IS MADE between ''material'' and ''spiritual" culture. We have put
these words in quotes (the first time; henceforth they will parade themselves in
the customary way, without quotes) because the distinction between these two
manifestations of culture is arbitrary and the terms themselves do not reflect
this difference very well. Material culture is taken to include society's
productive forces and everything linked with them, while spiritual culture
includes art, religion, science, and philosophy. If we were to attempt to
formulate the principle on the basis of which this distinction is made, the
following would probably be the best way: material culture is called upon to
satisfy those needs which are common to humans and animals (material needs),
while spiritual culture satisfies needs which, we think, are specifically human
(spiritual needs). Clearly this distinction does not coincide with the
distinction between material and spiritual on the philosophical level.
The phenomenon of science, the chief subject of this book, is a part of spiritual
culture. But science emerges at a comparatively late stage in the development of
society and we cannot discuss this moment until we have covered all the preceding
stages. Therefore we cannot bypass material culture without saying at least a few
words about it. This is especially true because in the development of material
culture we find one highly interesting effect which the metasystem transition
sometimes yields.
THE STAIRWAY EFFECT
A baby is playing on the bottom step of a gigantic stone stairway. The steps are
high and the baby cannot get to the next step. It wants very much to see what is
going on there; now and again it tries to grab hold of the edge of the step and
clamber up, but it cannot.... The years pass. The baby grows and then one fine
day it is suddenly able to surmount this obstacle. It climbs up to the next step,
which has so long attracted it, and sees that there is yet another step above it.
The child is now able to climb it too and thus, mounting step after step, the
child goes higher and higher. As long as the child was unable to get from one
step to the next it could not ascend even a centimeter; but as soon as it learned
how, not only the next step but the entire stairway became accessible.
[IMG.FIG5.1.GIF]
Figure 5.1. The stairway effect.
A schematic representation of this ''stairway effect'' is shown in figure 5.1.
The stairway effect forms the basis of many instances in which small quantitative
transitions become large qualitative ones. Let us take as an example the
classical illustration of Hegel's law of the change of quantity into quality: the
crystallization of a liquid when the temperature drops below its melting point.
The ability of a molecule oscillating near a certain equilibrium position to hold
several adjacent molecules near their equilibrium positions is precisely the
''capability of transition to the next step.'' When this capability manifests
itself as a result of a drop in temperature (decrease in the amplitude of
oscillations) the process of crystallization begins and "step by step'' the
positions of the molecules are set in order. Another well-known example is the
chain reaction. In this case the transition to the next step is the
self-reproduction of the reagents as a result of the reaction. In physical
systems where all relationships important for the behavior of the system as a
whole are statistical in nature, the stairway effect also manifests itself
statistically; the criterion of the possibility of transition to the next step is
quantitative and statistical. In this case the stairway effect can be equated
with the chain reaction, if the latter term is understood in the very broadest
sense.
THE SCALE OF THE METASYSTEM TRANSITION
WE ARE MORE INTERESTED in the case where the transition to the next step is
qualitative, specifically the metasystem transition. For the stairway effect to
occur in this case it is clearly necessary for system X, which is undergoing the
metasystem transition (see figure 5.2), to itself remain a subsystem of some
broader system Y, within which conditions are secured and maintained for multiple
transitions ''from step to step''--the metasystem transition beyond subsystem X.
[IMG.FIG5.2.GIF]
Figure 5.2. The stairway effect within ultrametasystem Y. The arrows indicate
changes taking place in time.
We shall call such a system Y an ultrametasystem in relation to the series X, X',
X", . . and so on. Let us take a more detailed look at the question of the
connection between the metasystem transition and the system-subsystem relation.
We have already encountered metasystem transitions of different scale. Metasystem
transitions in the structure of the brain are carried out within the organism and
do not involve the entire organism. Social integration is a metasystem transition
in relation to the organism as a whole, but it does not take humanity outside of
the biogeographic community, the system of interacting living beings on a world
scale. There is always a system Y which includes the given system X as its
subsystem. The only possible exception is the universe as a whole, the system Z
which by definition is not part of any other system. We say ''possible''
exception because we do not know whether the universe can be considered a system
in the same sense as known, finite systems.
Now let us look in the opposite direction, from the large to the small, from the
whole to the part. What happens in system X when it evolves without undergoing a
metasystem transition? Suppose that a certain subsystem W of system X makes a
metasystem transition.
[IMG.FIG5.3.GIF]
Figure 5.3. The metasystem transition W ->W' within system X.
This means that system W is replaced by system W', which in relation to W is a
metasystem (and contains a whole series of W-type subsystems) but in relation to
X is a subsystem analogous to W and performs the same functions in X as W had
been performing, only probably better. Depending on the role of subsystem W in
system X, the replacement of W with W'' will be more or less important for X. In
reviewing the stages in the evolution of living beings during the cybernetic
period we substituted the organism as a whole for X and the highest stage of
control of the organism for W. Therefore the metasystem transition W -> W' was of
paramount importance for X. But a metasystem transition may also occur somewhere
''in the provinces,'' at one of the lower levels of organization.
[IMG.FIG5.4.GIF]
Figure 5.4. Metasystem transition at one of the lower levels of organization.
Suppose W is one of the subsystems of X., V is one of the subsystems of W, and U
is one of the subsystems of V. The metasystem transition U -> U' may greatly
improve the functioning of V, and consequently the functioning of W also,
although to a lesser degree, and finally, to an even smaller degree, the
functioning of X. Thus, evolutionary changes in X, even though they are not very
significant, may be caused by a metasystem transition at just one of the lower
levels of the structure.
These observations provide new material for assessing quantitative and
qualitative changes in the process of development. If system X contains
homogeneous subsystems W and the number of these subsystems increases we call
such a change quantitative. We shall unquestionably classify the metasystem
transition as a qualitative change. We can assume that any qualitative change is
caused by a metasystem transition at some particular level of the structure of
the system. Considering the mechanics of evolution described above (replication
of systems plus the trial and error method) this assumption is highly probable.
TOOLS FOR PRODUCING TOOLS
LET US RETURN to material culture and the stairway effect. The objects and
implements of labor are parts, subsystems of the system we have called the
"super-being,'' which emerges with the development of human society. Now we shall
simply call this super-being culture, meaning by this both its physical ''body''
and its method of functioning (''physiology''), depending on the context.
Therefore, the objects and implements of labor are subsystems of culture. They
may possess their own complex structure and, depending upon how they are used,
they may be part of larger subsystems of culture which also have their own
internal structures.
Specifically, the division of material subsystems into objects of labor and
implements of labor (tools) is in itself profoundly meaningful and reflects the
structure of production. When a human being applies tool B to objects of a
certain class A, this tool, together with objects A, forms a metasystem, in
relation to subsystems A. Indeed. subsystem B acts directly upon subsystems A and
is specially created for this purpose. (Of course, this action does not take
place without the participation of the human hand and mind, which are part of any
production system.) Thus, the appearance of a tool for working on certain objects
that had not previously been worked on is a metasystem transition within the
production system. As we have seen, the ability to create tools is one of the
first results of the development of human traits; and because the human being
remains the permanent moving force of the production system, the metasystem
transition from object of labor to implement of labor may be repeated as many
times as one likes. After having created tool B to work on objects in class A the
human being begins to think of ways to improve the tool and manufactures tool C
to use in making tools of class B. He does not stop here; he makes tool D to
improve tools of class C, and so on. The implement of labor invariably becomes an
object of labor. This is the stairway effect. It is important to assimilate the
very principle of making tools (learning to climb up a step). After this
assimilation everything follows of its own accord: the production system becomes
an ultrametasystem capable of development. The result of this process is modern
industry, a highly complex multilevel system which uses natural materials and
step by step converts them into its ''body''--structures, machines, and
instruments--just as the living organism digests the food it has eaten.
THE LOWER PALEOLITHIC
LET US CONSTRUCT a general outline of the development of material culture. The
history of culture before the emergence of metalworking is divided into two ages:
the Paleolithic (Old Stone Age) and the Neolithic (New Stone Age). In each age
distinct cultures are identified, which differ by geographic region and the time
of their existence. The cultures which have been found by archaeological
excavation have been given names derived from the names of the places where they
were first discovered.
Traces of Paleolithic culture have been found in many regions of Europe, Asia,
and Africa. They enable us to confidently make a periodization of the development
of culture in the Paleolithic and divide the age into a number of stages (epochs)
which are universally important for all geographic regions.
The most ancient stages are the so-called Chellean, followed by the Acheulean and
then the Mousterian. These three stages are joined together under the common name
Lower (or Early) Paleolithic. The beginning of the Lower Paleolithic is dated
about 700,000 years ago and the end (the late Mousterian culture) is dated about
40,000 years ago.
The Chellean and Acheulean cultures know just one type of stone tool--the hand
ax. The Chellean hand ax is very primitive; it is a stone crudely flaked on two
sides, resembling a modern axhead in shape and size. The typical Acheulean hand
ax is smaller and much better made; it has carefully sharpened edges. In
addition, signs of the use of fire are found at Acheulean sites.
The tools of the Mousterian culture reveal a clear differentiation. Here we
distinguish at least two unquestionably distinct types of stone tools: points and
scrapers. Stoneworking technique is considerably higher in the Mousterian period
than in the Acheulean. Objects made of bone and horn appear. Fire is universally
used. We do not know whether the Mousterians were able to make fire, but it is
clear that they were able to preserve it.
In a biological sense the human being of the Lower Paleolithic was not yet the
modern form. The Chellean and Acheulean cultures belonged to people (or
semipeople?) of the Pithecanthropus and Sinanthropus types. The Mousterian was
the culture of the Neanderthals. In the Lower Paleolithic the development of
techniques for making tools (not only from stone but also from wood and other
materials which have not survived until our day) proceeded parallel with the
development of human physical and mental capabilities, with human evolution as a
species. The increase in brain size is the most convincing evidence of this
evolution. The following table shows the capacity of the cranial cavity in fossil
forms of man, the anthropoid apes, and modern man:
Gorilla
600-685 cm^3
Pithecanthropus
800-900 cm^3
Sinanthropus 1.000-1,1100 cm^3
Neanderthal 1,100-1,600 cm^3
Modern Man 1,200-1,700 cm^3
Let us note that although the Neanderthal brain is only slightly smaller in
volume than the brain of modern man it has significantly smaller frontal lobes
and they play the chief role in thinking. The frontal lobes of the brain appear
to be the principal storage area for "arbitrary'' associations.
THE UPPER PALEOLITHIC
AT THE BOUNDARY between the Lower and Upper Paleolithic (approximately 40,000
years ago) the process of establishment of the human being concludes. The human
being of the Upper Paleolithic is, in biological terms, modern man: Homo sapiens.
From this moment onward nature invests all its ''evolutionary energy'' in the
culture of human society, not in the biology of the human individual.
Three cultures are distinguished in the Upper Paleolithic: Aurignacian,
Solutrean, and Magdalenian. The first two are very close and are joined together
in a single cultural epoch: the Aurignac-Solutrean. The beginning of this epoch
is coincident with the end of the Mousterian epoch. Several sites have been found
containing bones of both Neanderthals and modern man. It follows from this that
the last evolutionary change, which completed the formation of modern man, was
very significant and the new people quickly supplanted the Neanderthals.
In the Aurignac-Solutrean epoch, stone-working technique made great advances in
comparison with the Mousterian epoch. Various types of tools and weapons can be
found: blades, spears, javelins, chisels, scrapers, and awls. Bone and horn were
used extensively. Sewing appeared, as evidenced by needles which have been found.
In one of the monuments of Solutrean culture a case made of bird bone and
containing a whole assortment of bone needles was found, as was a bone fishing
hook. By the Magdalenian epoch (about 15,000 years ago) throwing spears and
harpoons had appeared. A noteworthy difference between the Upper Paleolithic and
the Lower is the emergence of visual art. Cave drawing appeared in the
Aurignac-Solutrean epoch and reached its peak in the Magdalenian. Many pictures
(primarily of animals) have been found whose expressiveness, brevity, and
exactness in conveying nature amaze even the modern viewer. Sculptured images and
objects used for ornamentation also appear. There are two points of view on the
question of the origin of art: the first claims art is derived from magic
rituals, the second from esthetic and cognitive goals. However, when we consider
the nature of primitive thinking (as we shall below) the difference between these
two sources is insignificant.
Looking at material production as a system, the crucial difference between the
Upper Paleolithic and the Lower is the appearance of composite implements (for
example, a spear with a stone point). Their appearance can be viewed as a
metasystem transition, because in making a composite implement a system is
created from subsystems. Before, the maker would have viewed the two components
as independent entities (the point as a piercing stone tool and the pole as a
stick or wooden spear). This is not a simple transition; even in historical
times, there could be found a group of people (the indigenous inhabitants of the
island of Tasmania) who did not know composite implements.
The Tasmanians no longer exist as an ethnic group. The last pure-blooded
Tasmanian woman died in 1877. The information about the Tasmanian culture that
has been preserved is inadequate and sometimes contradictory. Nonetheless, they
may certainly be considered the most backward human group of all those known by
ethnography. Their isolation from the rest of the human race (the Tasmanians'
nearest neighbors, the Australian aborigines, were almost equally backward) and
the impoverished nature of the island, in particular the absence of animals
larger than the kangaroo, played parts in this. With due regard for differences
in natural conditions, the culture of the Tasmanians may be compared to the
Aurignac-Solutrean culture in its early stages. The Tasmanians had the stone hand
ax, sharp point, crudely shaped stone cutting tool, wooden club (two types, for
hand use and throwing), wooden spear, stick for digging up edible roots, and
wooden spade for scraping mussels off rocks. In addition they were able to weave
string and sacks (baskets) from grass or hair. They made fire by friction. But,
to again repeat, they were not able to make composite tools--for example, to
attach a stone working part to a wooden handle.
THE NEOLITHIC REVOLUTION
UNLIKE THE PALEOLITHIC CULTURES, the Neolithic cultures (which are known from
both archaeological and ethnographic findings) show great diversity, specificity,
and local characteristics. In terms of techniques of producing tools the
Neolithic is an elaboration of the qualitative jump (metasystem transition) made
in the late Paleolithic: composite tools made using other tools. Following this
route human beings made a series of outstanding advances, the most remarkable of
which is clearly the invention of the bow. Great changes also took place in
clothing and in the construction of dwellings.
Although the Neolithic cannot boast of a large-scale metasystem transition in
regard to tool manufacture, a metasystem transition of enormous importance
nevertheless did occur during this period. It concerned the overall method of
obtaining food (and therefore it indirectly involved tools also). This was the
transition from hunting and gathering to livestock herding and farming--sometimes
called the Neolithic revolution. The animal and plant worlds, which until this
had been only external, uncontrolled sources of food, now became subject to
active influence and control by human beings. The effects of this transition
spread steadily. We are thus dealing with a typical metasystem transition.
Archaeologists date the emergence of farming and livestock herding to about 7,000
years ago, emphasizing that this is an approximate date. The most ancient cereal
crops were wheat, millet, barley, and rice. Rye and oats appeared later. The
first domesticated animal was the dog. Its domestication is dated in the Early
Neolithic, before the emergence of farming. With the transition to farming,
people domesticated the pig, sheep, goat, and cow. Later, during the age of
metal, the domesticated horse and camel appeared.
THE AGE OF METAL
THE AGE OF METAL is the next page in the history of human culture after the
Neolithic. The transition to melting metal marks a metasystem transition in the
system of production. Whereas the material used earlier to make tools (wood,
stone, bone, and the like) was something given and ready to use, now a process,
melting metal, emerged and it was directed not to making a tool but rather to
making the material for the tool. As a result people received new materials with
needed characteristics that were not found in nature. First there was bronze,
then iron, various grades of steel, glass, paper, and rubber. From the point of
view of the structure of production the age of metal should be called the age of
materials. Strictly speaking, such crafts as leather tanning and pottery, which
originated earlier than metal production, should be viewed as the beginning of
the metasystem transition to the age of materials. But there is a crucial phase
in each metasystem transition when the advantages of creating the new level in
the system become obvious and indisputable. For the age of materials this phase
was the production of metals, especially iron.
The most ancient traces of bronze in Mesopotamia and Egypt date to the 4th
millennium B.C. Iron ore began to be melted by 1300 B.C.
THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS
THE NEXT qualitative jump in the system of production was the use of sources of
energy other than the muscular energy of human beings and animals. This, of
course, is also a metasystem transition because a new level of the system
emerges: the level of engines which control the movement of the working parts of
the machine. The first industrial revolution (eighteenth century) radically
changed the entire appearance of production. Improvement of engines becomes the
leitmotif of technical progress. First there was the steam engine, then the
internal combustion engine, and then the electric motor. The age of materials was
followed by the age of energy.
Finally, our day is witness to one more metasystem transition in the structure of
production. A new level is emerging, the level of control of engines. The second
industrial revolution is beginning, and it is obvious that it will have a greater
effect on the overall makeup of the system of production than even the first did.
The age of energy is being replaced by the age of information. Automation of
production processes and the introduction of computers into national economies
lead to growth in labor productivity which is even more rapid than before and
give the production system the character of an autonomous, self-controlling
system.
THE QUANTUM OF DEVELOPMENT
THE SIMILARITY between successive stages in the development of technology and the
functions of biological objects has long been noted. The production of industrial
materials can be correlated with the formation and growth of living tissue. The
use of engines corresponds to the work of muscles, and automatic control and
transmission of information corresponds to the functioning of the nervous system.
This parallel exists despite the fundamental difference in the nature of
biological and technical systems and the completely different factors that cause
their development. Nonetheless, the similarity in the stages of development is
far from accidental. It arises because all processes of development have one
common feature: development always takes place by successive metasystem
transitions. The metasystem transition is, if you like, the elementary unit, the
universal quantum of development. Therefore it is not surprising in the least
that having compared the initial stage of development of two different
systems--for example industrial materials and living tissue--we receive a natural
correlation among later stages, which are formed by the accumulation of these
universal quanta.
THE EVOLUTION OF THOUGHT
OUR NEXT TASK on the historical plane is to analyze the development of thought
beginning with the most ancient phase about which we have reliable information.
This phase is primitive society with Late Paleolithic and Early Neolithic
culture. But before speaking of primitive thinking, before ''putting ourselves in
the role'' of primitive people, we shall investigate thinking in general, using
both the modern thinking apparatus as an investigative tool and modern thinking
as an object of investigation that is directly accessible to each of us from
personal experience. This is essential in order that we may clearly see the
difference between primitive thinking and modern thinking and the general
direction of the development of thinking. The investigation we are preparing to
undertake in the next two chapters can be defined as a cybernetic approach to the
basic concepts of logic and to the problem of the relationship between language
and thinking.
____________________________________________________________________________
References
1. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/default.html
2. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/turchin.html
3. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap5.html#Heading2
4. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap5.html#Heading3
5. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap5.html#Heading4
6. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap5.html#Heading5
7. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap5.html#Heading6
8. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap5.html#Heading7
9. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap5.html#Heading8
10. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap5.html#Heading9
11. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap5.html#Heading10
12. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap5.html#Heading11
13. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap5.html#Heading12
Usage: http://www.kk-software.de/kklynxview/get/URL
e.g. http://www.kk-software.de/kklynxview/get/http://www.kk-software.de
Errormessages are in German, sorry ;-)