Читать книгу The Contributory Revolution - Pierre Giorgini - Страница 11

Deconstruction, alteration, transformation and conservation are words often used to try to express what is transformed in the living world. The terms “alteration” and “conservation” are delicate. Alteration indicates a change in nature without there necessarily being “destruction”, which corresponds to another category, as mentioned in the work of Aristotle, for example.

Conservation poses another problem: the principles of conservation in physics assume that something precise is preserved, but for theoretical reasons, the living world never remains itself identical, and does not maintain anything without change. Conservation biology is interesting here. Historically, it was at first to conserve species, whereas today, it is rather to conserve biodiversity and the processes that produce it “globally”.

For example, biologists are worried in situations where the evolutionary process is disrupted, even if the populations concerned are not collapsing (for the moment). Would it perhaps be more apt to speak of the forces of destruction and the forces that oppose it (life as being that which opposes death)?

The philosopher Bertrand Vergely tackles somewhat similar subjects in La destruction du réel (Vergely 2018). He inspired me. He speaks of destruction and thereby introduces a form of irreversibility. I prefer to speak of deconstruction because deconstruction is part of the evolutionary dynamic of living things, and is not systematically bad news. However, this word is also unsatisfactory; deconstruction implies something methodical, a deconstruction that is piece by piece and associated with the idea of a reconstruction, possibly the same after repair, for example. More exact words would be demolition/construction. The living world is a huge DIY exercise of an endless series of partial or total demolitions and ongoing constructions, also partial or total. In fact, the two forces present in the living world, because they alone give it its intelligibility, are those of impermanence and permanence; we could also say the force of transformation compared to forces that oppose it, or even the force of alteration in relation to forces that oppose it; all altering the permanence of forms. With all the reservations expressed above, for the sake of simplification, we will keep the term conservation to designate the forces that oppose transformation or demolition.

The second reason these words are tricky is that they embed cultural value judgments. Innovation is considered rather positive in the contemporary world. Demolition is today rather negative although often it gives way to the new, the innovative. Deconstruction is more neutral; alteration is perceived more negatively. With these remarks in mind, we will use in the rest of the text the following dualities: deconstruction versus construction, transformation versus conservation, alteration versus conservation or innovation versus conservation. We will, however, remember that, each time, there is an overarching philosophical concept: impermanence versus permanence, consubstantial with the intelligibility of all living reality.