DM: A Total Screw-Up

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Good news for genuine materialists, for Rosa has driven yet another nail into the DM-coffin, so that the dialectcial cadaver can at last be given its long-overdue burial.

I have just published Essay Eleven Part One -- all 39,000 words of it, so there is plenty there for dialectically-distracted comrades to ignore, misconstrue and misquote.

Here is a taster (the links have been removed that explain some of the technical terms (etc.) that I have used):


So, What is It?

Imagine, if you will, Hamlet without the Prince, or at least without a single description of 'him' -- such as, whether he is indeed a Prince, male or female, or even whether he is a human being. Questions would rightly then be asked about that character's precise role in a play supposedly about 'him', and about the competence of its author, Shakespeare.

Fortunately, we need not so indulge our fancies.

But, imagine now, if you can, a theory that tells us it is the "world-view" of the proletariat --, the general theory of all that exists, and how it changes --, that everything is interconnected in something called the "Totality", and that the latter notion is a centrally important concept, so much so that nothing can be understood without it, but whose theorists studiously refuse to say what it is, or what those interconnections are, or even how they know so much about such an empty notion.

Imagine no more, for that theory is Dialectical Materialism, and those theorists are dialecticians, and they are champion prevaricators, too.

If you still have doubts, I invite you to search their writings (for my sins, I have), and in their totality. Unfortunately, even if you were the slightest bit interested, you will find precious little to help you decide what this theory is actually about, for their most avid supporters have yet to tell anyone (least of all one another) what this mysterious "Totality" actually is.

So, this is not just Hamlet without the Prince, it is Hamlet without the, er...well, what?

Over the last twenty or so years, I have made it a habit of asking the many DM-fans I have met what they think the "Totality" is. Most were somewhat miffed that I even dared to ask. However, some responded with "Nature, what else?", but refused to say anymore (perhaps because, as we will soon find out, there is no more to be said); some gestured to the heavens and said "All that!", rather like parents who try to explain to little children where 'God' is with an "He's up there, in heaven", waving their hands vaguely upwards, a bit like confused dialecticians. Some confessed they do not know, but they still believed in it, just like those children with hand-waving parents.

Others of a more scientific frame of mind referred to the "Big Bang", forgetting that this is a theory of origins; it tells us nothing about "everything", as we will soon find out.

More kindly readers might be tempted to respond thus: "This cannot be so! Surely someone has specified clearly what the DM-"Totality" is; after all, dialecticians have had 150 years or more to come up with something!"

To be sure, some of the DM-faithful have offered the world a handful of vague ideas, casually linking them to that mysterious being, the "Totality" --, but beyond that, as we will also soon see, they have sat on their hands or looked the other way.

Dialecticians are thus remarkably coy about their "Totality", and it is not difficult to see why; there isn't one.

Or rather: there is in fact no way of referring to whatever they think they want to refer to.

"God", The "Totality", And The Via Negativa

Just as it is impossible to say what 'God' is, it is impossible to say what the "Totality" is, and this is not so much because of what the word might seem to mean, but because it is in fact a meaningless term (just like "God", and for remarkably similar reasons).

To believers, 'God' is unlike anything you or I or anyone could conceive. Anyone who thinks differently has simply latched onto an inferior 'being' not worth persecuting a single heretic over. So, the faithful have found it impossible to speak of 'God' except by using inappropriate metaphors.

Is "God" really a father? With sexual organs? Is heaven as old as 'He' is? If not, where did 'He' live before 'He' made it? If so, is it an uncreated being too? Can 'God' remember where 'He' came from? You get the picture.

More sophisticated theologians use analogies, where, even though some of the relating terms are well understood, the target isn't. What precisely are they analogising?

Failing both, they fall back on a via negativa: God is not this, not that, not....

As that lapsed right wing atheist Anthony Flew once observed, in this way God slowly dies the death of a thousand qualifications, and in the end is different from nothing at all.

But, if we know nothing of 'God', how is the use of this word any different from using, say, "slithy tove". Save an appeal to a not very appealing tradition, where the word "God" has been used to depict all manner of things, from money, to Eric Clapton, to the powers of nature, to various Roman Emperors, what can believers point to, to explain this word to those who just see three letters congealed on the page/screen, in an inky sort of Trinity, before them?

Similarly, to what can the DM-faithful appeal to help us non-believers comprehend their invisible Being? As we will soon find out, their inverted Deity, their "Totality", also dies the death of a thousand qualifications.

At this point, some might be tempted to respond with the "Everything" ploy, but that is no use since it will simply prompt the next annoying question: "And what does that include?" As we will also see, there is no way to answer that query that does not sink DM one millimetre per second slower than it does Theology.

So: is this "everything", everything that exists now, has once existed, will one day exist, could exist, or might have existed? Is it everything that has been thought about, not thought about, discovered, not discovered, found then lost (like Phlogiston), lost then found, then lost again (like Democritus and then Dalton's indivisible atoms)? Does it include the Apache 'Gods' (surely they are part of 'everything'..., or are they?), the mythical beasts of yore? Who knows, scientists might net one of these one day? Look at the Coelacanth, glypheoid lobsters, jurodid beetles, and, of course, George W Bush.

Does it rope in, or leave out, the edge of the universe? Indeed, does 'everything' have a boundary? If it does, is that boundary part of everything? If it isn't, then it cannot be the boundary of everything. If it is, then does that new ensemble have a boundary, too...?

As this Essay will show, even if we could find answers to the above perplexing questions, our problems would only just be starting, for as Russell's Paradox has taught us, unless we define "everything" very carefully, we might end up with a "Totality" that contains things it does not contain.

Down that road, one suspects, lies our very own dialectical via negativa.

Best not go there.

On the other hand, if we could define it carefully, that "Totality" would be a creature of convention, and just like "God", it would then be a human invention.

No wonder DM-fans go quiet when asked about their 'God'..., er, their "Totality".

Well, What Do The Dialectical Prophets Say?

The short answer is "Not a lot"; the long answer is "Not a lot...."

Read more here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2011_01.htm

[cmdrdeathguts]

http://www.extremefundamentalmakeover.com/straw%20man.jpg

totality is not a specific thing it is not Marx-speak for "everything". there is no Totality, only particular totalities. and it is no fundamental concept in dialectics, but a particular one developed by Lukacs. if you have a problem with it, take it up with him. It's just his word for the "moreness" than the sum of the parts, if you see what i mean. Now, how about you dedicate a few hundred of your 39,000 words to attacking something which actually exists? thanks.

pretty funny for someone who seems so terrified of being "misquoted", but there you go. typical bloody analyticals...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CMDRetc:


there is no Totality, only particular totalities. and it is no fundamental concept in dialectics, but a particular one developed by Lukacs. if you have a problem with it, take it up with him.

Well, I specifically ruled Lukacs out since his work is wall to wall gobbledygook.

So, in his case it isn't Hamlet without the Prince, but Htentm twiout eth Ripnce.


Now, how about you dedicate a few hundred of your 39,000 words to attacking something which actually exists? thanks.

Well, I am not sure what you are suggesting.

So, until you are more specific, I cannot comment.


pretty funny for someone who seems so terrified of being "misquoted", but there you go. typical bloody analyticals...

And who exactly do I misquote?

[And are all you Dialectical Mystics incapable of being clear, or of constructing a vaguely decent argument? Or of reading what I have written with any care? You, for example, are the umpteenth mystic (at RevLeft alone) to show you need glasses.]

[bretty]

I think he is getting at the fact that you do not expand on Lukacs work even though he is the one who created the definition to the word totality.

[cmdrdeathguts]

What I am getting at is quite simple - you are attacking a concept which you have invented entirely yourself. Find me an example of a theorist of totality within dialectics defining it nebulously as "everything", "nature" or any other such (pre-materialist, pre-dialectical) nonsense, and fine. Attack them. I'll help you out - Lukacs, Sartre and Adorno are the only people i can think of off my head who have anything to say on the matter, along with those they inspired (ie, western marxism as such).

to say nothing of your intellectually defunct dismissal of Lukacs (in the words of that great dialectician Egnignokt, "that sounds like a personal problem."). your engagement with the concept appears to run thus:
Axiom #1: The guy who came up with "totality" is "wall to wall gobbledygook".
Axiom #2: The guy who came up with "totality" came up with "totality".
Conclusion: Totality is gobbledygook!

can anyone say "presuming your conclusion"?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


I think he is getting at the fact that you do not expand on Lukacs work even though he is the one who created the definition to the word totality.

No, it was invented millennia ago by ancient mytics, and put in its classical form by Plato.

Lukacs just added to the confusion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CMDR:


you are attacking a concept which you have invented entirely yourself.

On the contrary I quote dozens of DM-fans who use the concept, but fail to explain it, as does your hero Lukacs, except he disguises that fact with all that gobbledygook you seem to like.

The other dialectical worthies you quote, if anything, are even worse.

I think an obscure Martian dialect would be clearer.


Axiom #1: The guy who came up with "totality" is "wall to wall gobbledygook".
Axiom #2: The guy who came up with "totality" came up with "totality".
Conclusion: Totality is gobbledygook!

As I said, you DM-fans are good at invention, and not too good at logic. [Your premisses look like they were constructed by a simpleton, who knows little English.

Plus, you confuse assumptions with axioms, which confirms you know very little logic -- something you share with Hegel and other DM-fans.

That is probably why you lot like mysticism.

And I note you failed to say who I misquoted.


can anyone say "presuming your conclusion"?

Eh?

[Hit The North]

In social theory the totality refers to society which is conceived as a system of inter-related parts, or levels of activity. Marxists often refer to it as the Mode of Production and it's analysis underpins what we Marxists refer to as Historical Materialism.

So there's no great mystery there; and Rosa, you don't have to thank me for clearing that up for you. ;)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


In social theory the totality refers to society which is conceived as a system of inter-related parts, or levels of activity. Marxists often refer to it as the Mode of Production and it's analysis underpins what we Marxists refer to as Historical Materialism.

Well, if you bothered to find out what I actually say, instead of making stuff up again, you would have seen this (it is in the opening paragraphs of the Essay from which this post was taken):


Finally, although I say this several times in this Essay, it is worth noting up-front that in what follows I will not be analysing holist ideas used to explain human social and economic development (unless they use Hegelian concepts), since that would involve issues taken from Historical Materialism, a theory I fully accept.

Hence, both Parts of this Essay are solely concerned with Dialectical Materialism, with Holist ideas applied to the natural world.

So, your comments are as irrelevant as we have come to expect from you.

[Hit The North]

R:


Well, if you bothered to find out what I actually say, instead of making stuff up again, you would have seen this (it is in the opening paragraphs of the Essay from which this post was taken):

Then perhaps you should have included it in the quotation which prefaces this thread - it would have been less disingenuous. Although, obviously that is your trademark.

Also, it is interesting that you accept the holism of social reality and yet appear to reject the marxist method of demonstrating the (internal) relations of the social system. That would be marxist dialectics, if you didn't know.

Meanwhile, this:


Over the last twenty or so years, I have made it a habit of asking the many DM-fans I have met what they think the "Totality" is. Most were somewhat miffed that I even dared to ask. However, some responded with "Nature, what else?", but refused to say anymore (perhaps because, as we will soon find out, there is no more to be said); some gestured to the heavens and said "All that!", rather like parents who try to explain to little children where 'God' is with an "He's up there, in heaven", waving their hands vaguely upwards, a bit like confused dialecticians. Some confessed they do not know, but they still believed in it, just like those children with hand-waving parents.

Only emphasizes this:

http://www.extremefundamentalmakeover.com/straw%20man.jpg

[cmdrdeathguts]

CMDR:


you are attacking a concept which you have invented entirely yourself.

On the contrary I quote dozens of DM-fans who use the concept, but fail to explain it, as does your hero Lukacs, except he disguises that fact with all that gobbledygook you seem to like.

Lukacs is not my hero, he's a minor league quasi-stalinist with possibly the worst theory of art in leftwing history. However, I see no problems with his use of the word "totality". that definition AGAIN:


In social theory the totality refers to society which is conceived as a system of inter-related parts, or levels of activity. Marxists often refer to it as the Mode of Production and it's analysis underpins what we Marxists refer to as Historical Materialism.

but what's this? you claim not to be attacking this concept of totality (or even the general "moreness than the sum of the parts" i referred to earlier)! Just the "holist" conceptions of "nature" that exist only in your little brain. Fantabulous! So, here you are, up against the actual ideas held by actual dialectical materialists and you don't even put up a fight. I do hope you continue to make things easy for us in future.

and still, you have not referred to single actual name in this thread, or a quote. scared of something?



The other dialectical worthies you quote, if anything, are even worse.

I think an obscure Martian dialect would be clearer.

again, that sounds like a personal problem. I have no issue with it. Neither do thousands of others in the tradition of Hegel. The reason for the opacity is quite simply that society is complicated, and elaborating its logic requires complicated concepts and specialist language. Your moaning is especially ironic since Hegel's whole project was to "teach philosophy to speak german", ie, stop it from hiding behind specialist language and make its ideas confront an audience - a true dialectical manoeuvre, if ever there was one. In time, his own concepts have become somewhat specialist, but the very fact that he attracted thousands of young radicals in the early 19th century attests to the fact that this was not always so.

basically, what i'm getting from you is a strong "too thick to understand Hegel, too arrogant to admit it" vibe.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Citizen Z, caught out again making stuff up, whimpers this excuse:


Then perhaps you should have included it in the quotation which prefaces this thread - it would have been less disingenuous.

I put stuff in, you moan, I leave stuff out, you moan.

But, still, you canot respond effectively to a single point I have made.

Nevertheless, your trademark is to moan; that you can do.


Also, it is interesting that you accept the holism of social reality and yet appear to reject the marxist method of demonstrating the (internal) relations of the social system. That would be marxist dialectics, if you didn't know.

No, I accepted it before ever I had heard of Marx, since it is implicit in our use of language.

Marxism just systematises this.

No internal relations -- or none you will be able to describe without using those mystical terms you like.


Only emphasizes this:

And even now, you cannot come up with an original idea of your own, but have to pinch something off someone else.

You are not much use to anyone/anything, are you?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CMDR (who is fond of non-definitions (or, because he knows little logic, cannot identify one)):


In social theory the totality refers to society which is conceived as a system of inter-related parts, or levels of activity. Marxists often refer to it as the Mode of Production and it's analysis underpins what we Marxists refer to as Historical Materialism.

This is a loose characterisation, not a definition.

Big mouth now tries a pathetic insult:


"moreness than the sum of the parts" i referred to earlier)! Just the "holist" conceptions of "nature" that exist only in your little brain. Fantabulous! So, here you are, up against the actual ideas held by actual dialectical materialists and you don't even put up a fight. I do hope you continue to make things easy for us in future.

Done it; all quoted in that Essay you did not read before you solied yourself in public.


and still, you have not referred to single actual name in this thread, or a quote. scared of something?

So why did you allege that I had misquoted someone?


again, that sounds like a personal problem

You are right, I have a personal and a logical problem with mysticism, and with gobbledygook that passes for thought.

That you do not says more about you than your embarassing comments have said so far.


The reason for the opacity is quite simply that society is complicated, and elaborating its logic requires complicated concepts and specialist language.

This is the fable we are constantly told, and you, in your logically-challenged state, have swallowed it.


Your moaning is especially ironic since Hegel's whole project was to "teach philosophy to speak german", ie, stop it from hiding behind specialist language and make its ideas confront an audience - a true dialectical manoeuvre, if ever there was one. In time, his own concepts have become somewhat specialist, but the very fact that he attracted thousands of young radicals in the early 19th century attests to the fact that this was not always so.

He failed badly then; or perhaps you cannot see that -- even if it contradicts your previous point.


basically, what i'm getting from you is a strong "too thick to understand Hegel, too arrogant to admit it" vibe.

I have never said you were too thick to understand Hegel, but if confession is good for the soul, thanks for owning up.

[Hit The North]

Rosa writes:


No, I accepted it before ever I had heard of Marx, since it is implicit in our use of language.

Eh?


No internal relations -- or none you will be able to describe without using those mystical terms you like.

Class relations are internal relations in so far as they don't exist outside of the social system.

As you admit that historical change is the result of class struggle, you accept the idea that society changes due to its own internal relations.


You are not much use to anyone/anything, are you?

I serve to point out the obvious to those who's mighty intellect causes them to miss it. You are a lucky beneficiary of my humble service.

[blake 3:17]

Why are word counts so important to this discussion? It seems a little neo-Platonist to me.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z's best question yet:


Eh?

Oh dear, right over your head, was it?


Class relations are internal relations in so far as they don't exist outside of the social system.

That just says they are social relations, not internal relations.

You clearly do not know what an internal relation is, witness this witless comment:


As you admit that historical change is the result of class struggle, you accept the idea that society changes due to its own internal relations.

From this it is clear that you think an internal relation is a relation internal to a system.

The term as used by Dialectical Mystics means that either element of the relation presupposes/implies the other.

Don't believe me? Then read Ollman on internal relations

I deny these exist (and for good reason, but I am blowed if I am going to help you out of this hole), except in very highly constrained contexts.

Examples?

Read my Essays.

Looks like I know your 'theory' better than you seem to.


I serve to point out the obvious to those who's mighty intellect causes them to miss it.

Given the above, you can't even do that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blake:


Why are word counts so important to this discussion? It seems a little neo-Platonist to me.

You will need to be a little less enigmatic if you want a reply. What word counts?

And, I agree, these dialectical mystics are NeoPlatonists -- since Plato it was who invented the 'Totality' in this form.

[Hit The North]

Rosa writes:


Oh dear, right over your head, was it?

No dear, I was merely expressing my amazement at what a crass statement it was. Even if our common-sense use of the word 'society' implies holism (which it doesn't), you need to specify how you conceive of the relations within the 'whole'. Are they on the basis of harmony and stasis or contradiction and movement? What form of holism are you propounding? Given that you reject the dialectical approach of Marx I assume you prefer a more equilibrium-based model - Durkheimian functionalism, perhaps?


[a] From this it is clear that you think an internal relation is a relation internal to a system.

[b] The term as used by Dialectical Mystics means that either element of the relation presupposes/implies the other.

Don't believe me? Then read Ollman on internal relations


Aside from the fact that [a] and don't necessarily contradict each other, let's take this from Olman:


[b]The relation is the irreducible minimum for all units in Marx's conception of social reality. This is really the nub of our difficulty in understanding Marxism, whose subject matter is not simply society but society conceived of "relationally". Capital, labor, value, commodity, etc., are all grasped as relations, containing in themselves, as integral elements of what they are, those parts with which we tend to see them externally tied. Essentially, a change of focus has occurred from viewing independent factors which are related to viewing the particular way in which they are related in each factor, to grasping this tie as part of the meaning conveyed by its concept. This view does not rule out the existence of a core notion for each factor, but treats this core notion itself as a cluster of relations.

Or this:


In Marx's view, such relations are internal to each factor (they are ontological relations), so that when an important one alters, the factor itself alters; it becomes something else. Its appearance and/or function has changed sufficiently for it to require a new concept. Thus, for example, if wage-labor disappeared, that is, if the workers' connection to capital radically changed, capital would no longer exist. The opposite, naturally, is also true: Marx declares it a "tautology" that "there can no longer be wage-labor when there is no longer any capital" (Marx and Engels, 1945, 36).

Ref: http://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/dd_ch02.php

So my example of social classes (or capital and labour to be more precise) as internal relations is fully in accordance with your definition of internal relations (i.e. "that either element of the relation presupposes/implies the other") and Marx's use of it in the analysis of social classes.

So whatever the faults in my thinking, at least in this regard it corresponds to that of Marx.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


No dear, I was merely expressing my amazement at what a crass statement it was

But you just said: "Eh?"

So, that was not what you were 'expressing' -- it was a question which suggested you did not get the point, and it seems that this is still the case.


Even if our common-sense use of the word 'society' implies holism (which it doesn't), you need to specify how you conceive of the relations within the 'whole'. Are they on the basis of harmony and stasis or contradiction and movement? What form of holism are you propounding? Given that you reject the dialectical approach of Marx I assume you prefer a more equilibrium-based model - Durkheimian functionalism, perhaps?

This has nothing to do with what I was saying, so it is clear you did not get the point, as I intimated earlier.

And I am well aware of what Ollman says, and even better, I can show he is deeply confused on this issue (as I will be doing in a later Essay).


So my example of social classes (or capital and labour to be more precise) as internal relations is fully in accordance with your definition of internal relations (i.e. "that either element of the relation presupposes/implies the other") and Marx's use of it in the analysis of social classes.

Recall, it is not my 'definition' --, and neither is it a definition.

That Marx did or did not use it is beside the point.

Whoever used this term, it is an empty notion.

Since Marx was not god, I am happy to disagree with him on this -- that is, if he used this notion.

But, since the phrase is absent from his writings, I suggest you think again.


So whatever the faults in my thinking, at least in this regard it corresponds to that of Marx.

I refer the honourable mystic to my earlier comments.

[Raúl Duke]

I find philosophy quite hard, especially when it has vague terms, and totality and other DM terms I heard sound vague....

Maybe I'm dumb in philosophy....but I always found it interesting (and slightly misterious)

I see that some people defend Totality, but could they enlighten me on what they think it is?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, Johnny, I feel the same as you, but I'd not hold my breath if I were you -- you will either get some vague terms about 'social wholes' (hardly "the Totality", but possibly minor sub-totalities"), or you will get some of the many attempts I rehearse in the full essay, only to reject on various grounds.

But, even if not, how whatever is on offer can be shown to be 'the Totality" as Hegel saw things, or as Engels, or as Lenin, etc (when they failed to say clearly what they meant), is entirely unclear.

Do we possess an Totality identik to be able to say that any example on offer is the same as another, or as the real one (should we ever find out what that is to be able to compare all these 'exmples' with)?

In short, whatever examples you might be given face insuperable problems.

As I said, no wonder DM-fans go quiet when asked about their 'god'.

[repeater138]

Just for clarity, what IS the difference between an axiom and an assumption? I was under the impression that an axiom is simply a formalized assumption. I suppose the act of formalizing it in some ways transforms it from being an assumption in the sense of an unconscious axiom of one's thought, but the line seems to be rather fine. What is your understanding of the difference and why is it relevant to what the comrade was talking to.

Further, I think in general it would be nice to know what is the ontological and epistmological position that you're staking out? One could easily read it in your criticisms, but whenever someone does that you avoid any responsibility for having a position at all, i.e. you either completely deligitimize what others perceptions are, or you claim that you have no responsibility to lay them out explicitly as they're already in your documents. Again I see your positions, but I only see them through your criticisms of DM, not on their own and stated as such, so what is your ontology, what is your epistemology?

Now I would like to give you my characterization of the position that you seem to be staking out and what's wrong with it:

First of all it has nothing to do with science as it is understood today. You claim that the world is non-contradictory. You claim that the world actually does exist in a simple Newtonian way. That is things mechanically move from cause and effect and that there is no reciprocity. But what do you have to say about Bohr and Heisenberg's paradox, or Godel's theorem? Both things which are rigorously logical and scientific and yet give us a picture of a universe which is profoundly contradictory, especially as consciousness or subjectivity relates to it.

"Significantly, the defenders of scientific realism (like Brichmont and Sokal) only briefly refer to some 'subjectivist' formulations of Heisenberg and Bohr that can give rise to relativist/historicist misappropriations, qualifying them as the expression of their author's philosophy, not part of the scientific edifice of quantum physics. Here, however, problems begin: Bohr's and Heisenberg's 'subjectivist' formulations are not a marginal phenomenon, but were canonized as 'Copenhagen orthodoxy', that is, as the 'official' interpretation of the ontological consequences of quantum physics. The fact is, the moment one wants to provide an ontological account of quantum physics (which notion of reality fits its results), paradoxes emerge that undermine standard commonsense scientistic objectivism. This fact is constantly emphasized by scientists themselves, who oscillate between the simple suspension of the ontological question (quantum physics functions, so do not try to understand it, just do the calculations...) and different ways out of the deadlock (Copenhagen orthodoxy, the Many Worlds Interpretation, some version of the 'hidden variable' theory that would save the notion of a singular and unique objective reality, like the one proposed by David Bohm, which nonetheless involves paradoxes of its own, like the notion of causality that runs backwards in time).

The more fundamental problem beneath these perplexities is: can we simply renounce the ontological question and limit ourselves to the mere functioning of the scientific apparatus, its calculations and measurements? A further impasse concerns the necessity somehow to relate scientific discoveries to everyday language, to translate them into it. It can be argued that problems emerge only when we try to translate the results of quantum physics back into our commonsense notions of reality. But is it possible to resist the temptation? All these topics are widely discussed in the literature on quantum physics, so they have nothing to do with cultural studies' (mis)appropriation of sciences. It was Richard Feynman himself who, in his famous statement, claimed that 'nobody understood quantum physics', implying that one can no longer translate its mathematical-theoretical edifice into the terms of our everyday notions of reality. The impact of modern physics WAS the shattering of the traditional naive-realist epistemological edifice: the sciences themselves opened up a gap in which obscurantist sprouts were able to grow."

Zizek - Lacan Between Cultural Studies and Cognitivism

I think this passage is rich in exposing how backwards and upside down Rosa's approach is. First of all she takes the naive-realist position which was shattered and shown to be nothing but ideology and presents it as the one and only TRUE approach to reality. From this standpoint she then attacks a system of thought which preceded the rupture in scientific understanding which in some ways it presaged (i.e. DM). That many sciences have been forced to recognize real and profound contradiction in their fields (whether this recognition then gets exhibited in a studious ignoring of the ontological question or in constant attempts at resolving it), has legitimized the dialectical position of the existence and the primacy of contradiction in reality. That dialectics, especially in its hegelian form, was essentially a mystical notion, does not mean that even in it's mysticism it had nothing of value to say. Furthermore, when Rosa deals with the hegelian dialectics and marxist dialectical materialism she treats them as undifferentiated. She ascribes hegelian positions to DM. She seems to think that DM is a simple dualistic philosophy, essentially hegelian in nature. It is not, and the use of Lukacs exposes where such an idea would come from, as he was one of the most prominent proponents of such a position. Furthermore, DM is a philosophy, and attempts to characterize it as a science are misguided, and attempts to then attack it for not being the science that it is not, are silly. DM makes some very basic ontological claims, but it does not claim any kind of primacy in the discovery of reality outside of science, that is, there is no ability to arrive at a scientific achievement through the application of DM, as it is fairly reflective of these achievements and it does not constitute in itself a sytem for arriving at truths that is outside of science as such. It is unlikely to come to much controversy to claim that there is nothing in DM which would have allowed someone to reach conclusions such as those of Einstein, Bohr, and Godel, yet all of these theories are reflectively fully in agreement with the ontological assumptions of DM.

I would say this:

1) Rosa's own ontological and epistemological positions are hopelessly out of step even with the science she reifies.

2) Rosa understands only what she want to understand with regards to dialectics. She goes so far as to confuse platonic, hegelian, and marxist dialectics, and she selectively culls the positions from them which she wants to debate. She does not actually deal with the arguments in a rigorous way. Thus the strawman that many people rightly recognize. To put it another way, to fail to distinguish between different thinkers, let alone all these nameless acquaintances, to fail to distinguish all of this and to roll it all into the same category shows an extreme lack of analytical skill, to the point that it seems that you're assuming your answer before you've even begun to investigate. Another shade of this method arises when you assume that your subject is incomprehensible, and your whole purpose is to prove that assumption, rather than treating it as something that can be understood and analyzing it from that perspective. That anyone would accept the arguments of someone who at the outset admits they don't know what they're talking about, as Rosa does, is absurd.

3) Rosa's argument is with ghosts. She belongs in the 19th century, when people actually thought that consistency was primary and that the universe could at some point be summed up with a single massive formula, and that this formula ultimately would reassert the supremacy of "God". What she fails to recognize is that it is she who is positing a totality, whereas the very emptiness of the totality which she sees DM positing is the entire point, for DM. You want to ask about 'our' god? Well let me ask you this, what is "God" but that emptiness, that indiscernability, the space between reality and cognition, between subject and object. Indeed you can give all kinds of names for it, but it is a part of the human condition. That DM sees it as an emptiness is the ultimate atheist position, for if it is nothing, in naming it we create it. As long as it is understood as having been created by us and not us by it, it remains a God only to the extent that your interactions with it maintain a religious epistemology, which frankly is impossible if you recognize it as empty in the first place. If the recognition of this paradox in consciousness and the incompleteness of all knowledge is mysticism, then again account for Godel's theorem, and other such scientific achievement's that present us with the same paradox.

4) To the extent that Rosa's argument is with obscurantists, and there is a heavy strain of obscurantism amongst those who claim agreement with DM, she needs to be more exact in the lines that she draws between different ideas and those who are declaring them. On the other hand she needs to reevalute her own ontolgical and epistemological positions for the lurking obscurantism on which they're founded, i.e. the religious necessity for consistency.

5) Engels and others have been incorrect to attempt to apply DM as a positive science for the understanding of natural phenomenon. The Nature of Dialects, is a profoundly empiricist book, and it is a deviation from the limits of DM and HM.

6) Personally I find DM very limited in its ability to explain the world, though I think it has been developed in some very fascinating ways, but what I am defending in this posting is not so much DM, as it is the philosophical positions that DM was once primary in fighting for, that is, a material reality which is contradictory, dynamic and contingent. A reality of multiples, not of totality, and a position which is fundamentally opposed to the concept of the One, with all its artificial constraints on reality, produced more to soothe the human psyche than to develop it.

7) Ultimately, Rosa is just the flip side of the obscurantist mutant of DM which she argues against, and not essentially any different.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Repeater, assumption is a much broader term, and can incorporate contingent propositions, whereas an axiom could be a logical law proven from assumptions, accepted as logically 'true', or 'intuitively' true, depending on the system of logic being used.


What is your understanding of the difference and why is it relevant to what the comrade was talking to.

Well, I was being kind to him; his 'axioms' were in a syntactic mess, so his confusion of these two terms was the least of his problems.

To cap it all, he was attributing to me an argument, or set of ideas that he had himself made up (as it seems you do too).


Further, I think in general it would be nice to know what is the ontological and epistemological position that you're staking out?

You are new to this 'debate' and clearly an infrequent visitor here, so you will not be aware of the fact that I do not have an 'ontological' or 'epistemological' position, since I reject them all. I have made this point clear more times than I care to think, and it is clearly made at my site many times over.


You claim that the world actually does exist in a simple Newtonian way.

I make no such claims, and defy you to find anything I have written that could even remotely be construed this way.

This means that your post has been a total waste of effort.

You also seem to want me to comment on everything under the sun in every post that I publish here:


But what do you have to say about Bohr and Heisenberg's paradox, or Gödel’s theorem?

Well, what have you to say about Hermite polynomials or Sturm Liouville theory?




Both things which are rigorously logical and scientific and yet give us a picture of a universe which is profoundly contradictory, especially as consciousness or subjectivity relates to it.

Not so, and you would not say this if you knew how controversial both are among theorists.

I suspect you possess a smattering of knowledge in this area, have copied a few ideas off others, and are trying to punch way above your weight.

Thanks for the quote from 'Zizek - Lacan Between Cultural Studies and Cognitivism', but anyone who thinks we can learn something from Lacan has already disqualified himself from serious consideration.

Now you attribute to me ideas I do not have (all you mystics seem to want to do the same: the only way you can defend your loopy theory is make stuff up):


Rosa's own ontological and epistemological positions are hopelessly out of step even with the science she reifies.

Since I do not have any of the above, this is a lie, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.


Rosa understands only what she wants to understand with regards to dialectics.

Since no one understands dialectics, I think I am in good company.

I defy you to prove otherwise here too.


She does not actually deal with the arguments in a rigorous way.

You mean I do not make stuff up like you, fall for ruling-class mysticism like you, and attribute to nature qualities that imply it is mind, like you?

If so, I plead guilty.

[And if you bother to check my Essays, instead of attributing to me ideas you would like to think I had, you will see enough rigour there to show you how sloppy your own beliefs, and those of your fellow mystics, are.]


Thus the strawman that many people rightly recognize

Since you have erected your own, and failed to show how mine is one, this is rather rich coming from you.


To put it another way, to fail to distinguish between different thinkers, let alone all these nameless acquaintances, to fail to distinguish all of this and to roll it all into the same category shows an extreme lack of analytical skill, to the point that it seems that you're assuming your answer before you've even begun to investigate. Another shade of this method arises when you assume that your subject is incomprehensible, and your whole purpose is to prove that assumption, rather than treating it as something that can be understood and analyzing it from that perspective. That anyone would accept the arguments of someone who at the outset admits they don't know what they're talking about, as Rosa does, is absurd.

You make a snap judgement based on a thousand or so words, culled from the introduction to a 39,000 word Essay, and from a site that now has Essays totalling over 750,000 words, and proceed to use that to make several inane comments that anyone who reads my Essays will see are bare-faced lies.

My analytical skills speak for themselves, and I do not need a lecture from someone who does not know the difference between an axiom and an assumption, or who has to make things up to make himself look good.


She belongs in the 19th century

Another lie, I quote dialectical mystics from every generation, and theorists from every period in the last 2500 years.

And, it is you mystics who are stuck in the past, with your reliance on Stone Age Logic and Hegelian Hermeticism.


What she fails to recognize is that it is she who is positing a totality, whereas the very emptiness of the totality which she sees DM positing is the entire point, for DM.

As I noted, your concept is empty, arrived at by a [I]via negativa, and no different from ‘God’.

Thanks for confirming that.


That DM sees it as an emptiness is the ultimate atheist position, for if it is nothing, in naming it we create it. As long as it is understood as having been created by us and not us by it, it remains a God only to the extent that your interactions with it maintain a religious epistemology, which frankly is impossible if you recognize it as empty in the first place. If the recognition of this paradox in consciousness and the incompleteness of all knowledge is mysticism, then again account for Godel's theorem, and other such scientific achievement's that present us with the same paradox.

So, still no clearer then.

And now we end with a catechism drawn from the by-now familiar mystical credo we have seen espoused all too frequently at RevLeft:


as it is the philosophical positions that DM was once primary in fighting for, that is, a material reality which is contradictory, dynamic and contingent. A reality of multiples, not of totality, and a position which is fundamentally opposed to the concept of the One, with all its artificial constraints on reality, produced more to soothe the human psyche than to develop it.

No wonder Marxism has been a spectacular failure with believers like you.


Ultimately, Rosa is just the flip side of the obscurantist mutant of DM which she argues against, and not essentially any different.

With defenders like you, the dialectical faithful should plead guilty and throw themselves on the mercy of the court.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 01, 2006 09:37 pm

Read my Essays.


Good post repeater138 - Speaking for myself I would happily join a debate on what the concept of totality means and what might be wrong with it - but there is simply no point in debating with Rosa since she can neither explain her own position nor engage constructively with anyone else's. : pity since she occasionally makes an interesting point or two but surrounds it with such pointless bile that it all becomes tiresomley boastful bombast ...... pity.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Good post repeater138 - Speaking for myself

You would think this since you make things up too, accept mystical ideas that would not fool a three year old, and cannot construct an argument to save your neck.


but there is simply no point in debating with Rosa since she can neither explain her own position

My position, as well you know, is to defend Historical Materialism against you Hermeticists.

And you were repeatedly asked by me to explain a single dialectical notion, which you failed to do.


nor engage constructively with anyone else's.

I engage with materialists, but not you mystics. The 'Totality', it seems, was created you lot so that us Marxists could make fun of you.


pity since she occasionally makes an interesting point or two but surrounds it with such pointless bile that it all becomes tiresomley boastful bombast ...... pity.

Spare me this drivel; you are a logical incompetent, so you are in no position to judge anything, let alone an argument that even Donald Duck would find easy.

[repeater138]

Rosa:

What basis do you have to criticize the positions of others if you're not yourself making an implicit or explicit claim on the nature of reality and knowledge? The proof that you have an ontology is that you keep claiming that there is something called reality and that DM has no relation to it. Is there is something called reality, and do you know what it is to the extent that you can recognize false conceptions of it? Of course there is a reality. As for the second part of the question, you implicitly carry an ontological claim of what the characteristics of this reality are. These assumptions on your part can be seen in how and why you criticize dialectics, and in what higher authority you appeal to, for instance:


In fact I cover the things you mention in several Essays: Gödel’s Theorem is a mess, and philosophically/scientifically irrelevant; and the Bohr/Heisenberg model of the atom is based on an anti-realist view of nature

In the above you clearly suggest that you agree with a realist view of nature. That implies an ontological position. I'm just suggesting that you make it explicit so that we don't have to go through this whole game of chasing you around in circles to find out what it is you believe.

As for these forums, and your insistance on not to defending your works or ideas, or even that you have ideas (i.e. "I do not have an 'ontological' or 'epistemological' position, since I reject them all"), I don't see the point of you even posting here. Is the purpose of being here simply to butt heads and score points, or is there actually a chance for you, and others, to learn something through the contesting of ideas, that is, through polemic and debate? Is it just read all your essays down to the last letter and agree or disagree, or can we discuss the essence of the problem online in such a way that we concentrate and clarify these problems in the context of a critical interaction with other ideas and viewpoints?

As for me misidentifying your position, I don't know what you expect if you're going to continue to criticize things using these assumptions, and then turn around and claim that you have no assumptions. Everyone has an implicit notion of ontology and epistemology, if not explicit, you have one too. But you're on a fools errand if you're going to go out and make criticisms based on nothing as you apparently claim. You don't understand what dialectics is, but you continue to criticize it, and you criticize it on the basis of no understanding of the nature of being (ontology) nor the nature of knowledge (epistemology). Your criticisms are empty, but the tactic betrays one of your real philosphical positions, that is, it is possible to make the perfect unassailable and non-contradictory argument. You must be a big fan of Bertrand Russell, and there is much to respect, but he was fundamentally wrong, and this was proofed by Godel. Your recognition of controversy isn't all that damning, as it is in the nature of every scientific theory to be tenuous and controversial, especially one as perplexing as Godel's. You could just as easily discuss how Evolution as a Theory is controversial, but no one involved in the field of biology would take that to mean that it isn't established and for all intents and purposes true.

As an aside the extreme nature of your claim in rejection of ontology and epistemology is not unlike St. Paul's claims regarding the crucifixion of Christ, that is, you announce to everyone that you know nothing (you don't understand DM, you have no notion of reality or knowledge), but that somehow in knowing nothing you know the only thing which is important, i.e. the crucifixion and resurrection (or for you, that DM is wrong). It seems that you are arguing from a position of radical ignorance that you, and you alone, have come to absolutely groundbreaking knowledge. For instance, you have proven Godel's theorem, as well as many other ideas, defunct. If you really had that worked out we wouldn't be arguing about this, because you would be writing books and doing the talking circuit telling everyone how it is that you came to demolish what seemed an intractable problem for mathematics and the sciences in general.

As for the differences between axioms and assumptions, thanks for the clarification, but it seems that the point for you was more of a scoring points kind of thing than saying anything all that important. It was along the lines of attacking an argument for bad grammar as opposed to dealing with its content.

I remember very clearly reading one of your essays, in which you used Newtonian mechanics to 'prove' the 'idiocy' of dialectics. Your argument was that dialectics was anti-scientific and anti-logical and as proof of this assertion you relied on Newton, who is only really used to teach highschool students schematic and practical physics. He is not a good source of the current state of the understanding of the physical world. In the absence of a positive position regarding what you think reality is and how our knowledge of it is arrived at, we can feel free in ferreting it out through looking at who and what arguments you lift up as you beat down dialectics, as well as what aspects of dialectics you choose to attack.

As for no one understanding dialectics, it was Feynman's position, stated in the quote in my earlier post, that no one really understood quantum physics. I guess, as someone that does understand dialectics, that puts me in a pretty good position.

All this aside, I'm surprised that you bring the ruling class into this, as all your ideas and interventions seem intended to debunk and destroy the one theory that illucidated its existence. Ironically with this statement you give us another example of an ontological statement, that in the realm of human society something exists that is called the ruling class, yet you claim that you have no ontology, or ontological positions.

As for 'my concept' I reject any notion of totality. What I was discussing in reference to emptiness was simply the unknown, again you can call it whatever you want, totality, God, etc. It does not technically agree with a designation as God, because for that to be exactly the case the claim would ultimately have to be that God doesn't exist and is just a name put on an empty place. Whereas, the religious position is that God does exist and he created us and controls the world. The place that God exists in is the same in both cases, but the name given to it is different and so is the meaning and ultimately its role in human events.

Just to be clear, God does not exist. That emptiness does exist, at least for human consciousness, and we put God and any number of other names on it, some people apparently put 'totality' on it. I don't see any problem with recognizing it in this way, as long as it is understood as an objective characteristic of human consciousness' dealings with a reality which it is constantly struggling to understand and not as something which controls us or created us. I would never ascribe any real world implications to it that were outside of Ideology. That is 'God' and 'Totality' don't really exist, but the need that they cover up is very real indeed.

I have no special attachment to DM, Rosa. I have a special dislike for the kind of ideology of science which you represent, and any chance I get to expose its shallowness is never a waste of time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

R:


What basis do you have to criticize the positions of others if you're not yourself making an implicit or explicit claim on the nature of reality and knowledge?

Two things: 1) On the basis of the material language of the working-class (it is impossible to make a single philosophical theory work if you begin there --, but, with the social nature of knowledge to back this up).

2) One can point out the flaws in other positions without having any desire to replace them with anything else (especially if any attempt to do just that will have to compromise with ruling-class views of the world).


The proof that you have an ontology is that you keep claiming that there is something called reality

Not so; I use this word in an endeavour to destroy its metaphysical use (which I claim is empty -- just like you can use the word 'God' to do the same).

However, if and when I use this word non-metaphysically, I can paraphrase that use with reference to its adjectival role as a noun qualifier. [Lost? Then learn some logic before you have a go at me.]


In the above you clearly suggest that you agree with a realist view of nature.

Not so; I was merely pointing out the controversial nature of the theories to which you referred. I made no claim about my own views, since I have no philosophical views, do not want any, and assert that there are none that make sense.


I don't see the point of you even posting here

Well, had you been keeping up with the debates we have had here you would know that I batted this one out of the park months ago: if I aim to bring to an end the influence of ruling-class ideas on the minds of younger comrades not already infected by the Hermetic ideas one finds in the likes of Hegel (I have given up on those like you who have sold their souls to this pernicious boss-class thought-form), then posting here makes eminent good sense.

And I was invited.

Get used to it, I will be here for years and years and...


Is it just read all your essays down to the last letter and agree or disagree, or can we discuss the essence of the problem online in such a way that we concentrate and clarify these problems in the context of a critical interaction with other ideas and viewpoints?

No one has to read a single thing I have ever written, but if you are going to pass ill-informed comments on my ideas, then expect to have your ego bruised.


Everyone has an implicit notion of ontology and epistemology, if not explicit, you have one too.

Yes, Marx did say that this is so: The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling-class.

I explain that gnomic saying (and how it applies here) in Essay Twelve.

You do not have to read Essay Twelve; you can stay wedded to these boss-class ideas for the rest of your life if you choose to so harm yourself.


You don't understand what dialectics is, but you continue to criticize it,

As I noted in my last response to you, I admit this, but I add the annoying rider that I am in good company here, since no one (not Hegel, not Engels, not Lenin, not Lukacs, not you) understands this viral thought form.

Not because it is too difficult, but because it is based solely on a misuse of the material language of the working-class (as is all ruling-class ideology), with added jargon thrown in for good measure.

Hence I show that no matter what you try to do with these 'ideas', they decay rapidly into incoherence.

I defy you to show otherwise.

My arguments are lengthy, detailed and lethal.

Prove otherwise or belt up.


[B]You must be a big fan of Bertrand Russell, and there is much to respect, but he was fundamentally wrong, and this was proofed by Gödel.

You see you have to invent stuff again.

1) I am not a fan (big or otherwise) of the Russell of which you speak, i.e., the Russell of post 1912/14 -- if you knew anything about him, you would understand that statement.

2) Gödel’s theorem is based on Cantor's diagonal argument, and hence is flawed. So it proves nothing.

2) Russell's system has other, far more serious, weaknesses than Gödel ever imagined he had exposed.

You do not know of these?

Oh dear.

Then stop pontificating in ignorance.


As an aside the extreme nature of your claim in rejection of ontology and epistemology is not unlike St. Paul's claims regarding the crucifixion of Christ, that is, you announce to everyone that you know nothing (you don't understand DM, you have no notion of reality or knowledge), but that somehow in knowing nothing you know the only thing which is important, i.e. the crucifixion and resurrection (or for you, that DM is wrong). It seems that you are arguing from a position of radical ignorance that you, and you alone, have come to absolutely groundbreaking knowledge. For instance, you have proven Gödel’s theorem, as well as many other ideas, defunct. If you really had that worked out we wouldn't be arguing about this, because you would be writing books and doing the talking circuit telling everyone how it is that you came to demolish what seemed an intractable problem for mathematics and the sciences in general.

Yes I could do that, but I have chosen to do this.

If you do not like it, or think it's the wrong choice: tough.

[However, in several of my Essays, I give reference to theorists who have already done what you claim I should do with respect to Gödel. Did you miss these references? Oh dear....]


As for the differences between axioms and assumptions, thanks for the clarification, but it seems that the point for you was more of a scoring points kind of thing than saying anything all that important. It was along the lines of attacking an argument for bad grammar as opposed to dealing with its content.

Not so; I claim that only those who know no logic, or very little logic, will buy into Hegel; this comrade further confirmed that, as have you.

[This is, of course, an exaggeration, since there are very good logicians who have bought into these ideas, but they can do so only by altering the meaning of a handful of key terms to make their mutant logic work, which thus makes their work conventionalist, and hence subjectivist.]

And had I wanted to merely score points, I'd have picked on this comrade's appalling syntax.

The 'content' of what he said, if that could be ascertained from what he randomly typed, I think I have dealt with many times here; once more seemed too tedious even for me.


I remember very clearly reading one of your essays, in which you used Newtonian mechanics to 'prove' the 'idiocy' of dialectics.

No, I used some inane comments of Lenin's to show that if he were right, then Newtonian mechanics must be wrong.

I could have used Einsteinian mechanics, or Uncle Tom Cobbley's mechanics. I merely chose Newton since more people know of it (and, it is deemed by those who know what they are talking about to be basically correct, at least in the macro world, and at low velocities).

In this, however, you confused an assumption with an axiom.

Ooops!


As for no one understanding dialectics, it was Feynman's position, stated in the quote in my earlier post, that no one really understood quantum physics. I guess, as someone that does understand dialectics, that puts me in a pretty good position

The problems with Quantum Mechanics (QM) in no way resemble those faced by dialectics (indeed, QM is eminently clear in comparison to the wall-to-wall Martian you find in Hegel), but even if they did, your claim that I do not understand dialectics puts me on a level with you, which is all I require.

No one understands it; my case rests.


All this aside, I'm surprised that you bring the ruling class into this, as all your ideas and interventions seem intended to debunk and destroy the one theory that elucidated its existence. Ironically with this statement you give us another example of an ontological statement, that in the realm of human society something exists that is called the ruling class, yet you claim that you have no ontology, or ontological positions.

Not so; I do not have to assume anything about the existence of the ruling-class; they are there whether I like it or not.


Just to be clear, God does not exist. That emptiness does exist, at least for human consciousness, and we put God and any number of other names on it, some people apparently put 'totality' on it. I don't see any problem with recognizing it in this way, as long as it is understood as an objective characteristic of human consciousness' dealings with a reality which it is constantly struggling to understand and not as something which controls us or created us. I would never ascribe any real world implications to it that were outside of Ideology. That is 'God' and 'Totality' don't really exist, but the need that they cover up is very real indeed.

So, still no clearer then.

Thank you for taking gobbledygook to a new level; I admire your devotion to duty.

My advice?

Plead guilty too, and throw yourself on the mercy of history.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2006 10:44 am
[Lost? Then learn some logic before you have a go at me.]

Logic is neither the parent or the older sibling of the family of philosophy. Apparently.

Read it somewhere, didn't I.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


Logic is neither the parent or the older sibling of the family of philosophy. Apparently.

Nice to see your capacity to string words together coherently has not improved.

[JimFar]

Repeater wrote:


As for no one understanding dialectics, it was Feynman's position, stated in the quote in my earlier post, that no one really understood quantum physics. I guess, as someone that does understand dialectics, that puts me in a pretty good position.

There is a big difference between QM and dialectics. QM as a scientific theory is eminently testable. Indeed, over the past eighty years or so, it has been put to the test in many different sorts of experiments, to the point that it is now probably the best verified theory in the physical sciences. As far as dialectics is concerned, it is not even wrong.

When people, including eminent physicists, talk about the difficulties of understanding QM, they are usually referring to the difficulties at developing widely agreed upon interpretation of the theory. It has been difficult to reach a consensus as to how the theory should be interpreted because it deals with microlevel phenomena that do not behave in ways that match our common sense experiences. Concerning QM, there have a number of competing interpretations including the Copenhagen Interpretation (developed by Bohr and Heisenberg), the Multiple Worlds Interpretation (developed by Hugh Everett), the Causal (or hidden-variables) Interpretation (developed by David Bohm), to name just a few interpretations of QM. Over the years, the Copenhagen Interpretation has been the most popular, but from the beginning, there have always been eminent dissenters from it. The Multiple Worlds Interpretation, for instance, has been championed in recent years by people like Steven Weinberg and Stephen Hawking.

The comparison between the difficulties in interpreting QM and the those involved in the interpretation of dialectics, is a comparison between the difficulties in interpreting a testable and indeed a well-verified theory as opposed to interpreting ideas that are too vaguely formulated to be testable, and which indeed cannot be coherently stated. You might as well attempt to draw a comparison between QM and such tenets of Christian theology like the doctrine of the Trinity. Indeed, some Christian theologians do just that, but most people on this board would recognize the transparently nonsensical nature of such a comparison. Alas, many here do not see that the same applies to attempts at comparing Dialectical Materialism with QM.

[gilhyle]

Notwithstanding that I fully accept the distinction between DM as a critical philosophical theory and QM as a product of scientific work, it seems somewhat excessive to describe QM as testable and well-verified. One might say that the very limited evidence we have is consistent with it, but does that really amount to a claim of strong empirical verification ? Granted it depends what you mean by verification. But I think the practice of the 'scientific community' is more complex than any simple model of 'testability' might cover.

I make the point partially in acknowledgement of the now long tradition of using (abusing ?) theoretical physics to give (analogical ?) illumination to philosophical debate - a practice that goes back at least to writers like Prisig and Zukav (Wu Li Masters) and others in the 1970s in popular science writing, but is also part of a much longer tradition of using science to illuminate general culture.

Seems to me easy to look down on this tradition as strictly invalid - which it often is - but that doesnt seem to me to exhaust the issue.

At the very least the fact that certain propositions can be affirmed together within QM can be taken to counter arguments that similar propositions when held together within DM and elsewhere are patent nonsense.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 04, 2006 01:20 pm
Hoop:


Logic is neither the parent or the older sibling of the family of philosophy. Apparently.

Nice to see your capacity to string words together coherently has not improved.
Sorry, maybe that should read nor.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


One might say that the very limited evidence we have is consistent with it, but does that really amount to a claim of strong empirical verification ? Granted it depends what you mean by verification. But I think the practice of the 'scientific community' is more complex than any simple model of 'testability' might cover.

Of course, dialectics has been tested and has flunked every test.

But, still you cling on to it, like the faithful cling to 'God'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoop:


Sorry, maybe that should read nor.

As this latest post of yours shows, you should read what you type.

[Raúl Duke]

Ok, Johnny, I feel the same as you, but I'd not hold my breath if I were you -- you will either get some vague terms about 'social wholes' (hardly "the Totality", but possibly minor sub-totalities"), or you will get some of the many attempts I rehearse in the full essay, only to reject on various grounds........

........As I said, no wonder DM-fans go quiet when asked about their 'god'.

Did anyone explain to me what totality is in their own words? Maybe some did explain in their posts, but they were mostly aim at Rosa to debate her, not me.

I hope someone can explain it to me (in a post directed to me). I'm trying to be open minded to everyones idea (just trying to understand philosophy)

If no one really explained this concept, than is it true what Rosa says in this quote?



Just to be clear, God does not exist. That emptiness does exist, at least for human consciousness, and we put God and any number of other names on it, some people apparently put 'totality' on it. I don't see any problem with recognizing it in this way, as long as it is understood as an objective characteristic of human consciousness' dealings with a reality which it is constantly struggling to understand and not as something which controls us or created us. I would never ascribe any real world implications to it that were outside of Ideology. That is 'God' and 'Totality' don't really exist, but the need that they cover up is very real indeed.

Is Totality some sort of God-like concept? If Totality is some psychological thing or need, why is it mention in philosophy? Do dialecticians really treat totality like a real existing god, or do they treat it like a artificial creation? Isn't this totality concept some what relating to what a certain philosopher said:"If god doesn't exist, we need to create him."? Do we really need to create god concepts?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Johnny D, it is in fact possible to prove that there is no 'Totality', howsoever it is 'defined', since any definition of it, unless constrained artificially (i.e., with implausible exclusion clauses, that amount to the beginning of yet another via negativa, or which turn it into a non-Totality), will include things that it does not contain -- i.e., Russell's paradox I referred to in my Essay.

So, not only will there be a deafening silence from the 'Totality' mob, any whimpers from that quarter will be easy to swat into silence -- mainly because, not only will few have heard of this paradox, not one will be able to solve it, since it is insoluble.

This is quite apart from the other fatal weaknesses this 'concept' (if it is one) possesses, which I exposed in the full Essay.

[I ignored Russell's Paradox in that Essay --, since it is based on a system of logic DM-fans do not accept, a bit like Creationists do not accept Darwin -- except it creeps in around the edges of that Essay.]

Incidentally, this is one of the things that hepled sink Wittgenstein's early attempt to use the 'totality' of facts to account for how language works in his Tractatus -- see my post on that new book that has just come out on this. Since his attempt was the best to date, and the best possible, I rather think that Dialectical Mystics will not get too far -- except by means of an appeal to faith, or tradition, which is all they will have left.

A 'God' by any other name....

[stevensen]

all bow to mother rosa- the eternal perpetuater of drivel...confused, arrogant , boastful..i dunno what next..

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stevensen, getting more desperate by the minute:


all bow to mother rosa- the eternal perpetuater of drivel...confused, arrogant , boastful..i dunno what next..

Your only argument now seems to be abuse.

Fourth-rate abuse at that.

Are you hopeless at everything?