- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
well the stuff on self-organizing systems is interesting enough. dynamic models are gaining ground in neurobiology, and they do seem to be a kind of mechanism that the mechanistic conception of nature did not anticipate. the brain and other dynamic systems do seem to be 'continuously active' and 'spontaneous' in ways that contrast with the fundamentally passive picture of the physical world that emerged from the scientific revolution.
the *new* thing in Kauffman's interview is the way he appealed to self-organizing systems to distinguish his view from Spinozism. he seems to be saying most of nature is NOT sacred or creative, but in fact lifeless and passive. only the dynamic, self-organizing aspects of the world are sacred. admittedly, that is not Spinozism. But it is also not very convincing. it is only the theme of the 'sanctity of life' that gives it a plausible and familiar ring. One can be all for self-organizing systems (and even quantum consciousness if you care to) without holding forth on anything about spirituality whatsoever.
And if he is hoping to cultivate an environmental ethic on the basis of the sanctity of life, he is barking up the wrong tree. by far the strongest and most broadly appealing arguments for environmental ethics are strictly UTILITARIAN. We should curb global warming and convert to a sustainable lifestyle strictly because the consequences of not doing so are disastrous for theist, deist, spinozist, pagan, and atheist alike.
