ModelHomeInvasion
1st November 2011, 07:10
Here's a short piece (divided into 2 parts so far) that a friend of mine wrote called "Definitions (About Thinking)":
The following is a rough sketch that is intended to cover some basics regarding how we think and (next level) how we think about how we think. It is not an academic paper because I don't want to write one and you don't want to read one. It forgoes (almost) all namedropping, dispenses with flowery language, and deals in abstractions only as the subject matter demands. It is as concrete as I can make it within the constraints of the format and other obligations.
I will tell you in advance that it is likely -- certainly -- not 100% correct. I believe it is mostly right, and I know that it is better than you will do from any "Marxist scholar". (this is partly a standard disclaimer since you will hear the same thing in a physics or calculus class and partly an encouragement to dive into the source material and see for yourselves from the inside)
Rather than abstractly talk about what a Definition is, lets try to make one. A key term we're going to encounter again and again is Negation and it is natural to ask 'whats that?'.
Two strategies for defining Negation:
1. Negation = negation
2. We can say that negation does not equal a denial. Negation is not a way of saying no. If someone offers you a drink and you refuse, you have not negated the drink or the offer. We may also say that 'negate' does not necessarily carry a "bad" connotation.
Definition 1 is the positive/affirmative definition wherein we affirm that 'negation' is equal to 'negation'. It is an identity because both sides are IDENTIcal to each other. This may appear to be wordplay but it has to be said. This type of definition does not tell us much of anything.
Definition 2 begins to help us pin it down by establishing a broad fenced in area within which the definition must dwell -- it is bounded on each side by things it is NOT equivalent to. In this way it is deterred from meaning just any thing we please -- this is the process of DETERmination. The wordplay may seem contrived but it is something to keep in the back of your mind.
Definition 2 is a NEGATIVE definition because we are examining a thing by recognizing how it differs from other things. Thus, DIFFERentiation. Sounds obvious but there may be a few not-so-obvious loops thrown in shortly.
Next lets pause to consider a construction of logic
A = (A)
A != Not(A) (!= is does not equal)
A = opposite of Not(A) or NOT[Not(A)]
All three of those statements are actually required in formal logic although I am not trying to give them formally. While it seems awkward, it is necessary to establish that a thing is identical to itself, a thing is not identical to anything other than itself and finally that a thing is opposed -- hence, OPPOSite -- to that which is not itself.
Here, we hit our first snag. If you open a dictionary, every definition is a positive one. For 'A' it will say something like "The first letter of the alphabet". Here definite statements (wither DEFINition) are misleading. What the dictionary actually does is greatly narrow the vast number of things that A could be -- first it is restricted to being a part of the alphabet. The alphabet in turn is restricted to being composed of letters. Whats more, we may not assign A any position we like amongst the letters, it must be first.
That does not entirely resolve the snag however. We have simply created pairs of opposites. We accept that if (A) holds, then Not(A) fails. If A does not hold, Not(A) must be the case. At any given time, only one of the two can be in effect. However there is a type of reasoning that disagree with this conclusion, and it is called Dialectical Reasoning or simply Dialectics. Rather than attempt a positive definition of dialectics, let us see if we can put our newfound knowledge of negation to work.
Typical Logic (from TYPE) tells us that (A) and Not(A) are forbidden to coexist. Yet, both propositions are built off a common premise, A. Let us grant that the premise A immediately yields (A). This is a fixed and unchanging relationship. How then do we generate Not(A) without mechanism to change or develop the premise A? Further, why would we automatically be taken to Not(A) rather than (B), which may possess its own positive value?
So we have a Yoda moment and realize that "Is" and "Is Not" are actually toggles of the underlying element A. We take this turn because we must acknowledge that while Is/Is Not are opposites they have a shared basis and can not therefore exclude each other as possibilities (otherwise (A) would tell you nothing whatsoever about Not(A) and vice versa). If such mutual exclusion was possible, the result would stand as a frozen and one-sided relationship that is immutable. To say '"A Is Not" doesn't contain the possibility for motion/transition within the schema we're operating under. Quite the predicament.
So, perforce, we come to consider A to be a concept that may exist in two different, opposing states both of which are automatically IMPLIED to exist if A exists.
Now lets zoom out for reflection and realize that we have already induced "progress". Our definition of 'Negation' began with "Negation is.." and proceeded to "Negation is NOT..a, b,c" We found the latter to be more revealing and more powerful as a tool when contrasted with the former. From this simple example, we were able to make a number of further deductions. Thus as we proceeded in our investigation we see that we did not move at random to examine two unconnected thoughts..we built an evolving thread/chain of thought that yielded a series of results which ADVANCED our conversation.
From this we can construe that there is a constant fluidity to thinking and this fluidity is imparted with a forward direction. Adjusting to this observation, we see that concepts within our thinking can no longer remain frozen and timeless of the A=(A) variety
(End Part 1)
Part 2:
Pardon me if Part 2 sounds disjointed but the lack of feedback has pushed me to go in a slightly different direction than I originally intended.
We are working towards Materialism and then Dialectical Materialism but let us dwell on Method for a bit.
Isolating a thing, trying to consider it by and in itself, is a method of abstraction. A thing does not exist independently but in a complex matrix with other things and, further, a thing enjoys no guaranteed permanence. Instead it is mediated by the interplay of the network of things which are arrayed alongside it, thus it is mutable (mutation).
In the reverse, if we are able to isolate our thing it more and more loses its unique character as we do. It is stripped of all qualities because quality is a comparative and not an absolute -- they are relative to the external and not a component of the internal.
We now have the peculiar situation where our attempt at determination produces exactly the opposite result. We cannot take the measure of our thing because measure is a quality. It is not bounded by any other thing and therefore it is undetermined. As we peer into our thing nothing is reflected, just as it is not reflected in any other thing. All determinate things are distinguished -- lacking this feature as well, our thing has become NOthing.
In this abstraction, we have reduced our thing to its homogeneous form -- it is an atom. With an atom there is only one thing to do -- put it back into relationship with everything else so that we can understand how it is changed and transformed as a result of this connectivity (this is its negation). Now instead of removing a thing from the real world, we are inserting a thing back into the real world.. and it becomes more and more "real" as we do so.
This holds no matter how "far out" the thing we choose to consider might be, even if it is the nebulous "Human Nature". This is the method we seek to realize.. we consider things in connection to other things and include within this web the things transmogrification as a valid selection as a "thing" . This is the methodology of dialectics which dates back (at least) to the ancient Greeks.
There is one more wrinkle.. if we can consider one thing, we can consider everything *in total*. This is Being.
Just as any other thing we can consider in a vacuum, Being is vacuous. It is atemporal because it is immediately given and amorphous because no property of it can be found. It turns out, there is no way we can hold it in our mind at all.
In fact, Being, in its indeterminate immediacy, is Nothing, neither more nor less
Switch gears from Being to Nothing. Not Nothing counter posed to Being but simply Nothing and we find..
Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure Being.
So we come to Hegel and his Science of Logic.
Becoming
1. Unity of Being and Nothing
Pure Being and pure Nothing are, therefore, the same. What is the truth is neither Being nor Nothing, but that Being −− does not pass over but has passed over −− into Nothing, and Nothing into Being. But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that, on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely distinct, and yet that they are unseparated and inseparable and that each each immediately vanishes in its opposite. Their truth is therefore, this movement of the immediate vanishing of the one into the other: Becoming, a movement in which both are distinguished, but by a difference which has equally immediately resolved itself.
But lest he mince words, Hegel invokes Heraclitus as well.
Being is no more than Nothing is' or 'All things flow,' which means everything is Becoming
This constant passing of one thing into something else defines MATERIALIST dialectics and it does not matter if the topic under examination is society or the inflationary expansion of the universe.
As a final note we can now realize that if it is humans that we wish to track in this way we must first note that humans exist socially. And the movement and development of society is.. history. Hence, historical materialism.
The following is a rough sketch that is intended to cover some basics regarding how we think and (next level) how we think about how we think. It is not an academic paper because I don't want to write one and you don't want to read one. It forgoes (almost) all namedropping, dispenses with flowery language, and deals in abstractions only as the subject matter demands. It is as concrete as I can make it within the constraints of the format and other obligations.
I will tell you in advance that it is likely -- certainly -- not 100% correct. I believe it is mostly right, and I know that it is better than you will do from any "Marxist scholar". (this is partly a standard disclaimer since you will hear the same thing in a physics or calculus class and partly an encouragement to dive into the source material and see for yourselves from the inside)
Rather than abstractly talk about what a Definition is, lets try to make one. A key term we're going to encounter again and again is Negation and it is natural to ask 'whats that?'.
Two strategies for defining Negation:
1. Negation = negation
2. We can say that negation does not equal a denial. Negation is not a way of saying no. If someone offers you a drink and you refuse, you have not negated the drink or the offer. We may also say that 'negate' does not necessarily carry a "bad" connotation.
Definition 1 is the positive/affirmative definition wherein we affirm that 'negation' is equal to 'negation'. It is an identity because both sides are IDENTIcal to each other. This may appear to be wordplay but it has to be said. This type of definition does not tell us much of anything.
Definition 2 begins to help us pin it down by establishing a broad fenced in area within which the definition must dwell -- it is bounded on each side by things it is NOT equivalent to. In this way it is deterred from meaning just any thing we please -- this is the process of DETERmination. The wordplay may seem contrived but it is something to keep in the back of your mind.
Definition 2 is a NEGATIVE definition because we are examining a thing by recognizing how it differs from other things. Thus, DIFFERentiation. Sounds obvious but there may be a few not-so-obvious loops thrown in shortly.
Next lets pause to consider a construction of logic
A = (A)
A != Not(A) (!= is does not equal)
A = opposite of Not(A) or NOT[Not(A)]
All three of those statements are actually required in formal logic although I am not trying to give them formally. While it seems awkward, it is necessary to establish that a thing is identical to itself, a thing is not identical to anything other than itself and finally that a thing is opposed -- hence, OPPOSite -- to that which is not itself.
Here, we hit our first snag. If you open a dictionary, every definition is a positive one. For 'A' it will say something like "The first letter of the alphabet". Here definite statements (wither DEFINition) are misleading. What the dictionary actually does is greatly narrow the vast number of things that A could be -- first it is restricted to being a part of the alphabet. The alphabet in turn is restricted to being composed of letters. Whats more, we may not assign A any position we like amongst the letters, it must be first.
That does not entirely resolve the snag however. We have simply created pairs of opposites. We accept that if (A) holds, then Not(A) fails. If A does not hold, Not(A) must be the case. At any given time, only one of the two can be in effect. However there is a type of reasoning that disagree with this conclusion, and it is called Dialectical Reasoning or simply Dialectics. Rather than attempt a positive definition of dialectics, let us see if we can put our newfound knowledge of negation to work.
Typical Logic (from TYPE) tells us that (A) and Not(A) are forbidden to coexist. Yet, both propositions are built off a common premise, A. Let us grant that the premise A immediately yields (A). This is a fixed and unchanging relationship. How then do we generate Not(A) without mechanism to change or develop the premise A? Further, why would we automatically be taken to Not(A) rather than (B), which may possess its own positive value?
So we have a Yoda moment and realize that "Is" and "Is Not" are actually toggles of the underlying element A. We take this turn because we must acknowledge that while Is/Is Not are opposites they have a shared basis and can not therefore exclude each other as possibilities (otherwise (A) would tell you nothing whatsoever about Not(A) and vice versa). If such mutual exclusion was possible, the result would stand as a frozen and one-sided relationship that is immutable. To say '"A Is Not" doesn't contain the possibility for motion/transition within the schema we're operating under. Quite the predicament.
So, perforce, we come to consider A to be a concept that may exist in two different, opposing states both of which are automatically IMPLIED to exist if A exists.
Now lets zoom out for reflection and realize that we have already induced "progress". Our definition of 'Negation' began with "Negation is.." and proceeded to "Negation is NOT..a, b,c" We found the latter to be more revealing and more powerful as a tool when contrasted with the former. From this simple example, we were able to make a number of further deductions. Thus as we proceeded in our investigation we see that we did not move at random to examine two unconnected thoughts..we built an evolving thread/chain of thought that yielded a series of results which ADVANCED our conversation.
From this we can construe that there is a constant fluidity to thinking and this fluidity is imparted with a forward direction. Adjusting to this observation, we see that concepts within our thinking can no longer remain frozen and timeless of the A=(A) variety
(End Part 1)
Part 2:
Pardon me if Part 2 sounds disjointed but the lack of feedback has pushed me to go in a slightly different direction than I originally intended.
We are working towards Materialism and then Dialectical Materialism but let us dwell on Method for a bit.
Isolating a thing, trying to consider it by and in itself, is a method of abstraction. A thing does not exist independently but in a complex matrix with other things and, further, a thing enjoys no guaranteed permanence. Instead it is mediated by the interplay of the network of things which are arrayed alongside it, thus it is mutable (mutation).
In the reverse, if we are able to isolate our thing it more and more loses its unique character as we do. It is stripped of all qualities because quality is a comparative and not an absolute -- they are relative to the external and not a component of the internal.
We now have the peculiar situation where our attempt at determination produces exactly the opposite result. We cannot take the measure of our thing because measure is a quality. It is not bounded by any other thing and therefore it is undetermined. As we peer into our thing nothing is reflected, just as it is not reflected in any other thing. All determinate things are distinguished -- lacking this feature as well, our thing has become NOthing.
In this abstraction, we have reduced our thing to its homogeneous form -- it is an atom. With an atom there is only one thing to do -- put it back into relationship with everything else so that we can understand how it is changed and transformed as a result of this connectivity (this is its negation). Now instead of removing a thing from the real world, we are inserting a thing back into the real world.. and it becomes more and more "real" as we do so.
This holds no matter how "far out" the thing we choose to consider might be, even if it is the nebulous "Human Nature". This is the method we seek to realize.. we consider things in connection to other things and include within this web the things transmogrification as a valid selection as a "thing" . This is the methodology of dialectics which dates back (at least) to the ancient Greeks.
There is one more wrinkle.. if we can consider one thing, we can consider everything *in total*. This is Being.
Just as any other thing we can consider in a vacuum, Being is vacuous. It is atemporal because it is immediately given and amorphous because no property of it can be found. It turns out, there is no way we can hold it in our mind at all.
In fact, Being, in its indeterminate immediacy, is Nothing, neither more nor less
Switch gears from Being to Nothing. Not Nothing counter posed to Being but simply Nothing and we find..
Nothing is, therefore, the same determination, or rather absence of determination, and thus altogether the same as, pure Being.
So we come to Hegel and his Science of Logic.
Becoming
1. Unity of Being and Nothing
Pure Being and pure Nothing are, therefore, the same. What is the truth is neither Being nor Nothing, but that Being −− does not pass over but has passed over −− into Nothing, and Nothing into Being. But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that, on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely distinct, and yet that they are unseparated and inseparable and that each each immediately vanishes in its opposite. Their truth is therefore, this movement of the immediate vanishing of the one into the other: Becoming, a movement in which both are distinguished, but by a difference which has equally immediately resolved itself.
But lest he mince words, Hegel invokes Heraclitus as well.
Being is no more than Nothing is' or 'All things flow,' which means everything is Becoming
This constant passing of one thing into something else defines MATERIALIST dialectics and it does not matter if the topic under examination is society or the inflationary expansion of the universe.
As a final note we can now realize that if it is humans that we wish to track in this way we must first note that humans exist socially. And the movement and development of society is.. history. Hence, historical materialism.