TIME MACHINE, HISTORY AND CHAOS

I certainly can see the sense in this, but my basic objection arises from seeing history as a "system." History, after all, deriving as it does from the noun histoire and meaning story or history dependant upon context, is simply a recounting of the record. Additional to this is historiography, which can be seen as a system, one which intends to provide method for establishing the validity of historical record. Finally, historical analysis and synthesis seek to derive meaning from the records (which one hopes have been historiographically vetted) which comprise history.

History itself, then is not a system, other than what one may allude to as system in the study of the past and the records we have of it. At which point, one arrives at the question of whether or not there is system operative in human affairs which is unconscious, and the product of identifiable factors.

I am rather diffident on such a topic. I feel that there is such a thing as human nature, which manifests itself in the behavior people in the aggregate. An example might be the apparent conservativism of the Spanish in history (emphasis on apparent--it appears that they have been consistently conservative in their rather brief history). Spain as a nation has only actually existed since the successful completion of the reconquista in 1492. Since that time, Europe has twice attempted to impose on the Spanish politically. The first occasion was the attempt to tell the sad, mad King Carlos II that he could not leave his kingdom and its attendant empire to a member of the Bourbons. This resulted in the War of the Spanish succession, the result of which was that the great Bourbon King, Louis XIV was defeated militarily--and his grandson, Philip of Anjou became the Spanish King, establishing a Bourbon dynasty.

The second example of this was Napoleon's attempt to depose the Bourbons and put his brother Joseph on the throne. There can be no reasonable debate about the cost to the French Empire of that fast bleeding wound in the Iberian penninsula.

But these are interpretations, these are paradigms forced onto the view one has of the record. The restoration of the monarcy resulted in a liberal ministry, and the civil war between the Isabellistas and the Carlistas which raged in Spain for more than fifty years. In fact, the struggle between liberal reformer and conservative Catholic monarchical absolutists was still raging when Spain and the United States went to war in 1898--the prime minister was assassinated shorty after that war began.

But the charge is irresistible. Mexico had two revolutions after Napoleon put Jospeh on the throne, and both were ruthlessly crushed by the puro conservatives in that poor, politically blighted nation. When Isabella mounted the throne with a liberal reformist administration, the conservatives riposed with a successful revolution. There followed years of internecine war in the "upper classes," which eventually resulted in the rise of a successful liberal reformist movement, which finally defeated the conservatives in the War of the Reform in 1859. Immediately thereafter, the Franco-Belgian expedition landed (1862) which intended to put an Austrian archduke on an imperial throne. One of the heroes of the War of the Reform, and the guerilla against the French was Porfiro Diaz. Elected President in 1876, he declared himself President for Life in 1978, and held his position until unseated by popular rebellion in 1911, which rebellion was heavily abetted by the Americans.

I don't think i would apply either the term system or chaos to human affairs. Spendi posted some nonsense about agricultural surpluses and attributed it Spengler. I don't know if Spengler is actually responsible for that silliness, and likely won't ever know, as i've no interest in reading Spegler. In fact, one would be better advised to investigate cultural responses to natural conditions. For example, among the Japanese, at least since the Yamato Era nearly two thousand years ago (and likely for far longer--it's just that we get written records then), the farmer has enjoyed a degree of respect which places them just below the Daimyo and Bushi, and above all craftsmen and laborers, and merchants. The Japanese have made a virtue of abstemious behavior, and have always had a remarkably large popuation living just at the edge of famine. After the Warring States period in the mid- and late-16th century, Tokugawa Ieyasu established a Shogunal dynasty which was to last until 1838. This is known as the Edo period, because the capital was moved to Edo (now Tokoyo) from Kyoto, and no longer had reference to the Emperor who became a figurehead in name, as he had long been in fact. The measure of rice which the Japanese most commonly used when referring to that staple in bulk was the koku, which is usually thought to have been 180 liters, and was the amount needed to feed an adult male for one year. In the Edo (Tokugawa) period, the records show that the population of Japan was 30,000,000, and that the annual, normal production of rice was 25,000,000 koku. With consideration for women, children, the infirm and the elderly, it is evident that the Japanese in the 1600s were living right at the edge of famine in normal years, and faced actual famine in lean years, or "unlucky" regions. But the cultural ethos was framed to allow the most benefit to the most number.

In contrast, in France in 1788, or in Ireland in the last great famine in the 1840s, more than a sufficiency of food was produced for the population, but in the former case speculators hoarded and prices rose until the peasants faced the specter of famine, and in the latter, the Irish stood at the roadside, with their houses knocked down by the redcoats, and watched as wagon trains of locally produced food headed for the ports and the tables of England.

It would more likely be appropriate to look for either system, or chaos, in culture--in which case, history is what it truely always is, the record we consult to attempt to understand the human condition.

Setanta wrote-



Not too difficult for you by any chance?

If you would like to preen your ego with the thought, knock yourself out.

One couldn't preen one's ego over such trivialities let alone knock oneself out doing so even if one wished to.

Setanta wrote-



One has,it seems, not to offer replies to this sort of thing.

If Setanta opines that one is running off at the mouth and doesn't know what the hell one is talking about it has to be left on the record unanswered.

But to say-



is rather self revealing.

It is very difficult for me to imagine how an educated person could arrive at such a position.

Setanta,

Your lucid and delightful essay on Spanish history was an excellent illustration of your point about the study and interpretation of history. I agree fully that these are not systems and they are not chaotic either.

However, history itself - the organized and correctly analyzed depiction of unfolding human behavior and choices does indeed exhibit many of the traits of a chaotic system. Certainly the problem or prospect of attenpting to forecast the future from a known present state confronts one with chaotic uncertainty. It is relatively easy to construct plausable scenaros for the future, based on detailed knowledge of historical facts and patterns, that appear realistic. However, history itself instructs us that the process is not reliable: again and again we encounter nominally wise leaders with access to extensive information, who failed to accurately forecast the effects of their own actions.

I agree we don't have any equations or rules, non-linear or otherwise, with which to describe or predict human interactions or responses to events. However it is sufficient to know that, at some level, free or deterministic, such relations exist. Moreover, given the interconnectedness of human life, the sensitive dependence of unfolding events on small changes in the initial conditions, which is at the heart of chaos, is almost certainly an observable fact of our lives. These are sufficient for a chaotic system as described in Chaos Theory.

I will readily agree that life is a good deal more complex than the mathematical models we use to describe some of its processes. However the ideas and principals behind Chaos Theory increasingly appear in the actions of natural processes, ranging from meterorology to the relative populations of competing species of plants and animals, and human activity as well.

George wrote-



That's getting close to ID I think.

While I'm on, and congrates on your neatness above, do you know, reasonably accurately, the rate at which people who might say-



are born?

One per minute seems a trifle rough and ready coming as it does from folk wisdom and hardly suitable for Faustian sensibilities.

To two decimal places will do for now. We don't want to get people thinking we have no feelings.

Have you been drinking again Spendius?

No, not at all. The unfolding of history, the actions of billions of humans, all influenced to some degree by the actions of many others could exhibit sensitive dependence on initial conditions whether or not you regard their choices as deterministic. The mutual influence is sufficient, however it arises.

Our inability to foretell the future is fairly well demonstrated by human history to date. Could anyone, given a complete description of the state of the world in (say) 1927 accurately predict the events of the past 75 years? Not likely.

The complete human DNA map was also realised using futuristic models, isnt it? In fact some Real Time Strategy games also use such techniques in order to identify the future human opponent's strategy. Ofcourse they are pretty straightforward compared to telling the future History.

See weather forecasting systems. They have variables identified for telling the future... I know about "sensitivty of inital conditions" but it should also be well applicable to a town pr place that is recently built? Human behavior (psychological, social, political) in such region, geological systems like weather (air), earth, sea affetcing the area, arent they all chaotic subsystems but form some major factors for making future of the place?

History is what? combination of chaotic sub-systems. If the subssystems can be predicted why cant their effects on each other? Atleast theoretically....

I know we expect to reach God but thats what humans meant to reach all thru their evolution?

George wrote-



Would you not agree George that the Adam and Eve story is but a grand metaphor covering your "initial conditions" and that in the absence of a degree of askesis the resultant is entirely deterministic along Malthusian and Darwinian lines. One might argue about the characteristics of the mess produced if one wished to distract oneself from the fact that it was a mess.

The askesis being the intelligent designer which is disguised in a personification getting vaguer and more abstract as knowledge expands simply because it is supervised by ordinary mortals whose lifespans are insufficient for the purpose and because it is necessarily esoteric.

Wouldn't such an idea explain why we expect levels of morality in our leaders which we don't expect from the rank and file.

Opponents of the idea of intelligent design are, on this argument, opponents of the supervising askesis who wish to replace it with Darwinian principles because it seeks to control their animality which is the reason they point blank refuse to even think about the social consequences they will inevitably unleash which will then only be controllable by, ultimately, terror or biologically engineered morality.

Wouldn't a Jesuit agree with that despite it being presented in such a crude form?

The fact that a few members of the supervising askesis occasionally succumb to their animality is really neither here nor there and is most likely nothing but a failure of the recruitment system in areas which are not up to speed with modern theological discipline.

George, i think you're missing the distinction i am making. It is not history which is chaotic, it is human behavior. History is simply that study which seeks to reveal the behavior of people in the past, based on records which can be found and verified. It may seem a niggling distinction to some, but i think it is foundational to the discussion.

Last night I wnt back in time and invented the light bulb. Then Edison stole my idea. Ripped off again!

I agree completely, and I believe the distinction is indeed meaningful. I attempted to make this distinction earlier, but evidently wasn't clear enough.

Possibly, but I don't know what the phrase, "detrerministic along Malthusian and Darwinistic lines" really means. (I did have to look up 'askesis')

Too abstract for my taste. I believe in Intelligent Design because I find the alternative absurd, a world without meaning. I can't prove it, but I can't prove the al;ternative either. I don't prejudge just how existence began, therefore I don't put much stock in metaphors, vague and abstract or not.

My faith in human hypocrisy alone is sufficient to carry me through this one.

This may well be the motivation for some. However. I don't need to make such a judgement, and I don't have the knowledge with which to make it wisely.

I don't think the form was crude at all - perhaps a bit convoluted, but not crude. Can't speak for Jesuits generally. I suspect they would reject the venture into the motives of the opposition as both unnecessary and unknowable.

George wrote-



I suspect they might enjoy some jovial speculations on the matter over the port but they may well refrain from indulging themselves on any hard and fast conclusions.



Like a giant cage of monkeys. I think one could predict the outcome if no interference was forthcoming.



I think there actually is a deep only partially articulated sense in the population that leaders should be, at least to a certain extent, above the impulses of the common beast.

The matter has been discussed here at some length due to the long catalogue of incidents which serve to show that such standards have not always been fully upheld.