[OPE-L:3759] Re: TransFORMation

Paul Cockshot (wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk)
Mon, 2 Dec 1996 04:38:27 -0800 (PST)

[ show plain text ]

>>From Hegel's Logic (Clarendon Press, 1975, pp 260-274), I could extract
>three kinds of change.
>(1) Mechanical change (2) Chemical change (3) Teleological (Biological) change.
>In (1) and (2), both form and content can change but the substance cannot
>change. In (3), however, even the substance can change. But the substantial
>change is indicated as "life" and "death". The path of teleological changes
>pertains to the area of the genetic engineering.

The application of the idea of genetic engineering to Hegels views on
teleology is anachronistic. You must realise that Hegel was writing
in the context of early 19th century science at which point biology
had not yet been put on a materialistic basis. It was seriously believed
that there might be some 'elan vital' or vital subtstance that was
respsonsible for life. Death was then the loss of this substance.
We now know that matter is conserved through the death of organisms, and
that this too represents a re-organisation of matter.

>If the transformation of value into price is to be a substantial change, if
>the two are disconnected, it would be of a non-sense to say either "total
>price=total value" or "total surplus value=total profit" or both.

You are confusing two senses of change here. In your previous paragraph
you were talking about change over time, here one is concerned not with
change in that sense, but a change in 'viewpoint', or a change in metric.
The philosophical category of substantial change applied to change over
time, it does not apply to change in the second sense.
Paul Cockshott