Rosa Lichtenstein
7th March 2006, 16:48
This is from the summary to Essay Eleven at my site (the full essay will be posted in a month or so):
"In this Essay, the aim is to show that the refusal by DM-theorists to say what they mean by the word "Totality" fatally undermines their entire theory, turning it either into a crude form of Conventionalism or into a confused version of Phenomenalism.
The author of TAR ('The Algebra of Revolution'), for example, simply says that:
"Totality refers to the insistence that the various seemingly separate elements of which the world is composed are in fact related to each other." [Rees (1998), p.5.]
This can't be right since it tells us that the "Totality" is an "insistence", which if it were --, and as the word suggests --, it would have to be foisted onto nature.
If pressed, dialecticians sometimes vaguley appeal to "nature" (or perhaps "the Universe") as a physical embodiment of their "Totality", but this is of little help. As we will soon see, such vague gestures allow in far too many things one would normally prefer to keep out.
This response also leaves out of consideration the past. The past is surely part of nature and the universe, one supposes. But, clearly, the past does not exist (except it might do to those with a novel understanding of the word "exist"). And yet, if the past is included as part of the Totality, then the latter must contain many things that do not exist. This might make it difficult to explain how everything in the Totality is interconnected.
Clearly, no matter how big the Universe now is, most things that have featured in it at some point did so in the past. If so, items in the present Totality must be interconnected with far more non-existent things than existents. The word "interconnected" would then become rather difficult to account for in physical terms.
If now the past is said the be interconnected with the present as a result of certain current processes that stretch into the past, then that would mean that while certain current processes in nature are connected with those in the past, the past is not actually interconnected with the present (unless we allow 'backwards' causation, where the present is back-connected with the non-existent past -- but what kind of connection would that be?). Clearly, that would mean that the vast bulk of the Totality would not be interconnected, as we were led to believe.
On the other hand, if the past is said to exist (as part of a sort of Einsteinian four-dimensional manifold) then that would scupper the DM-belief in change. This is because there is no objective change in such a world. On this view, change is the result of our subjective perception of how successive orthogonal hyperplane slices through this manifold seem to be related to one another.
And even if that is rejected, then most of the Totality would still be changeless. So, if the past does exist, it could not change (into what?). That would mean that the vast bulk of the Totality would be frozen like Plato's Forms.
Alternatively, if the existence of the past is rejected, then dialecticians might find it difficult to account for the present. How can anything non-existent create all that now exists? That would be worse than believing in God.
Of course, the same sort of problems afflict the Totality in relation to the both present and the future. Given that the present lasts only a moment (easily less than a yocto second, i.e., 10 to the power minus 24 seconds, but anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's), it is surely far too ephemeral to be interconnected with anything -- that is, if the Totality consists of only the present state of the Universe. It is hard to see how such a ghostly entity could account for anything at all. On the other hand, if the present is interconnected with something, what is it? It can't be the past; that does not exist. It can't be the future either, for the same reason.
It rather looks like the DM-Totality is even less substantial than Cheshire Cat's smile.
[Possible responses to these and other points will be considered in detail in Essay Eleven.]
More significantly, DM-theorists have in general failed to inform us just how they know that there is only one "Totality" (as opposed to two, or ten thousand, or, indeed, none at all). Nor have they revealed how they are so sure that everything belongs to the same "Totality".
Appealing to the BBT here will do no good since that just accounts for the origin of our universe (although some scientists and Marxists reject this theory; on this see, for example, here: http://www.marxist.com/crisis-in-cosmology241105.htm), not the "Totality" (for which we are still owed even so much as a vague DM-depiction, let alone anything like a clear definition).
Nor will it do to appeal to what the word "Totality" itself means (i.e., "everything") -- unless, that is, those aiming to do so openly admit to trying to derive yet another substantive truth about nature from the supposed meaning of a word (and hence, foisting this on reality).
Of course, if there are a few brave DM-fans who still want to link their "Totality" to whatever the Big Bang produced, then they would, it seems, have to accept that they live in that changeless four-dimensional manifold mentioned above, which is integral to the latter theory.
Moreover, the word "everything" is a little too loose a word to use in political company, since it would allow the Totality to contain some rather odd items. [On this see below.]
Some might want to refer us to scientists to tell us what the "Totality" is; but that might not be such a good idea. If we naively relied on what scientists have at some point told us exists then the "Totality" would contain things like Caloric, Phlogiston, Piltdown Man and the Crystalline Spheres (as well as numerous other peculiar objects and processes that scientists used to swear once existed).
On the other hand, if the "Totality" does not contain these things (any longer?) then either (1) the "Totality" must have changed in the past in line with our ideas about it (indicating that is is Ideal), or (2) scientists shouldn't be allowed the sole right to decide what its contents are.
But, if scientists are now refused exclusive rights in this area, then one can only sympathise with the poor comrade who has to sit on the 'revolutionary selection panel' charged with deciding whether any of the following belong to the "Totality", or not:
Vacua, mirages, illusions, holes, surfaces, corners, shadows, the 'Unconscious', mirror and lens images, para-reflections, the perspectival properties of bodies, phantom limbs, dreams, rainbows, refractions, pains, hallucinations, memories, emotions, the Ether, N Rays, Orgone, the Fifth Force, Bioenergy, Polywater, Superstrings, branched time zones, Axions, Branes, the Higgs Boson, virtual particles, particles themselves, selfish genes, I.Q., race, Morphogenic Fields, homeopathic phenomena, 'Mitochondrial Eve', the Placebo effect, gravitons, tachyons, Gaia, singularities, geodesics, gravitational waves, electrons travelling 'backward' in time, magnetic monopoles, tetraneutrons, phase space, photinos, dark matter, the Field, world-lines, Strange Attractors, Cold Fusion, MACHO's, WIMPS, spinors, the future, the past and the specious present.
However, without such a panel, the DM-Totality would be about as Ideal as Hegel's Absolute ever was (or it would largely be empty). On the other hand, even with such a panel, the Totality would be sensitive to human choice -- and thus as conventional as other areas of science are (and hence, non-objective).
Moreover, if Lenin is right and all knowledge is provisional (and it is worth recalling here that Lenin himself described the existence of the Ether as "objective" [Lenin (1972), pp.50, 312, 314, 329]), then the "Totality" would have to change whenever its content list was revised (as indeed it might have to do soon, given the fact that the Higgs Boson is barely clinging onto its theoretical life right now, as it seems is 'Dark Matter', too). Naturally, that will mean that this supposedly 'objective' "Totality" must change in line with the decisions we make about it, making it even more identical to Hegel's Absolute. On the other hand, if the "Totality" does not change in line with our decisions about it, what on earth is it?
Given the fact that some scientists are beginning to think that the Ether should be re-introduced into Physics (details are given in Essay Eleven) this seems to mean therefore that the "Totality" has its own sort of metaphysical revolving door in order to accommodate the changing roll call nominated by constitutionally fickle scientists.
But worse, if we can't decide on what basis to include or exclude things from this avowedly contradictory "Totality", then perhaps it includes things that not only do not exist, but things that cannot exist?
This latest possibility now poses a far more serious problem for any attempt to construct a definition of the "Totality". This is because several DM-theses indicate that the 'perimeter fence' (as it were) encircling the Totality is full of holes. While rival ontological systems operate with some sort of closed-border policy -- admitting the existence of certain things, while disallowing others -– it turns out that DM-theorists may not reject anything at all, since they openly admit (if not insist upon) the existence of contradictions -– and countless trillions of them. Hence, the DM-boundary fence is not so much porous as non-existent. The Totality, it seems, could contain anything, including impossible objects -- not just contradictory objects and processes, but mythical and imaginary ones, too. Maybe it includes four-edged hexagons, the round square, the golden mountain, unicorns, all the Olympian Gods, the end of the rainbow and the Adhedral Triangle.
Anyone tempted to reply here that the above list contains contradictory items, which can be ruled out in advance, should consult their local DM-soothsayer; given DM-principles it is not easy to see how any of these can be rejected on an a priori basis. Thus, if the DM-Totality is to be rescued from absurdity some way must be found to stop these and countless other 'impossibles' before they cross its porous border.
It could be objected that DM-apologists only acknowledge the existence of contradictions that can be empirically verified. Hence, they neither countenance the actuality of 'theoretical contradictions', nor the mere existence of 'contradictory objects'. But, this counter-claim is demonstrably incorrect. [This is carried out in detail in Essay Seven.]
Again, it could be argued that 'contradictory objects' are easily excluded because they are not material and do not represent verifiable material forces. But who says? How do we know that scientists might not one day discover weird things like those mentioned above? Indeed, they already have discovered several of their own; many were listed earlier. Electrons travelling backwards in time, and events happening before they occur seem pretty absurd, but scientists openly admit to these.
[DL = Dialectical Logic. UO = Unity of Opposites. DM = Dialectical Materialism.]
To be sure, possibilities like this cannot be ruled out by someone wielding principles found only in DL; it is because of this unwise choice that DM-theorists openly admit the existence of countless contradictions already. In fact, if everything in existence is a UO (as Lenin claimed) then there should be as many contradictions in reality as there are elementary particles (and possibly more). In that case, the above 'impossibilities' cannot be ruled out in advance of all the evidence having been considered (which, even today, we are nowhere near to having), certainly not on principles exclusive to DL.
Of course, DM-theorists already acknowledge the actual existence of contradictory objects and processes prior to all (or even most, or even a tiny fraction) of the evidence has been amassed (and in many cases in abeyance of any evidence) since they regard (nay, insist that) everything as a UO. If this is so, then for all they know the Totality could contain these and other absurdities. If, according to DM, an infinite amount of knowledge awaits future discovery, then at any point in history (such as the present) humanity must be infinitely ignorant of the final contents of -- and the principles governing -- the universe. That being so, no one in the grip of this Hermetic virus (DM) is in any position to rule such absurdities out. The only way these could be excluded is by an appeal to principles exclusive to FL -- and on a basis of rules of language that are incompatible with those found in DL.
[FL = Formal Logic.]
As we have already seen (in connection with Engels's analysis of motion (in Essay Five) -– and will also see later in connection with other DM-theses), DM-theoreticians already admit the existence of contradictory objects and events. Examples of these include the "unity of opposite poles" in a magnet, "contradictory" opposing forces throughout nature and society, "contradictory" moving objects, "contradictory" numbers and mathematical concepts, seeds which "negate" themselves, the existence of actual infinities, the fundamentally "contradictory" nature of matter (wherein certain particles are both wave and particle, continuous and discontinuous, all at once), appearances that 'contradict' "essences", and the "contradictory" nature of life (in that it is dead and alive all at once), and so on. As Lenin noted:
"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [E]ach thing (phenomenon, process, etc.)…is connected with every other…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other….
"In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics….
"The splitting of the whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts…is the essence (one of the 'essentials', one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristic features) of dialectics….
"In mathematics: + and -. Differential and integral. In mechanics: action and reaction. In physics: positive and negative electricity. In chemistry: the combination and dissociation of atoms….
"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….
"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58.]
This means that DM-theorists cannot consistently debar any of the contradictory and unlikely entities listed above [I]solely on the basis of their contradictory nature; theorists who postulate contradictions everywhere, but who suddenly become fastidious about contradictions just when it suits them should not be expected to be taken seriously.
But, what could be more contradictory than a Totality that perhaps admits among its denizens things that not only do not exist (like the past), but also those that cannot exist (like infinitely divisible matter)? Unfortunately, once this metaphysical rollercoaster starts moving it takes something a little more substantial than DL to stop it.
If DM is not to be imposed on the world, but read from it -- as its supporters constantly proclaim -- then DM-advocates cannot stipulate what the Totality does or does not contain ahead of an empirical investigation. Others might be able to do this, but they cannot.
[b]This is their millstone; they should wear it with pride.
Hence any attempt to rule out of existence one or more of the contradictory objects listed above would trap DM-theorist between their own millstone (DL) and a hard place: FL.
Ordinarily, those of us who are not wedded to a crazy system of logic (like DL) not only can, but do in fact rule out of existence certain things because of principles expressed in FL and ordinary language. And we are right to do so. On similar grounds we may deny the legitimacy of alleged propositions that purport the existence of contradictions in nature. But, this avenue is closed-off to DM-theorists who claim that we have to wait upon the deliverances of their mythically infinite quest for Absolute Knowledge before we can finally decide whether such propositions are fully true. If so, DM-theorists may not now complain about the suggestion that their Totality might contain some or all of the odd things listed above -– the supposed (if not possible) existence of which was based on a cavalier rejection of the protocols of FL and ordinary language.
The dilemma DM-theorists now face is quite plain: either they continue to disdain those parts of FL they have cursed to the tenth generation -- the repudiation of which created this problem --, thus admitting the possible existence of all manner of contradictory objects, events and processes; or they reject the existence of such things (and abandon the idea that contradictions exist in nature) because of rules codified by FL and expressed in ordinary language.
What seems certain, however, is that the unwise rejection of specific tenets of FL has left the DM-Totality wide open to infestation by countless weird and wonderful 'entities', the elimination of which requires rapid inoculation with a belated dose of those very same tenets.
Hence, as a result of yet another dialectical inversion, FL would be required to rescue DM-theorists from the contradictory Totality they summoned into existence; a Whole that could include, for all we know -- or for all they know -- the complete Hindu pantheon, all the Norse gods, the departed spirits of the entire Apache nation, and possibly even the Evil One Himself.
nature; in that case, whether there is a totality in human affairs is not open to doubt.]
The Contradictory Totality
Other themes are examined in detail in this Essay: (1) the universally confused use of the word "contradiction" in DM-texts (where it is often confused with "contrary"); and (2) the belief that everything is interconnected.
Criticism of (1) is partly based on the observation that if nature is fundamentally contradictory then any evidence drawn from the world must simultaneously refute and confirm the predictions of whatever theory is being tested. The options available to DM-theorists to paint their way out of this corner are examined in detail; all are shown to fail.
The best spin that can be put on this whole idea is that in DM-propositions containing the word "contradiction" must be figurative -- unless, that is, we are to suppose that objects and processes in nature and society literally argue with one another, anthropomorphising reality to suite.
Moreover, contrary to what is usually claimed, the LOC makes no existential claims; it merely says that if one proposition is true its contradictory is false. [This can work with non-existents easily: the proposition that Sherlock Holmes is a detective is contradicted by the proposition that he is not.] To be sure, dialecticians reject this (where it suits them), but they can do so only on the basis of the above figurative extension to the content of sentences using the word "contradiction".
[LOC = Law of Non-Contradiction.]
In response to this, it is of little help being told that "contradiction" really means "conflict" or "struggle" since these words gain whatever sense they have from their use in connection with agents. In which case, unless we are prepared to populate the entire universe with literal agents, sentences containing the words "conflict" or "struggle" can only be understood figuratively, too. Hence, it is not possible to make literal sense of the use of the word "contradiction" in dialectics.
The etymology of the word "conflict", from the Latin, supports this view: conflictus: 'a contest', is defined at:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/conflict?view=uk
[Of course, this is not to deny that there are profound and fundamental conflicts in class society; but here there are agents -- and they can contradict one another, just as they can enter conflict with one another, and thus power the class struggle.]
Consequently, it is difficult to see how such figurative "contradictions" could actually cause change -- any more than, say, the depiction of an uncouth man as a "pig" can create rashers of bacon.
Interconnected -- Or Hermetically Sealed Units?
As far as (2) is concerned, serious questions are raised as to how DM-theorists can possibly know that everything in reality is interconnected, what the boundaries are to this claim (Is the past included? If not, how can the present be explained?) and what exactly is the nature of these interconnections. Are they instantaneous, across all regions of space and time? If so, how might this ever be verified? If not, what are their limits? Are they faster than light?
These worries are then linked to concerns raised in Essay Eight; if everything is indeed interconnected, change cannot arise from "internal contradictions", as DM-theorists insist. Conversely, if change does result from a dynamic internal to each object and process, nothing in the universe could be interconnected (except in the most trivial of senses)."
More details at:
http://www.anti-dialectics.org
"In this Essay, the aim is to show that the refusal by DM-theorists to say what they mean by the word "Totality" fatally undermines their entire theory, turning it either into a crude form of Conventionalism or into a confused version of Phenomenalism.
The author of TAR ('The Algebra of Revolution'), for example, simply says that:
"Totality refers to the insistence that the various seemingly separate elements of which the world is composed are in fact related to each other." [Rees (1998), p.5.]
This can't be right since it tells us that the "Totality" is an "insistence", which if it were --, and as the word suggests --, it would have to be foisted onto nature.
If pressed, dialecticians sometimes vaguley appeal to "nature" (or perhaps "the Universe") as a physical embodiment of their "Totality", but this is of little help. As we will soon see, such vague gestures allow in far too many things one would normally prefer to keep out.
This response also leaves out of consideration the past. The past is surely part of nature and the universe, one supposes. But, clearly, the past does not exist (except it might do to those with a novel understanding of the word "exist"). And yet, if the past is included as part of the Totality, then the latter must contain many things that do not exist. This might make it difficult to explain how everything in the Totality is interconnected.
Clearly, no matter how big the Universe now is, most things that have featured in it at some point did so in the past. If so, items in the present Totality must be interconnected with far more non-existent things than existents. The word "interconnected" would then become rather difficult to account for in physical terms.
If now the past is said the be interconnected with the present as a result of certain current processes that stretch into the past, then that would mean that while certain current processes in nature are connected with those in the past, the past is not actually interconnected with the present (unless we allow 'backwards' causation, where the present is back-connected with the non-existent past -- but what kind of connection would that be?). Clearly, that would mean that the vast bulk of the Totality would not be interconnected, as we were led to believe.
On the other hand, if the past is said to exist (as part of a sort of Einsteinian four-dimensional manifold) then that would scupper the DM-belief in change. This is because there is no objective change in such a world. On this view, change is the result of our subjective perception of how successive orthogonal hyperplane slices through this manifold seem to be related to one another.
And even if that is rejected, then most of the Totality would still be changeless. So, if the past does exist, it could not change (into what?). That would mean that the vast bulk of the Totality would be frozen like Plato's Forms.
Alternatively, if the existence of the past is rejected, then dialecticians might find it difficult to account for the present. How can anything non-existent create all that now exists? That would be worse than believing in God.
Of course, the same sort of problems afflict the Totality in relation to the both present and the future. Given that the present lasts only a moment (easily less than a yocto second, i.e., 10 to the power minus 24 seconds, but anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's), it is surely far too ephemeral to be interconnected with anything -- that is, if the Totality consists of only the present state of the Universe. It is hard to see how such a ghostly entity could account for anything at all. On the other hand, if the present is interconnected with something, what is it? It can't be the past; that does not exist. It can't be the future either, for the same reason.
It rather looks like the DM-Totality is even less substantial than Cheshire Cat's smile.
[Possible responses to these and other points will be considered in detail in Essay Eleven.]
More significantly, DM-theorists have in general failed to inform us just how they know that there is only one "Totality" (as opposed to two, or ten thousand, or, indeed, none at all). Nor have they revealed how they are so sure that everything belongs to the same "Totality".
Appealing to the BBT here will do no good since that just accounts for the origin of our universe (although some scientists and Marxists reject this theory; on this see, for example, here: http://www.marxist.com/crisis-in-cosmology241105.htm), not the "Totality" (for which we are still owed even so much as a vague DM-depiction, let alone anything like a clear definition).
Nor will it do to appeal to what the word "Totality" itself means (i.e., "everything") -- unless, that is, those aiming to do so openly admit to trying to derive yet another substantive truth about nature from the supposed meaning of a word (and hence, foisting this on reality).
Of course, if there are a few brave DM-fans who still want to link their "Totality" to whatever the Big Bang produced, then they would, it seems, have to accept that they live in that changeless four-dimensional manifold mentioned above, which is integral to the latter theory.
Moreover, the word "everything" is a little too loose a word to use in political company, since it would allow the Totality to contain some rather odd items. [On this see below.]
Some might want to refer us to scientists to tell us what the "Totality" is; but that might not be such a good idea. If we naively relied on what scientists have at some point told us exists then the "Totality" would contain things like Caloric, Phlogiston, Piltdown Man and the Crystalline Spheres (as well as numerous other peculiar objects and processes that scientists used to swear once existed).
On the other hand, if the "Totality" does not contain these things (any longer?) then either (1) the "Totality" must have changed in the past in line with our ideas about it (indicating that is is Ideal), or (2) scientists shouldn't be allowed the sole right to decide what its contents are.
But, if scientists are now refused exclusive rights in this area, then one can only sympathise with the poor comrade who has to sit on the 'revolutionary selection panel' charged with deciding whether any of the following belong to the "Totality", or not:
Vacua, mirages, illusions, holes, surfaces, corners, shadows, the 'Unconscious', mirror and lens images, para-reflections, the perspectival properties of bodies, phantom limbs, dreams, rainbows, refractions, pains, hallucinations, memories, emotions, the Ether, N Rays, Orgone, the Fifth Force, Bioenergy, Polywater, Superstrings, branched time zones, Axions, Branes, the Higgs Boson, virtual particles, particles themselves, selfish genes, I.Q., race, Morphogenic Fields, homeopathic phenomena, 'Mitochondrial Eve', the Placebo effect, gravitons, tachyons, Gaia, singularities, geodesics, gravitational waves, electrons travelling 'backward' in time, magnetic monopoles, tetraneutrons, phase space, photinos, dark matter, the Field, world-lines, Strange Attractors, Cold Fusion, MACHO's, WIMPS, spinors, the future, the past and the specious present.
However, without such a panel, the DM-Totality would be about as Ideal as Hegel's Absolute ever was (or it would largely be empty). On the other hand, even with such a panel, the Totality would be sensitive to human choice -- and thus as conventional as other areas of science are (and hence, non-objective).
Moreover, if Lenin is right and all knowledge is provisional (and it is worth recalling here that Lenin himself described the existence of the Ether as "objective" [Lenin (1972), pp.50, 312, 314, 329]), then the "Totality" would have to change whenever its content list was revised (as indeed it might have to do soon, given the fact that the Higgs Boson is barely clinging onto its theoretical life right now, as it seems is 'Dark Matter', too). Naturally, that will mean that this supposedly 'objective' "Totality" must change in line with the decisions we make about it, making it even more identical to Hegel's Absolute. On the other hand, if the "Totality" does not change in line with our decisions about it, what on earth is it?
Given the fact that some scientists are beginning to think that the Ether should be re-introduced into Physics (details are given in Essay Eleven) this seems to mean therefore that the "Totality" has its own sort of metaphysical revolving door in order to accommodate the changing roll call nominated by constitutionally fickle scientists.
But worse, if we can't decide on what basis to include or exclude things from this avowedly contradictory "Totality", then perhaps it includes things that not only do not exist, but things that cannot exist?
This latest possibility now poses a far more serious problem for any attempt to construct a definition of the "Totality". This is because several DM-theses indicate that the 'perimeter fence' (as it were) encircling the Totality is full of holes. While rival ontological systems operate with some sort of closed-border policy -- admitting the existence of certain things, while disallowing others -– it turns out that DM-theorists may not reject anything at all, since they openly admit (if not insist upon) the existence of contradictions -– and countless trillions of them. Hence, the DM-boundary fence is not so much porous as non-existent. The Totality, it seems, could contain anything, including impossible objects -- not just contradictory objects and processes, but mythical and imaginary ones, too. Maybe it includes four-edged hexagons, the round square, the golden mountain, unicorns, all the Olympian Gods, the end of the rainbow and the Adhedral Triangle.
Anyone tempted to reply here that the above list contains contradictory items, which can be ruled out in advance, should consult their local DM-soothsayer; given DM-principles it is not easy to see how any of these can be rejected on an a priori basis. Thus, if the DM-Totality is to be rescued from absurdity some way must be found to stop these and countless other 'impossibles' before they cross its porous border.
It could be objected that DM-apologists only acknowledge the existence of contradictions that can be empirically verified. Hence, they neither countenance the actuality of 'theoretical contradictions', nor the mere existence of 'contradictory objects'. But, this counter-claim is demonstrably incorrect. [This is carried out in detail in Essay Seven.]
Again, it could be argued that 'contradictory objects' are easily excluded because they are not material and do not represent verifiable material forces. But who says? How do we know that scientists might not one day discover weird things like those mentioned above? Indeed, they already have discovered several of their own; many were listed earlier. Electrons travelling backwards in time, and events happening before they occur seem pretty absurd, but scientists openly admit to these.
[DL = Dialectical Logic. UO = Unity of Opposites. DM = Dialectical Materialism.]
To be sure, possibilities like this cannot be ruled out by someone wielding principles found only in DL; it is because of this unwise choice that DM-theorists openly admit the existence of countless contradictions already. In fact, if everything in existence is a UO (as Lenin claimed) then there should be as many contradictions in reality as there are elementary particles (and possibly more). In that case, the above 'impossibilities' cannot be ruled out in advance of all the evidence having been considered (which, even today, we are nowhere near to having), certainly not on principles exclusive to DL.
Of course, DM-theorists already acknowledge the actual existence of contradictory objects and processes prior to all (or even most, or even a tiny fraction) of the evidence has been amassed (and in many cases in abeyance of any evidence) since they regard (nay, insist that) everything as a UO. If this is so, then for all they know the Totality could contain these and other absurdities. If, according to DM, an infinite amount of knowledge awaits future discovery, then at any point in history (such as the present) humanity must be infinitely ignorant of the final contents of -- and the principles governing -- the universe. That being so, no one in the grip of this Hermetic virus (DM) is in any position to rule such absurdities out. The only way these could be excluded is by an appeal to principles exclusive to FL -- and on a basis of rules of language that are incompatible with those found in DL.
[FL = Formal Logic.]
As we have already seen (in connection with Engels's analysis of motion (in Essay Five) -– and will also see later in connection with other DM-theses), DM-theoreticians already admit the existence of contradictory objects and events. Examples of these include the "unity of opposite poles" in a magnet, "contradictory" opposing forces throughout nature and society, "contradictory" moving objects, "contradictory" numbers and mathematical concepts, seeds which "negate" themselves, the existence of actual infinities, the fundamentally "contradictory" nature of matter (wherein certain particles are both wave and particle, continuous and discontinuous, all at once), appearances that 'contradict' "essences", and the "contradictory" nature of life (in that it is dead and alive all at once), and so on. As Lenin noted:
"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] nternally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [E]ach thing (phenomenon, process, etc.)…is connected with every other…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other….
"In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the essence of dialectics….
"The splitting of the whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts…is the essence (one of the 'essentials', one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristic features) of dialectics….
"In mathematics: + and -. Differential and integral. In mechanics: action and reaction. In physics: positive and negative electricity. In chemistry: the combination and dissociation of atoms….
"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….
"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58.]
This means that DM-theorists cannot consistently debar any of the contradictory and unlikely entities listed above [I]solely on the basis of their contradictory nature; theorists who postulate contradictions everywhere, but who suddenly become fastidious about contradictions just when it suits them should not be expected to be taken seriously.
But, what could be more contradictory than a Totality that perhaps admits among its denizens things that not only do not exist (like the past), but also those that cannot exist (like infinitely divisible matter)? Unfortunately, once this metaphysical rollercoaster starts moving it takes something a little more substantial than DL to stop it.
If DM is not to be imposed on the world, but read from it -- as its supporters constantly proclaim -- then DM-advocates cannot stipulate what the Totality does or does not contain ahead of an empirical investigation. Others might be able to do this, but they cannot.
[b]This is their millstone; they should wear it with pride.
Hence any attempt to rule out of existence one or more of the contradictory objects listed above would trap DM-theorist between their own millstone (DL) and a hard place: FL.
Ordinarily, those of us who are not wedded to a crazy system of logic (like DL) not only can, but do in fact rule out of existence certain things because of principles expressed in FL and ordinary language. And we are right to do so. On similar grounds we may deny the legitimacy of alleged propositions that purport the existence of contradictions in nature. But, this avenue is closed-off to DM-theorists who claim that we have to wait upon the deliverances of their mythically infinite quest for Absolute Knowledge before we can finally decide whether such propositions are fully true. If so, DM-theorists may not now complain about the suggestion that their Totality might contain some or all of the odd things listed above -– the supposed (if not possible) existence of which was based on a cavalier rejection of the protocols of FL and ordinary language.
The dilemma DM-theorists now face is quite plain: either they continue to disdain those parts of FL they have cursed to the tenth generation -- the repudiation of which created this problem --, thus admitting the possible existence of all manner of contradictory objects, events and processes; or they reject the existence of such things (and abandon the idea that contradictions exist in nature) because of rules codified by FL and expressed in ordinary language.
What seems certain, however, is that the unwise rejection of specific tenets of FL has left the DM-Totality wide open to infestation by countless weird and wonderful 'entities', the elimination of which requires rapid inoculation with a belated dose of those very same tenets.
Hence, as a result of yet another dialectical inversion, FL would be required to rescue DM-theorists from the contradictory Totality they summoned into existence; a Whole that could include, for all we know -- or for all they know -- the complete Hindu pantheon, all the Norse gods, the departed spirits of the entire Apache nation, and possibly even the Evil One Himself.
nature; in that case, whether there is a totality in human affairs is not open to doubt.]
The Contradictory Totality
Other themes are examined in detail in this Essay: (1) the universally confused use of the word "contradiction" in DM-texts (where it is often confused with "contrary"); and (2) the belief that everything is interconnected.
Criticism of (1) is partly based on the observation that if nature is fundamentally contradictory then any evidence drawn from the world must simultaneously refute and confirm the predictions of whatever theory is being tested. The options available to DM-theorists to paint their way out of this corner are examined in detail; all are shown to fail.
The best spin that can be put on this whole idea is that in DM-propositions containing the word "contradiction" must be figurative -- unless, that is, we are to suppose that objects and processes in nature and society literally argue with one another, anthropomorphising reality to suite.
Moreover, contrary to what is usually claimed, the LOC makes no existential claims; it merely says that if one proposition is true its contradictory is false. [This can work with non-existents easily: the proposition that Sherlock Holmes is a detective is contradicted by the proposition that he is not.] To be sure, dialecticians reject this (where it suits them), but they can do so only on the basis of the above figurative extension to the content of sentences using the word "contradiction".
[LOC = Law of Non-Contradiction.]
In response to this, it is of little help being told that "contradiction" really means "conflict" or "struggle" since these words gain whatever sense they have from their use in connection with agents. In which case, unless we are prepared to populate the entire universe with literal agents, sentences containing the words "conflict" or "struggle" can only be understood figuratively, too. Hence, it is not possible to make literal sense of the use of the word "contradiction" in dialectics.
The etymology of the word "conflict", from the Latin, supports this view: conflictus: 'a contest', is defined at:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/conflict?view=uk
[Of course, this is not to deny that there are profound and fundamental conflicts in class society; but here there are agents -- and they can contradict one another, just as they can enter conflict with one another, and thus power the class struggle.]
Consequently, it is difficult to see how such figurative "contradictions" could actually cause change -- any more than, say, the depiction of an uncouth man as a "pig" can create rashers of bacon.
Interconnected -- Or Hermetically Sealed Units?
As far as (2) is concerned, serious questions are raised as to how DM-theorists can possibly know that everything in reality is interconnected, what the boundaries are to this claim (Is the past included? If not, how can the present be explained?) and what exactly is the nature of these interconnections. Are they instantaneous, across all regions of space and time? If so, how might this ever be verified? If not, what are their limits? Are they faster than light?
These worries are then linked to concerns raised in Essay Eight; if everything is indeed interconnected, change cannot arise from "internal contradictions", as DM-theorists insist. Conversely, if change does result from a dynamic internal to each object and process, nothing in the universe could be interconnected (except in the most trivial of senses)."
More details at:
http://www.anti-dialectics.org