Where is the mysticism?

[red_che]

When Karl Marx said, "my dialectics is not only different from that of Hegel's. In fact, it is its direct opposite." he certainly means that dialectics, per se, is not metaphysical, not idealist. What he did, in fact, is "disinfect" it from the metaphysical and idealist conception which Hegel, and the rest of the dialecticians before him, had attached to it. And he did this by way of materialism.

So, where does the mysticism come from? It is in the idealism and metaphysical concept that which Hegel and the other idealists use.

One basic dialectical process of thought is; "thesis versus antithesis = synthesis." This means that an object will need to have an opposite - a contradiction - in order to develop into a new object. So, a materialist conception of this dialectical philosophy is that a society develops into a new, higher form through the actual, physical and material contradictions or conflicts within society - the practical activity of men, that is as today the class contradictions or class struggles.

However, such process of thought (dialectics) is used by metaphysicians or idealists too. They follow the same line of reasoning but uses a competely different (contradictory) approach. Such as Hegel's "Absolute Idea" in that he concluded that social development is a product of the idea (an outside, superior, spiritual idea) not of the actual, material (or as Marx puts it) practical activity of men.

It is quite true also of a basic logical formation of thought, i.e. if A is this and B is that, therefore A is equal (or not equal, depending on the case) to B. An idealist can also use this same line of thought. He/she can say that if God is Lord, and Jesus is Lord, therefore Jesus is God. This thought is logical in its form but pure horseshit in substance. In this case, if this logic is idealist, then we should discard logic. It is this same aspect that Rosa has been asserting. She asserts that because dialectics was used by Hegel, and Hegel is idealist, therefore discard dialectics.

What she did not understand, or refused to accept, is that dialectics is not her problem. In all her confusion, she didn't recognize what dialectics really is. In fact, she consistently denies that she is dialectical, however, during my last "confrontation" with her she said something so dialectical. And that is:
Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+--> (Rosa Lichtenstein)Unfortunately, in the real world, societies move in time and space. [/b]But if she would be able to prove that what she said here is not abstract and not idealist is up to her.

Another one of Rosa's defect is this:


Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+ Summary of Main Objections to DM--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ Summary of Main Objections to DM)Formal Logic [FL] uses variables, that is letters to stand for named objects, designated expressions (some of these are called "predicates"), and the like -- all of which can and do change.[/b]

To quote Marx in his Theses on Feuerbach, he said:


The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism -- that of Feuerbach included -- is that the [i]thing [Gegenstand ], reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object [Objekt ] or of intuition [Anschauung ],* but not as human sensuous activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence it happened that the active side, in contradistinction to materialism, was developed by idealism -- but only abstractly, since, of course, idealism does not know real, sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the objects of thought, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective [gegenständliche ] activity. Hence, in the Essence of Christianity, he regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty Jewish manifestation. Hence he does not grasp the significance of "revolutionary," of "practical-critical," activity.(all in italics and bold are my emphasis)

We can see here how Rosa, and her logic, becomes so strikingly similar with that of Feuerbach. We should also note that Marx had already explained this matter about 200 years ago but still, Rosa failed to grasp this reality.

[Note also that Rosa failed to mention how objects (through "Formal Logic") change.]

Marx also said:


Theses on [email protected]
The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of other circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that men themselves change circumstances and that the educator himself must be educated. Hence, this doctrine necessarily arrives at dividing society into two parts, of which one is superior to society (in Robert Owen, for example).

The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionizing practice.

I can say that this is what Marx means when he said, "Philosophers have only interpreted the world. But the point is, on the contrary, we should change it." or something like that.

But Rosa contradicts Marx because she said:
Summary of Her Objections to DM
But, if there are no classical forces, then there can't be any (dialectical) contradictions in nature --, 'external' or 'internal' (or, at least, none that could make anything happen).

Well, Rosa is really confused. In her confusion, she can no longer distinguish what is materialist and idealist and what should be discarded and not to be discarded.

I would be so pleased if comrades would say something about this post.


----------------------------------------------------
* Anschauung -- in Kant and Hegel means awareness, or direct knowledge, through the senses, and is translated as intuition in English versions of Kant and Hegel. It is in this sense that Marx uses Anschauung and not in the sense of contemplation, which is how it has usually and incorrectly been translated.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Poor start:


One basic dialectical process of thought is; "thesis versus antithesis = synthesis."

Depending on the details, this is either Fichte's line of thought, or Kant's; but it certainly isn't Hegel's.

Marx copied this error off one of his teachers; details here:

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...entry1292124737 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51512&st=0&#entry1292124737)

Fifth post down.


This means that an object will need to have an opposite - a contradiction - in order to develop into a new object

Since contradictions are linguistic items, or are expressed in language, you can only make this work if objects are linguistic, and hence 'mental', entities.

That would make you a mystic.

So, you have now managed to prove the opposite of what you set out to establish, that DM is mystical. A nice unity of opposites -- well done!

But, even if this were correct, that would mean that one of your 'objects' would change, not through 'internal contradictions', but through external ones.

Opps!

You have just contradicted (somewhat appropriately) Lenin!


It is quite true also of a basic logical formation of thought, i.e. if A is this and B is that, therefore A is equal (or not equal, depending on the case) to B.

Eh?

What sort of loopy logic have you been reading?


She asserts that because dialectics was used by Hegel, and Hegel is idealist, therefore discard dialectics.

Where do I say this?

Once more, you have to make stuff up to try to neutralise what I do in fact say.

I argue thus: dialectics makes no sense (here is the proof), and one reason why Marxism is so unsuccessful is that DM classicists unwittingly imported into Marxism an idealist/mytical ruling-class theory.

Ditch it thus for two reasons: it is low grade nonsense, and it has helped cripple the scientific development of Marxism.


But if she would be able to prove that what she said here is not abstract and not idealist is up to her.

Oh dear, are you still perseverating on this crass misunderstanding of yours?

We batted that out of the park weeks ago.

And how does that long quotation from Marx neutralise my claim about Formal Logic? Formal Logic allows for, and can handle change. It is only because you know no logic, but are happy to pontificate about it, that you fail to see this.

And, if we are to use practice as a guide, then ditch dialectics: it has presided over 150 years of failure.


But Rosa contradicts Marx because she said:

Oh dear, off to the gulag with me!

I note you ignore the fact that modern science agrees with me, and so does Engels.

You tend to ignore stuff that contradicts your simple faith, dont' you Red?


Well, Rosa is really confused. In her confusion, she can no longer distinguish what is materialist and idealist and what should be discarded and not to be discarded.

If I am confused (but you have failed to show how), then that must make you the purveyor of gibberish in comparison.


I would be so pleased if comrades would say something about this post.

Happy to: your post is a total waste of space, but further confirmation that you are still the leading contender in the race to be nominated 'worst ever RevLeft poster'.

My vote is definitely for you.

[Hiero]

Since contradictions are linguistic items, or are expressed in language, you can only make this work if objects are linguistic, and hence 'mental', entities.
What does this mean?

[Hit The North]

Rosa:


Formal Logic allows for, and can handle change.

You claim this often. Perhaps you'd like to post a proof.

And before you issue a biting and dismissive rejoinder, I'm not attacking you, I just want to see the proof. If formal logic can convincingly handle change, that is, both describe and explain social change, then obviously this partly damages the case for a dialectical logic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hiero:


What does this mean?

It means that contradictions are linguistic entities (in the vernacular, and in logic), and that any attempt to read them into nature must treat it as product of mind, which is exactly what Hegel did, and exactly what dialectical mystics do.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Perhaps you'd like to post a proof.

Done it!

You need to wake up.

[Where? On an earlier thread, and in detail at my site.]

Perhaps now you'd like to prove it can't -- since that is what you mystics keep claiming (without proof).


And before you issue a biting and dismissive rejoinder, I'm not attacking you, I just want to see the proof. If formal logic can convincingly handle change, that is, both describe and explain social change, then obviously this partly damages the case for a dialectical logic.

Me? Dismissive and biting?

Perish the thought.

But, notice, you have to change what I said from 'allow' and 'handle' (or on other threads 'cope with') change, to 'explain' change.

[And since dialectical 'logic' cannot even cope with a pound bag of sugar, let alone anything more complex, it cannot explain/cope/handle anything at all -- which helps account for the long-term failure of Marxism.]

As I noted on another thread, in response to an earlier attempt of yours to put words in my mouth:


You seem to be intent on putting words in my mouth.

So, either book yourself an eye test, upgrade your reading skills, or stay out of intelligent debate.

I fear your low grade social skills are seriously affecting your capacity to follow an argument.

Looks like you are determined to stay (i.e., not change from being) low grade.

I put that down to the deleterious effects of diabolical logic.

[Hit The North]

R:


Done it!

You need to wake up.

[Where? On an earlier thread, and in detail at my site.]

Very good. Any chance of a link?


But, notice, you have to change what I said from 'allow' and 'handle' (or on other threads 'cope with') change, to 'explain' change.

All apologies. But, at risk of compounding my sin, are you therefore suggesting that we can't explain change using formal logic? Isn't that exactly the accusation leveled at it by dialecticians?

And at the risk of sounding facetious, how can formal logic "handle" anything if it doesn't have hands?

[RebelDog]

[And since dialectical 'logic' cannot even cope with a pound bag of sugar, let alone anything more complex, it cannot explain/cope/handle anything at all -- which helps account for the long-term failure of Marxism.]

But has marxism failed long-term? The 250 years of the capitalist epoch is a very short time in human history. Doesn't dialectics take time to cause change?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This is how I handle this sort of objection in the Beginners' Essay (links missing, and references at my site):


Unfortunately, the results of "practice" have not been too kind to Marxists; indeed they have been even less kind to Trotskyists (like Woods, Grant and Sewell, comrades not known for their 'mass following'). And they are not alone; practice has not looked favourably on our side for over a hundred years. All Four Internationals have failed or have vanished, and the 1917 revolution has been reversed. In fact, we are no nearer (and arguably much further way from) a Worker's State than Lenin was in 1918.

So, if truth is tested in practice, practice has delivered a clear verdict: DM cannot be true.

However, when they are confronted with such devastating facts, dialecticians respond in a number of ways: 1) They flatly deny that Marxism has been an abject failure; 2) If they admit to failure, they blame it on 'objective' factors; or 3) They simply ignore the problem.

Now, there doesn't seem to be much point in dialecticians claiming that their theory guides all they do, avowing that truth is tested in practice, if when that practice reveals its disappointing and long-term verdict, that verdict is denied, ignored or 'explained' away. In that event, what sort of practice could possibly constitute a test of dialectics if, whatever the results, DM is always excused/exonerated? What exactly is being tested if the results of every test are ignored or re-configured as a success?

Hence, dialectics is not so much not tested in practice, as dialecticians are practiced at not testing it.

Taking each excuse, one at a time:

1) Those who think Marxism is a ringing success have so far failed to show where and how it enjoys this blessed state. [Presumably there is a Workers' State on the outer fringes of the Galaxy?]

Hardcore denial of reality of this order of magnitude is difficult to counter -- just as it is difficult to counter Christian Scientists who claim that matter is the error of mortal mind; there is no debating with this sort of Idealism, one that re-interprets the material world to suit a comforting idea, and then buries its head in its own idea of sand.

Anyone who can look at the international situation and fail to see that the vast majority of workers have not been seized by Marxism (and never have been) is probably a danger to him/herself.

[This should not be taken to mean that I think that things cannot change!]

So, when Marx said:

"The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism by weapons, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses." [Marx (1843), p.251; quoted from here.]

the only conclusions possible are that 1) he was wrong, or that 2) dialectics has not even so much as lightly hugged the masses.

[There is a more involved explanation for the selective blindness that afflicts revolutionaries in Essay Nine Part Two, which has yet to be published (summary here).]

2) Certainly objective factors have hindered the revolutionary movement (such as a relatively well-organised, rich, powerful and focussed ruling-class, nationalism and sectionalism among workers, a growing economy, etc., etc.), but dialecticians are quite specific: the veracity of a theory can only be tested in practice, and since the latter requires the subjective input of active revolutionaries, this aspect of practice has badly failed.

Often revolutionaries recognise this, but they depict it as a failure of 'revolutionary leadership', failing to note the input of dialectics here. But if this theory is as central to Marxism as these comrades believe, then DM cannot be unconnected with this long-term lack of success.

So, whether or not there have been 'objective factors', practice itself has refuted the subjective side of Marxism: dialectics.

Now, since the Essays at this site show that DM is not so much false as far too confused even to be assessed for its truth or falsity, the long-term failure of Marxism is no surprise. And since this theory arose from the brains of card-carrying ruling-class theorists (like Hegel), this is doubly no surprise.

3) This is probably the safest option for dialecticians to adopt: ignore the problem. It is certainly the best one that inadvertently helps preserve the interests of the ruling-class, since it prevents the serious theoretical problems our movement faces from being addressed, guaranteeing another century of failure.

Indeed, the bosses could not have designed a better theory to screw with our heads (and initiate a monumental waste of time as our best theorists try to grapple with Hegel's fluent Martian and make sense of it) if they tried.

All this is quite apart from the fact that practice cannot distinguish between a correct and an incorrect theory. Incorrect theories can often work (and they can do so for many centuries -- for example, Ptolemaic Astronomy was highly successful for over a thousand years, and it became increasingly accurate with age), and correct ones can fail (for example, Copernican Astronomy predicted stellar parallax, which failed to be observed until the 1838, after the work of Friedrich Bessel). [More examples of both are given in Essay Ten (summary here).]

And even if this were not so, and success were indeed a criterion of truth, since there is as yet no socialist society on earth, we will only know if Marxism is correct after the event. So, this criterion cannot tell us whether Marxism is correct now. Indeed, the following declaration could come true:

"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes." [Marx and Engels (1848), pp.35-36. Bold emphasis added.]

According to this, the "contending classes" could wipe each other out --, or at least the class war could result in the "common ruin" of both (which denouement is not easy to square with the NON). Of course, should that happen, it would declare all theories false (if, that is, the criterion that truth is tested in practice is itself correct -- and the way that dialecticians ignore the deliverances of practice suggests that even they do not accept this criterion, in practice).

[NON = Negation of the Negation.]

Unfortunately, pragmatic theories (like this one) are hostages to fortune; those who adhere to them should feign no surprise if history takes little note of their hermetically-compromised day-dreams, and delivers decade after decade of refutation.

There are other (and much better, materially-based) ways of confirming the validity of HM -- these will be explored in an Essay to be published later at the main site.

All this means that if we want our practice to be more successful, we will have to remove the theory that dropped our movement into this Hermetic quagmire: DM.

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-2-3-10.htm

[Two Thirds the way down the page in the latter.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


Any chance of a link?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2004.htm


But, at risk of compounding my sin, are you therefore suggesting that we can't explain change using formal logic?

Formal Logic can be used to explain change, just like mathematics can, but the actual explaining is achieved by the use of concepts drawn from Historical Materialism -- suitably de-Hegelianised.


And at the risk of sounding facetious, how can formal logic "handle" anything if it doesn't have hands?

You see, you are beginning to think; under my tutleage you are starting to ask for such metaphors (or other figures) to be cashed out in materialist terms.

Well done! A glimmer of light at the end of this mystical tunnel!

Logicians/scientists can handle change by using the rules and theorems codified in Formal Logic, coupled with the protocols of ordinary language, and practical activity.

Now, can we have your proof that formal Logic cannot be so used?

And, while we are at it, let's see you cash a few of your metaphors out....

[Hit The North]

Thanks for the link Rosa. I'll read it later. For now, it's pub time!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, I can see why you need to go and get sozzled; I would too if faced with the impossible challenges I posed you: that of proving formal logic cannot cope with change, and of cashing out the anthropomorphic metaphors you DM-fans constantly use

[Hit The North]

R:


Unfortunately, the results of "practice" have not been too kind to Marxists; indeed they have been even less kind to Trotskyists (like Woods, Grant and Sewell, comrades not known for their 'mass following'). And they are not alone; practice has not looked favourably on our side for over a hundred years. All Four Internationals have failed or have vanished, and the 1917 revolution has been reversed. In fact, we are no nearer (and arguably much further way from) a Worker's State than Lenin was in 1918.

So, if truth is tested in practice, practice has delivered a clear verdict: DM cannot be true.


That is an idealist formulation. The reason a workers state has not been realised has everything to do with the practice of workers, and much less to do with the theory of Marxists.

Woods, Grant and Sewell cannot summon up a revolution with their theory and practice any more than you can by applying formal logic.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Marxist dialectics aren't mystic as far as I am concerned. They might be incorrect or flawed, but they do work based on materialist observation.

[red_che]

Rosa:


Depending on the details, this is either Fichte's line of thought, or Kant's; but it certainly isn't Hegel's.

Well, I don't care whose line of thought it came from. My point is the line of thought not the one who made it.


Since contradictions are linguistic items, or are expressed in language, you can only make this work if objects are linguistic, and hence 'mental', entities.

I wonder when do you make a good argument instead of just dismissing or evading the debate.


So, you have now managed to prove the opposite of what you set out to establish, that DM is mystical. A nice unity of opposites -- well done!

Huh?


But, even if this were correct, that would mean that one of your 'objects' would change, not through 'internal contradictions', but through external ones.

Opps!

You said it, it is only appropriate that you make an explicit explanation.


You have just contradicted (somewhat appropriately) Lenin!

Huh? Are you talking to yourself? :unsure:


Where do I say this?

In most of your essays. :D


I argue thus: dialectics makes no sense (here is the proof), and one reason why Marxism is so unsuccessful is that DM classicists unwittingly imported into Marxism an idealist/mytical ruling-class theory.

You claim, yes, but no argument is made. I have already stated in my first post (of this thread) that your claim is a product of a confused mind. Care to know where I said it? Go read the first post.


And how does that long quotation from Marx neutralise my claim about Formal Logic? Formal Logic allows for, and can handle change. It is only because you know no logic, but are happy to pontificate about it, that you fail to see this.

Your towering arrogance doesn't help much any statement you make. I suggest, instead, that you explain your point - not make any side-comments.

You claim your logic can handle change. But as to how and why and when it handles change has not "landed" on any of your essays or posts here in RevLeft.


If I am confused (but you have failed to show how), then that must make you the purveyor of gibberish in comparison.

I've already stated, but because of your confusion you didn't notice how I showed you were confused.


Happy to: your post is a total waste of space, but further confirmation that you are still the leading contender in the race to be nominated 'worst ever RevLeft poster'.

Thank you for the compliment. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


That is an idealist formulation. The reason a workers state has not been realised has everything to do with the practice of workers, and much less to do with the theory of Marxists.

That is just a denial, not an argument.

Do you know the difference?


Woods, Grant and Sewell cannot summon up a revolution with their theory and practice any more than you can by applying formal logic.

Who said they could?

But, what is the point of saying that theories must be tested in practice if you then say that this cannot be done?

Once more, you show you cannot grasp the simplest of arguments.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


Marxist dialectics aren't mystic as far as I am concerned. They might be incorrect or flawed, but they do work based on materialist observation

Argument and evidence show that this declaration of simple mystical faith is about as accurate as a WMD dossier.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:


Well, I don't care whose line of thought it came from. My point is the line of thought not the one who made it.

It has been clear for some time that you do not care where you derive your ideas, but in this case, it is not even a good copy of a garbled re-hash of an idealist 'argument' found in Kant, erroneously attributed to Hegel by Marx's teacher, and copied uncritically by Marx.

And, the 'argument' does not work, since your version of it is defective. Even in the original, it fails.


I wonder when do you make a good argument instead of just dismissing or evading the debate.

Wonder no more; just read any randomly selected Essay of mine, or the vast majority of my posts, and you will find an object lesson in how to argue.

Goodness knows you need all the help you can get.

Glad I could assist you here.


Huh?

Too difficult for you was it?

Oh dear....


You said it, it is only appropriate that you make an explicit explanation.

Of what?

The words are pretty clear -- unlike the gobbledygook you mystics copied from Hegel.

If you cannot follow a simple argument, you deserve to stay ignorant.


Huh? Are you talking to yourself?

Not unless you are me.


In most of your essays.

In that case, it will be easy for you to find a quotation, copy it, and post it here.

The fact that you haven't done this suggests that you cannot, but prefer to make things up nonetheless.


You claim, yes, but no argument is made. I have already stated in my first post (of this thread) that your claim is a product of a confused mind. Care to know where I said it? Go read the first post.

I have read it; just as I have read similar inane things you have been posting for the last seven monhs.

As I have suggested to you many times before: you would greatly strengthen your case if you simply posted a blank space, since what you do post is worse than useless.


Your towering arrogance doesn't help much any statement you make. I suggest, instead, that you explain your point - not make any side-comments.

My arrogance, if such it be, neatly counterposes your impressive ignorance.

And I have no wish to explain anything to you (since it became clear months ago that you are a total waste of time). But, you are less danger to the working class in your present state of mystical ignorance -- as I have also told you many times.

Promise me you will not abandon your simple mystical faith -- I prefer you that way; you are a convenient whipping-boy and an object lesson to the rest of humanity. A bit like a government health warning on a pack of cigarrettes, in fact.


You claim your logic can handle change. But as to how and why and when it handles change has not "landed" on any of your essays or posts here in RevLeft.

You need to pay more attention, then.


I've already stated, but because of your confusion you didn't notice how I showed you were confused.

No, you quoted, yet again, a few irrelevant passages from Marx, misquoted a garbled idealist 'equation' from Kant, and then began to mouth off seemingly at random.

some structure to your sentences, but the ideas you are trying to express (if that is your aim -- and I must confess that I do not wish to attribute to you something beyond your meagre capacities) have none.]


Thank you for the compliment.

I am glad you are happy to be so branded, and so to remain.

[angus_mor]

Since contradictions are linguistic items, or are expressed in language, you can only make this work if objects are linguistic, and hence 'mental', entities.

I don't mean to make accusations of mysticism, Rosa, but since anything can be expressed linguistically, and using this logic, everything is only a mental entity, are you suggesting some form of absolute idealism? Such an argument seems to reject the notion of materialism outright, and since you expressed and adhere to the above statement, your reasoning must be subject to the same premise. An answer that doesn't include condescension would be most desirable, s'il vous plaît, as I do not wish to condescend to you, respectively.

Regardless of whether or not dialectics is a fallacious theory, isn't it naive to attribute the failures of Marxism to dialectics alone? I'd have to say Marxism flounders not because of any philosophical inquiry, but because of propaganda, perpetuation of the dominant ideology, and hypocrites that create state capitalist systems which in fact hinder the progress and development of the proletariat, and support the aforementioned propagandists' point of view.

[Bretty123]

No I think your misunderstanding Rosa. She is saying that contradictions only exist linguistically. It's a product of our idealist language that contradictions are even possible to exist. By suggesting something in nature is a contradiction, it is entirely a mental contradiction and has no place in reality. It's your language that creates contradictions.

I could be wrong.

[angus_mor]

Ah, that makes sense, since a contradiction is only a point of view, and not necessarily the perceived contradiction's existence as a contradiction, ie, the contradicting thesis may not see itself as contradictory; thanks Bretty 123.

But given this new understanding, couldn't one rephrase dialectics in a way that would make it material? Instead of saying that a thesis is contradicted by an antithesis, an idealistic interpretation, isn't it reasonable to suggest that a thesis interacts with an antithesis, resulting in synthesis of the two due to their interaction? Or is it just as idealistic to suggest interaction takes place at all?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Angus:


I don't mean to make accusations of mysticism, Rosa, but since anything can be expressed linguistically, and using this logic, everything is only a mental entity, are you suggesting some form of absolute idealism?

You are right, you can string together any words you like, but not every combination makes material sense. [Teasing out what that phrase means is a beggar, but after nearly nine years at it, I think I have managed to do it.]

So, traditional Philosophy I call Linguistic Idealism; my aim is to show that this form of idealism (which encompasses all the many different varieties of idealism there have been) is in the end an expression of ruling-class forms of thought (even if only in some cases very distantly reflected).

I counterpose this to the sorts of things one can say in ordinary language, which is materially-based (in the life and social fabric of the working-class), and which are thus not the least bit Idealist.

So, far from my ideas being Idealist, I aim to show that traditional thought (that which Marx declared is dominated by the 'ruling ideas' of the 'ruling class') is itself thoroughly Idealist (and this includes all forms of dialectics), and that since we do not need Philosophy at all (just more and better science), my ideas are 100% materialist, and indeed are a logical consequence of Historical Materialism (de-Hegelianised).


But given this new understanding, couldn't one rephrase dialectics in a way that would make it material?

Well, you are welcome to try; but every attempt I have seen so far (and I have been reading this stuff for over twenty years now) not only collapses into incoherence alarmingly quickly, but is based on a mystical view of reality.

I also have a detailed argument to show that no form of traditional philosophy can avoid collapsing into nonsense; you can find a summary of it here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm


Instead of saying that a thesis is contradicted by an antithesis, an idealistic interpretation, isn't it reasonable to suggeast that a thesis interacts with an antithesis, resulting in synthesis of the two due to their interaction? Or is it just as idealistic to suggest interaction takes place at all?

You can indeed say what you like, but whether it makes sense to use such mentalistic terms to interpret reality I call into question -- unless one is an Idealist, that is.

And, of course, these items you mention are ill-defined (even in Kant, who dreamt them up), and since they are not material, they can interact with nothing, unless you suppose them to be agents of some sort.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, nice try (and I am not being sarcastic!):


It's a product of our idealist language that contradictions are even possible to exist. By suggesting something in nature is a contradiction, it is entirely a mental contradiction and has no place in reality. It's your language that creates contradictions.

Unless one wants to alter the meaning of the word 'contradiction', it makes no sense to suppose they exist in reality.

But, once that is done, there seems to be no good reason to use the letters contained in that word. One might just as well use 'bannana'.

Now, DM-fans, following the idealist lead of Hegel, who supposed everything was Mind (so this move made some sort of crazy sense to him), adapted ideas the latter thought he had found in Aristotle and/or Formal Logic (but no one else can find them there).

Hegel then inflicted on these inventions of his some rather crass word-juggling, and imagined he could derive a contradiction from the negation of the Law of Identity, and then a double negation from that, so that as a result the concepts he used were both identical with, and not identical with, themselves (they were internally-paired with their own 'others' as he put it -- you can see a simplistic version of this idea in Red Che's comments above).

This suggested to him that just as concepts can change under such an 'analysis' so objects and process in reality must do the same (and, as an idealist, it was thus easy for him to confuse his own twisted thought with reality), which processes were merely the manifestation of the development of Mind anyway.

So, the upshot was that the 'universe' was powered by such 'inner contradictions' -- all the result of word-juggling, and that alone.

Unfortunately/fortunately, this word-juggling was bogus from end to end, and not only does the negation of the Law of Identity not generate a contradiction (I show this in Essay Eight Part Two), the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Identity are not logically connected, and cannot be linked no matter how you try.

The Law of Identity is about the alleged relation of an object to itself; the Law of Contradiction is about the implications alleged to exist between a propostion and its negation. It mentions no objects and cannot be made to do so, not without changing the meaning of that word -- which takes us back to the point I made at the beginning.

Dialecticians adopted this garbled logic (and repeat it endlessly, with greater or lesser accuracy, Red Che being well toward the latter end of that spectrum), swallowing it hook, line and sinker. They then claim that they rotated this mish mash through 180 degrees (in order to make this Idealist joke materialist), proceeded to impose it on material reality in defiance of their promise never to do this, and thus imported this twisted logic into the workers' movement.

But the logic is defective upside down or the right way up, and is based on a crass confusion of the logic of relations with the logic of propositions.

However, the original Hegelian argument made a cracked sort of sense since it was based on the idea that nature was Mind.

If this is now rotated, and put 'the right way up', and it is reasoned that nature is not Mind, Hegel's 'argument' loses whatever cracked sense it once had.

So, if someone insists that there are real contradictions in nature, that assertion can only be made to sort of work if nature is Mind, and the whole shebang is rotated back through 180 degrees again.

Now, the arguments I use here are simply rhetorical devices to try to bring this out in a non-technical sense.

You can see why I have to do it this way with numpties like Red Che around. He'd never be able to follow the above argument, especially if I translated it into a technical form in all its glory, using all the devices that modern logic allows me.

But in his case, it was obvious almost from the start (when we first clashed back February) that anything I or anyone said to him went right over his head. It was a waste of time trying to reason with him, or explain anything to him.

So now I generally just wind him up, or bait him.

[angus_mor]

You make a very excellent, concise argument Rosa, though I am confused as to how much you are an idealist and a materialist; obviously you have a healthy dose of each, but I am interested to know precisely in your own words. Thank you very much for explaining your position so clearly and most of all, without any condescension! I now have a newfound respect for you; you are indeed quite a brilliant thinker in your own right, unlike ComradeRed (not to be confused with red_che) who seems rather fond of circular logic.

Another thing, I've noticed from reading your work that you mostly disagree with the semantics of previous dialecticians' arguments, and don't seem to entirely reject dialectics. Am I wrong here? Exactly what do you agree and disagree with about dialectics?

Further, you didn't mention whether replacing contradict with interact was any more or less idealistic; your thoughts? In my own opinion, it's atleast a more reasonable perspective than claiming a contradiction exists in a materialist sense, as the above statements make it abundantly clear that a contradiction is only possible in an idealist sense.

And finally, you also neglected to reply to another section of one of my previous posts:


Regardless of whether or not dialectics is a fallacious theory, isn't it naive to attribute the failures of Marxism to dialectics alone? I'd have to say Marxism flounders not because of any philosophical inquiry, but because of propaganda, perpetuation of the dominant ideology, and hypocrites that create state capitalist systems which in fact hinder the progress and development of the proletariat, and support the aforementioned propagandists' point of view.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Angus:


Rosa, though I am confused as to how much you are an idealist and a materialist; obviously you have a healthy dose of each,

I am a 100% materialist; if you can find one ounce of idealism in me, I will eradicate it forthwith.


Thank you very much for explaining your position so clearly and most of all, without any condescension!

I only give time-wasters and the impolite a hard time; it is clear that you are neither.


Exactly what do you agree and disagree with about dialectics?

How much time have you to spare?

I have devoted 3/4's of a million words to this at my site already; the way things are going it will top 1.5 million over the next year or so.

There is no way I can summarise my many thousands of objections to this pernicious doctrine in a manageable post here.

I have tried to do so here, though:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm)


Further, you didn't mention whether replacing contradict with interact was any more or less idealistic; your thoughts?

Well, I am quite happy to use any concepts from Historical Materialism and ordinary language to help account for the class struggle, and 'interact' is fine (if a little weak -- I prefer 'struggle'!).

But, since it is people and classes that interact/struggle, not ideas or theses, we can use such terms without any compromise with idealism.

However, forgive me for not responding to this:


Regardless of whether or not dialectics is a fallacious theory, isn't it naive to attribute the failures of Marxism to dialectics alone? I'd have to say Marxism flounders not because of any philosophical inquiry, but because of propaganda, perpetuation of the dominant ideology, and hypocrites that create state capitalist systems which in fact hinder the progress and development of the proletariat, and support the aforementioned propagandists' point of view.

You will note that I do not do this; I specifically say that it is one of the reasons why Marxism has been so unsuccessful.

Here is what I do say (in that long quote from my Introductory Essay, posted above):


(2) Certainly objective factors have hindered the revolutionary movement (such as a relatively well-organised, rich, powerful and focussed ruling-class, nationalism and sectionalism among workers, a growing economy, etc., etc.), but dialecticians are quite specific: the veracity of a theory can only be tested in practice, and since the latter requires the subjective input of active revolutionaries, this aspect of practice has badly failed.

Often revolutionaries recognise this, but they depict it as a failure of 'revolutionary leadership', failing to note the input of dialectics here. But if this theory is as central to Marxism as these comrades believe, then DM cannot be unconnected with this long-term lack of success.

So, whether or not there have been 'objective factors', practice itself has refuted the subjective side of Marxism: dialectics.

And on the opening page at my site, I argue thus:


(1) It is worth emphasising from the outset that I am not blaming the long-term failure of Marxism solely on the acceptance of Hermetic ideas drawn from Hegel. What is being claimed is that this is one of the subjective reasons why revolutionary socialism has become a bye-word for failure. There are other, objective reasons why the class enemy still runs this planet (these are outlined in Essay Nine (summary here)), but since revolutions require revolutionaries with ideas in their heads, these too must take some of the blame.

So, it is alleged that dialectics is an important part of the reason why revolutionary groups are in general vanishingly small, neurotically sectarian, studiously unreasonable, consistently conservative, theoretically deferential (to 'tradition'), and almost invariably tend toward all forms of substitutionism. Naturally, this has had a direct bearing on their lack of impact on the working-class over the last fifty years -- and probably longer --, and hence on the continuing success of Capitalism.

The following 'Unity of Opposites' is difficult to explain otherwise: the larger the proletariat, the smaller the impact Dialectical Marxism has on it.

Sadly, this 'inner tension' will continue to develop while comrades adhere to this regressive doctrine. Those who doubt this are encouraged to read on, where their doubts will be severely bruised, if not laid to rest.

And I repeat this many times.

So I go out of my way to show that I believe this Hermetic Theory is only part of the reason, but an very important part, for our failure.

Hope that answers your point!

Recall, if I am right, this will represent the biggest change to our system of thought in 150 years, and so the forces of comservatism in our movement (some of whose representatives you will see, and have seen, attempt to mount a pathetic 'defence' of mysticism here) will fight it tooth and nail.

But, I aim to continue my attacks on this dogma until one of two things happens: I die, or it does....

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by AngusMor+--> (AngusMor)...you are indeed quite a brilliant thinker in your own right, unlike ComradeRed (not to be confused with red_che) who seems rather fond of circular logic.[/b] Then you clearly cannot comprehend what I am saying, so sorry.

Of course I'm not the one who would be so quick to assert math as "circular logic"; and what do I know as a physicist of math? ;)

Do not confuse my use of math with a sort of Penrose-ian platonism, though; I'm (like Rosa) 100% materialist. It's my hideous bias as a scientist that studies reality to be a materialist.

Given your "analysis" of Rosa's stance, I think that you need to reread the critical posts very slowly and carefully so you won't foul up again. It's remarkable, asking to see dialectics done step-by-step in a proof is "too much" to ask and therefore "must" be "circular logic" :lol: That made my day.


Rosa
I have devoted 3/4's of a million words to this at my site already; the way things are going it will top 1.5 million over the next year or so. I'm afraid that none of the dialecticians would be willing to glance at your site; the terrible irony is that the dialecticians moan when you don't elucidate your argument, despite having done so at paint-staking detail on your site.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade Red:


I'm afraid that none of the dialecticians would be willing to glance at your site; the terrible irony is that the dialecticians moan when you don't elucidate your argument, despite having done so at paint-staking detail on your site.

You are right, but I did not write this stuff for them, and I have had many comrades contact me thanking me for my Essays, which some have read in full, since it freed them from having to accept a theory for which they they had no respect, which was thus affecting their appreciation of Marxism.

I write for comrades like that.

[angus_mor]

I guess I should get used to getting words put in my mouth, eh Rosa? I never said that mathematics is a form of circular logic, CR, but I don't recall you giving me any kind of formula that disproves dialectics, though the conversation we're reminiscing about is undocumented. I have no real evidence that you ever used circular logic, so I obligingly apologize for stooping to such a level. Though I'd very much like to see such a formula, can you post it?


QUOTE (Rosa)
I have devoted 3/4's of a million words to this at my site already; the way things are going it will top 1.5 million over the next year or so.

I'm afraid that none of the dialecticians would be willing to glance at your site; the terrible irony is that the dialecticians moan when you don't elucidate your argument, despite having done so at paint-staking detail on your site.

I have read and agree with much of her work, mostly the contradictions that arise in the work of Woods, Grant, etc., but not her interpretation of dialectics as a form of logic and an approach to reality. Btw, I love that phrase you just coined; paint-staking...

So, some evidence is what ya want, eh? Let's begin with the atom, shall we? The atom is comprised of protons, neutrons and electrons. A quantitative difference in either the protons or electrons results in a qualitative change in the atom. A quantitative difference in protons will qualitatively change the element, whereas a quantitative difference in electrons leads to a qualitative change in stability. For example, an atom with a single proton is hydrogen, and supposing we can add a second proton, it would be an atom of helium.

Our hydrogen atom has only one proton and one electron, highly reactive. In order to become stable, it must undergo a chemical reaction. As the atom gains electrons by chemically bonding with other atoms, it becomes less reactive, finally coming to rest when it manages to gain eight. Let's observe a chemical equation:

H2 + O → H2O

Since Hegelian thought uses phrases such as thesis, antithesis, and contradiction, which are idealistic, biased interpretations unique to human beings, it becomes necessary to use neutral phrases such as first party, second party and struggle/interaction instead. The first party; a diatomic molecule of hydrogen, struggles/interacts; chemically reacts, with the second party; an atom of oxygen, thus synthesizing into a new substance; H2O, commonly referred to as water. The molecule of hydrogen provides two electrons, and the oxygen atom provides six electrons, sharing eight electrons together; forming a stable molecule.

I've done the best I could to provide an existing material example of a dialectical process with as neutral, materialistic phraseology as I can muster, so if you can find mysticism in it, well, I've failed. But even if I am correct, I don't think that dialectics should be codified into law, as Rosa is correct in noting that doing so has only contributed to sectarian factionalism, which is completely reactionary, but I think it is equally as sectarian to simply reject dialecticians. I'm not trying to, as CR once told me, "absolve [anyone] of dialectical sin", but to say that I respect and admire Rosa as a contemporary and a fellow comrade and wish to promote solidarity of both dialecticians and antidialecticians, and would very much like to be able to call both Rosa and CR friends, though I doubt CR cares to form a relationship with people he regards as "philistine," let alone do anything more than insult them. And with these closing words; bring on the criticism!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Angus:


A quantitative difference in either the protons or electrons results in a qualitative change in the atom. A quantitative difference in protons will qualitatively change the element, whereas a quantitative difference in electrons leads to a qualitative change in stability. For example, an atom with a single proton is hydrogen, and supposing we can add a second proton, it would be an atom of helium.

Well, this can be interpreted several ways; we do not have to view it al a Hegel or al la Engels.

So, not just any quantitative increase will do, it has to be the right sort of increase. In that case, the deciding factors here are the qulaities you are changing/adding. Only protons will do, since they have the right properties; or only protons and electrons, or only neutrons.....

In that case we could just as well say (with equal if not more justification) "Qualitiative change caused by qualitative increase".

And since dialecticians fail to say what they mean by "quality" here, this 'law' only works in the few places where it seems to do so because of terminal [i]vagueness.

Moreover, there are just as many places where it fails as where it even supposedly applies (see my Essay Seven).

So, it cannot be a law.


Since Hegelian thought uses phrases such as thesis, antithesis, and contradiction, which are idealistic, biased interpretations unique to human beings, it becomes necessary to use neutral phrases such as first party, second party and struggle/interaction instead. The first party; a diatomic molecule of hydrogen, struggles/interacts; chemically reacts, with the second party; an atom of oxygen, thus synthesizing into a new substance; H2O, commonly referred to as water. The molecule of hydrogen provides two electrons, and the oxygen atom provides six electrons, sharing eight electrons together; forming a stable molecule.

If you use this language, you lose the dialectical connections DM-fans allege exist in nature, where the only causative principle allowed is the internal connection that exists between an object or process and its dialectical 'other' (that is, its not not A, to use the faulty logical symbols often employed at this juncture).

In which case, why bother? This is a very watery sort of philosophy now, hardly worth claiming as the 'world-view' of the proletariat!

And you will note you have to use the anthropomorphic/animistic word 'struggle', here, which suggests agency.

So, you can only make this work if you think nature is Mind, or is populated with agents, or animals, and that every particle has a way of processing information in a rudimentary sort of mind, so that it can be said to 'struggle'.

Just as I predicted you would have to do.

Of coure, you can alter the word 'struggle' so that it applies to inanimate matter, and to anything at that happens in reality, but then you might just as well use 'bannana', as I also suggested.

For Hegel, all this made a loopy sort of sense, for the reasons I spelt out above; but unless nature is Mind, and all the objects and processes in the universe are agents, this 'theory' cannot work.

Stop trying to mend an irreversibly fractured 'theory'.

You stand no chance.

Philosophers have been trying to depict the underlying principles that govern nature (notice I have to anthopomorphise this minimal description of what they are trying to do even to make this opaque point!), and in every case, they have to treat it as a surrogate Mind, or Will, or animal of some sort.

You are not likely to succeed where they have failed.

[red_che]

Rosa:


It has been clear for some time that you do not care where you derive your ideas, but in this case, it is not even a good copy of a garbled re-hash of an idealist 'argument' found in Kant, erroneously attributed to Hegel by Marx's teacher, and copied uncritically by Marx.

Fine. If you think it that way, I am not going to argue that. Not that I agree with you, but it seems you don't want to clarify your arguments to me. So I'll take what you said to the other comrades in this thread.


Unless one wants to alter the meaning of the word 'contradiction', it makes no sense to suppose they exist in reality.

Comrade Angus might have agreed with you completely here, but on my part I insist that you are merely trying to confuse (sort of making a "smokescreen") so as not to reveal your real idea. I say, once again, that it is not the word "contradiction" that you don't want to accept but the actual practices of men - of social classes - in society that which make up a contradiction. So, in that sense, your idealism is masked.


But, once that is done, there seems to be no good reason to use the letters contained in that word. One might just as well use 'bannana'.

If "banana" is a correct word to use so as to make it itelligible then no problem at all. But, sadly Rosa, in this case the actual practice of social classes in conflict with each other is called "contradiction." It is for this matter that such word is used, to make it coherent for men to perceive.


Now, DM-fans, following the idealist lead of Hegel, who supposed everything was Mind (so this move made some sort of crazy sense to him), adapted ideas the latter thought he had found in Aristotle and/or Formal Logic (but no one else can find them there).

Hegel then inflicted on these inventions of his some rather crass word-juggling, and imagined he could derive a contradiction from the negation of the Law of Identity, and then a double negation from that, so that as a result the concepts he used were both identical with, and not identical with, themselves (they were internally-paired with their own 'others' as he put it -- you can see a simplistic version of this idea in Red Che's comments above).

Now, since you have already screened your real thoughts, you have proceeded to insist in confusing that DM is entirely a Hegelian thought. As I've said, your confusion (or might I say your intentional twisting of thoughts) cannot distinguish the difference of an idealist idea and a materialist perception. See, in Hegel, as you have said above, everything is in the mind. However, as what I have been saying to you, dialectical materialism does not (and got rid away) follow the notion that society's development is a product of human mind. In DM, everything that happens in human society are all products of human practical activity.


This suggested to him that just as concepts can change under such an 'analysis' so objects and process in reality must do the same (and, as an idealist, it was thus easy for him to confuse his own twisted thought with reality), which processes were merely the manifestation of the development of Mind anyway.

As I have stated in my preceding paragraph, Hegel thought it that way. That things can change because for him, the Mind (the Idea) is the supreme force. However, as the quote from Marx which I posted in my first post, it is the practical activity of men that makes society change. So, as I have said also in my first post, you really cannot distinguish this difference of DM from that of Hegel's dialectics. Or maybe you really don't want to admit it, but you knew this materialist dialectical logic is far different from Hegel's. Only that you confuse the two because both follow the same line of "thesis/antithesis=synthesis" procedure, as I indicated also in my first post.


So, the upshot was that the 'universe' was powered by such 'inner contradictions' -- all the result of word-juggling, and that alone.

Now you intentionally took it (your entire above statements) out of context. Because you twisted it 180 degrees. To Hegel, the universe was directed by the Mind (the Idea). Or to be more precise, to Hegel, the universe is under the control of one superior outside force, that is God (the Absolute Idea) and not the internal contradictions.


Unfortunately/fortunately, this word-juggling was bogus from end to end, and not only does the negation of the Law of Identity not generate a contradiction (I show this in Essay Eight Part Two), the Law of Contradiction and the Law of Identity are not logically connected, and cannot be linked no matter how you try.

It is somewhat "tricky" how you connected these "Laws" from your preceding statements. But we'll see from the succeeding paragraphs.


The Law of Identity is about the alleged relation of an object to itself; the Law of Contradiction is about the implications alleged to exist between a propostion and its negation. It mentions no objects and cannot be made to do so, not without changing the meaning of that word -- which takes us back to the point I made at the beginning.

Okay. Now you took turns at obfuscating these two Laws, most particularly the Law of Contradictions. From the "object's" relation to itself on the first one, I noticed that you used "proposition and its negation" on the second one, thereby unobtrusively confusing the two laws. While everbody knows, and reality shows, that there can be no contradictions without there being an object or objects or forces actually clashing against each other. So, your point here is fallacious.


Dialecticians adopted this garbled logic (and repeat it endlessly, with greater or lesser accuracy, Red Che being well toward the latter end of that spectrum), swallowing it hook, line and sinker. They then claim that they rotated this mish mash through 180 degrees (in order to make this Idealist joke materialist), proceeded to impose it on material reality in defiance of their promise never to do this, and thus imported this twisted logic into the workers' movement.

Well, you can only say this while your mind is still in confusion. However, as what has been discussed above and as had been clarified about 200 years ago by Marx and Engels and all the other dialectical materialists, dialectical logic is the most revolutionary theory or philosophy so far.


But the logic is defective upside down or the right way up, and is based on a crass confusion of the logic of relations with the logic of propositions.

However, the original Hegelian argument made a cracked sort of sense since it was based on the idea that nature was Mind.

If this is now rotated, and put 'the right way up', and it is reasoned that nature is not Mind, Hegel's 'argument' loses whatever cracked sense it once had.

So, if someone insists that there are real contradictions in nature, that assertion can only be made to sort of work if nature is Mind, and the whole shebang is rotated back through 180 degrees again.

As I have said and discussed above, it is not dialectics per se that seems to be your problem. You are merely confused. Your problem is Hegel's dialectics, not Dialectical Materialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:


Fine. If you think it that way, I am not going to argue that. Not that I agree with you, but it seems you don't want to clarify your arguments to me. So I'll take what you said to the other comrades in this thread.

As I said, it has been clear since the beginning that, not only do you not want a debate, you cannot reason like normal human beings, but must quote holy writ as your only rationale.


Comrade Angus might have agreed with you completely here, but on my part I insist that you are merely trying to confuse (sort of making a "smokescreen") so as not to reveal your real idea. I say, once again, that it is not the word "contradiction" that you don't want to accept but the actual practices of men - of social classes - in society that which make up a contradiction. So, in that sense, your idealism is masked.

You can stamp your little feet all you like, but unless you have an argument to offer (and not re-hashed dogma), you might as well not bother responding to anything I have posted.

Just saying there is such a contradiction might be fine for you and your fellow simple believers, but in science we need evidence and argument.

To date you have offered none (other than quotations from Holy Writ).


If "banana" is a correct word to use so as to make it itelligible then no problem at all. But, sadly Rosa, in this case the actual practice of social classes in conflict with each other is called "contradiction." It is for this matter that such word is used, to make it coherent for men to perceive.

But then you'd need to explain how a tropical fruit can account for social change.

Can you?

If not, stop using that word too.

And stop using 'contradiction' (unless you think nature is Mind).


Now, since you have already screened your real thoughts, you have proceeded to insist in confusing that DM is entirely a Hegelian thought. As I've said, your confusion (or might I say your intentional twisting of thoughts) cannot distinguish the difference of an idealist idea and a materialist perception. See, in Hegel, as you have said above, everything is in the mind. However, as what I have been saying to you, dialectical materialism does not (and got rid away) follow the notion that society's development is a product of human mind. In DM, everything that happens in human society are all products of human practical activity.

If my thoughts are 'screened' -- but you have yet to say how I do this -- then at least I have some.

You just regurgitate the ideas of mystics.

And I note you failed to follow the argument.

Once more: oh dear....


As I have stated in my preceding paragraph, Hegel thought it that way. That things can change because for him, the Mind (the Idea) is the supreme force. However, as the quote from Marx which I posted in my first post, it is the practical activity of men that makes society change. So, as I have said also in my first post, you really cannot distinguish this difference of DM from that of Hegel's dialectics. Or maybe you really don't want to admit it, but you knew this materialist dialectical logic is far different from Hegel's. Only that you confuse the two because both follow the same line of "thesis/antithesis=synthesis" procedure, as I indicated also in my first post.

More dogma -- which seems to be your only avenue of support. Or, rather, you think that merely repeating the same discredited ideas somehow makes them sound.

If this were so, parrots would be major thinkers.

Back on your perch, Polly!


Now you intentionally took it (your entire above statements) out of context. Because you twisted it 180 degrees. To Hegel, the universe was directed by the Mind (the Idea). Or to be more precise, to Hegel, the universe is under the control of one superior outside force, that is God (the Absolute Idea) and not the internal contradictions.

Since you lot think nature is powered by 'contradictions', you obviously think nature can argue with itself.

So, yet again, abandon that idea, or openly admit to your mysticism.


Okay. Now you took turns at obfuscating these two Laws, most particularly the Law of Contradictions. From the "object's" relation to itself on the first one, I noticed that you used "proposition and its negation" on the second one, thereby unobtrusively confusing the two laws. While everbody knows, and reality shows, that there can be no contradictions without there being an object or objects or forces actually clashing against each other. So, your point here is fallacious.

Once more, right over your head.

And what you declare that 'everyone knows' (but, have you surveyed the entire planet?), I deny.

[And since I have actually proven my case, I can deny this with some authority; you merely deny what you do not like.]

Prove otherwise, or belt up.


Well, you can only say this while your mind is still in confusion. However, as what has been discussed above and as had been clarified about 200 years ago by Marx and Engels and all the other dialectical materialists, dialectical logic is the most revolutionary theory or philosophy so far.

So you say, but evidence and argument are against you once more (you really have no luck here have you?).

And since you clearly know no logic (and neither did Engels, Lenin or Hegel) you are in no position to tell us that these 'dialectical logicians' did not screw up in the way I have shown that they did.


As I have said and discussed above, it is not dialectics per se that seems to be your problem. You are merely confused. Your problem is Hegel's dialectics, not Dialectical Materialism.

In future, just post this:


.................................................. .................................................
.................................................. .............................................
.................................................. .............................................

It will, make your case far more cogently.

Glad I could help....

[angus_mor]

And since dialecticians fail to say what they mean by "quality" here, this 'law' only works in the few places where it seems to do so because of terminal vagueness.

It would seem that you are now the guilty party in ignoring attributing factors of this example; protons have a positive charge, whereas neutrons have no charge at all, so it's obvious a quantitative change in neutrons only makes the atom a seperate isotope. Anyone who's taken even a highschool physical science class knows that an atom with an overwhelming amount of neutrons in its necleus versus its protons becomes more unstable and will succumb to atomic decay quite shortly. Since protons have some quantity of charge, and neutrons have no quantity of charge, this explains why they can not qualitatively change the substance. Even a primary school student knows that no matter how many times you add zero to one, you'll end up with the same answer every time; one. The logic I have applied here is not vague at all; I didn't ignore the neutrons, I didn't explain them away with greedy reductionism, I gave simple scientific reasoning.

However, red_che is only making dialecticians look like naive ammateurs by "stamp [his] little feet." Rosa does in fact use good reasoning herself, when she isn't ignoring factors of the equation, and I'm surprised how many times people actually ignore what she's posting, or apparently can't read, as she has pointed out.


And you will note you have to use the anthropomorphic/animistic word 'struggle', here, which suggests agency.

So, you can only make this work if you think nature is Mind, or is populated with agents, or animals, and that every particle has a way of processing information in a rudimentary sort of mind, so that it can be said to 'struggle'.

I haven't attributed the behavior of atoms to a special kind of idealism which gives them their own consciousness, I've also used the word [i]interact which doesn't necessarily connote "anthropomorphi[sm]/animis[m]."

"Interaction is a kind of action that occurs as two or more objects have an effect upon one another." -- en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Interaction (I apologize for using such an easily fabricated source.)

The only reason I used the phrase struggle was you had said you preferred it yourself, but it is clear that interaction is not unique to the human mind given this definition. Now you are guilty of placing words in my mouth!


If you use this language, you lose the dialectical connections DM-fans allege exist in nature, where the only causative principle allowed is the internal connection that exists between an object or process and its dialectical 'other' (that is, its not not A, to use the faulty logical symbols often employed at this juncture).

Actually, if you use this language, you rid dialectics of the idealistic connections written into it; first party, second party and interaction only label factors for the purpose of demonstration, and do not connote a bias of human interpretation. Phrases like thesis, antithesis and contradiction impose consciousness into inanimate factors, which is irrational, so sorry to restate what I've said previously.


One might just as well use 'bannana'.

The only problem with that is banana isn't a verb, it's a noun, thus it could be an object in an outlined dialectic, but it can not be the verbal interaction. This detracts from your argument more than anything else, I don't know why nobody's noticed this before.


I aim to continue my attacks on this dogma until one of two things happens: I die, or it does....

With that attitude you're likely to end up like redstar2000, and I wish not to see you succumb to a stroke. No matter who's right or wrong, dialecticians aren't going to disappear any more than anti-dialecticians will. But all this aside, you're more than welcome to try; good luck!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM, I hestitate to accuse you of not reading what I said carefully enough, but this is not really to the point:


It would seem that you are now the guilty party in ignoring attributing factors of this example; protons have a positive charge, whereas neutrons have no charge at all, so it's obvious a quantitative change in neutrons only makes the atom a seperate isotope. Anyone who's taken even a highschool physical science class knows that an atom with an overwhelming amount of neutrons in its necleus versus its protons becomes more unstable and will succumb to atomic decay quite shortly. Since protons have some quantity of charge, and neutrons have no quantity of charge, this explains why they can not qualitatively change the substance. Even a primary school student knows that no matter how many times you add zero to one, you'll end up with the same answer every time; one. The logic I have applied here is not vague at all; I didn't ignore the neutrons, I didn't explain them away with greedy reductionism, I gave simple scientific reasoning.

I am not disputing the facts of science (which I know as well as you do), only the prejudicial way DM-fans depict things.

Since you too help yourself to a notion you have not defined (i.e., 'quality'), you need to re-think your ideas from the ground up.


I haven't attributed the behavior of atoms to a special kind of idealism which gives them their own consciousness, I've also used the word interact which doesn't necessarily connote "anthropomorphi[sm]/animis[m]."

Nice move, but you could only pull this swerve off by dropping 'conflict'.

Now, your version is even more watery thin.

Why you want to call such interactionism 'dialectics' beats me.

You might as well call it 'Susan'.


The only reason I used the phrase struggle was you had said you preferred it yourself, but it is clear that interaction is not unique to the human mind given this definition. Now you are guilty of placing words in my mouth!

Not so, you used this word in relation to natural events; I merely said I was happy with it in relation to the class struggle.


The only problem with that is banana isn't a verb, it's a noun, thus it could be an object in an outlined dialectic, but it can not be the verbal interaction. This detracts from your argument more than anything else, I don't know why nobody's noticed this before.

Well, 'contradiction' is a noun too.

The rest of the above I could not follow, so I won't comment on it.


With that attitude you're likely to end up like redstar2000, and I wish not to see you succumb to a stroke. No matter who's right or wrong, dialecticians aren't going to disappear any more than anti-dialecticians will. But all this aside, you're more than welcome to try; good luck!

I do not smoke, I take regular exercise, and eat healthily; I have too much to live for to throw my life away. Hence, I am not sure I will end up like RS2K.

So plenty more anti-DM years left in me!

And, more importantly, plenty more years where I can contribute to the overthrow of capitalism.

[angus_mor]

Since you too help yourself to a notion you have not defined (i.e., 'quality'), you need to re-think your ideas from the ground up.

But I have defined the quality; the quality in the substance in question. Hydrogen, an element with one proton, a nonmetal, is a gas. Gold, an element with 79 protons, a transition metal, is a solid. There is a qualitative difference between the two, and I hope you agree with me here.


Now, your version is even more watery thin.

Care to explain?


Why you want to call such interactionism 'dialectics' beats me.

Because a dialectic is an interaction of two parts.


Well, 'contradiction' is a noun too.

Yes, contradiction is a noun, but you can contradict (verb) a statement. You can't "banana" anything.


I do not smoke, I take regular exercise, and eat healthily; I have too much to live for to throw my life away. Hence, I am not sure I will end up like RS2K.

So plenty more anti-DM years left in me!

And, more importantly, plenty more years where I can contribute to the overthrow of capitalism.

I'm pleased to hear it, I do not smoke either, but I seriously doubt you could live long enough to even see the end of capitalism, which I'd love to myself, but I don't think even I will be so fortunate!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


But I have defined the quality; the quality in the substance in question

First, that is not a defintion, but a conflation of terms.

Second, since qualities belong to substances, they can hardly be the same.

This confusion comes out here:


Gold, an element with 79 protons, a transition metal, is a solid. There is a qualitative difference between the two, and I hope you agree with me here.

You identify the substance in question, but compare their properties (properties that beong to substances, so they cannot be substances). This shows that in practice even you know the difference between these logical categories, but somehow want to conflate them.


Care to explain?

I'd like to, but there is so little to go on (hence I use this term), to be able to tell what you think.


Because a dialectic is an interaction of two parts.

That would not distinguish it from, say, a wrestling match.


Yes, contradiction is a noun, but you can contradict (verb) a statement. You can't "banana" anything.

But how do you know that this word in dialectics is a verb? It has had its meaning altered so much, it might be an adverb for all you know.

And yes, you can 'bannana' someone; to 'bannana' someone is to cover them with bannanas.

And lest you complain that I have changed the meaning of this word (I haven't, I have merely extended it), this is what DM-fans do with 'contradict'. So, if I can't do it, you can't. If you can, I can.


I'm pleased to hear it, I do not smoke either, but I seriously doubt you could live long enough to even see the end of capitalism, which I'd love to myself, but I don't think even I will be so fortunate!

Maybe not Capitalism, but I hope to kill-off dialectics.

[Fat chance with know-nothings like Red Che around....]

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 11:48 pm
I guess I should get used to getting words put in my mouth, eh Rosa? I never said that mathematics is a form of circular logic, CR, but I don't recall you giving me any kind of formula that disproves dialectics, though the conversation we're reminiscing about is undocumented. I have no real evidence that you ever used circular logic, so I obligingly apologize for stooping to such a level. Though I'd very much like to see such a formula, can you post it?
Wow, this is an example of dialecticians' brilliant logic! Attempting to have something disproved prior to it being proved! I love it!

Sadly, I cannot work magic over logic, and cannot disprove what has yet to be proven. I've asked on many an occassion for the dialecticians to prove it, only to get a shake of the head and "I don't have time to do this, go read so-and-so."

Dialectics have never been proven to work, nor have they been proven a valid method. That makes it logically impossible to disprove them; not because they're "so great" but because they haven't been proven in the least.


So, some evidence is what ya want, eh? Let's begin with the atom, shall we? The atom is comprised of protons, neutrons and electrons. A quantitative difference in either the protons or electrons results in a qualitative change in the atom. A quantitative difference in protons will qualitatively change the element, whereas a quantitative difference in electrons leads to a qualitative change in stability. For example, an atom with a single proton is hydrogen, and supposing we can add a second proton, it would be an atom of helium.

Our hydrogen atom has only one proton and one electron, highly reactive. In order to become stable, it must undergo a chemical reaction. As the atom gains electrons by chemically bonding with other atoms, it becomes less reactive, finally coming to rest when it manages to gain eight. Let's observe a chemical equation:

H2 + O → H2O

Since Hegelian thought uses phrases such as thesis, antithesis, and contradiction, which are idealistic, biased interpretations unique to human beings, it becomes necessary to use neutral phrases such as first party, second party and struggle/interaction instead. The first party; a diatomic molecule of hydrogen, struggles/interacts; chemically reacts, with the second party; an atom of oxygen, thus synthesizing into a new substance; H2O, commonly referred to as water. The molecule of hydrogen provides two electrons, and the oxygen atom provides six electrons, sharing eight electrons together; forming a stable molecule. Sweet Newton, you can't even understand chemistry! Why is the Hydrogen atom highly reactive? What makes it so? Hmmm...?

The "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" holy trinity? Well, you could say that...just as a Creationist could say "God" created the universe. But both cases would be rather completely incorrect.

It's sad that you truly believe such idealistic garbage as that; deriving reality from dialectics, I weep for you.


I've done the best I could to provide an existing material example of a dialectical process with as neutral, materialistic phraseology as I can muster, so if you can find mysticism in it, well, I've failed. But even if I am correct, I don't think that dialectics should be codified into law, as Rosa is correct in noting that doing so has only contributed to sectarian factionalism, which is completely reactionary, but I think it is equally as sectarian to simply reject dialecticians. I'm not trying to, as CR once told me, "absolve [anyone] of dialectical sin", but to say that I respect and admire Rosa as a contemporary and a fellow comrade and wish to promote solidarity of both dialecticians and antidialecticians, and would very much like to be able to call both Rosa and CR friends, though I doubt CR cares to form a relationship with people he regards as "philistine," let alone do anything more than insult them. And with these closing words; bring on the criticism! AWw, I :wub: you too! :rolleyes:

The plain fact of the matter is that I've criticized dialectics before. Whether or not it would be beyond your scope is another matter; I can understand how you could interpret it as mere "insults".

To do (as dialecticians have done in the past here), simply dismiss criticism (viz. Encephalon and mine) as "a waste of time" is rather than actually demonstrate dialectics to actually work...and the attempts to do so were childish "Well...uh...there's a positron, electron, and they create energy...yeah yeah, that's it!"

They still haven't answered a serious portion of my criticism: how do you determine thesis? antithesis? The interplay between the two? And the synthesis? All of this should be done preferably in a formal language (e.g. math, pseudocode, etc.). It's remarkable how much I have to repeat myself to actually get my criticism across.

My challenge, by the by, remains open to do a mathematical proof dialectically...if you are up for it.

[red_che]

Rosa:


As I said, it has been clear since the beginning that, not only do you not want a debate.....

Well, it is evident that you don't want a debate. Even with your responses to other comrades suggest that you really don't want a debate. All you want is for the fellows to agree with you. If they don't agree, you brand them (such as myself) as mystics or other "biting" words. You simply refuse arguments that contradict yours but you want your arguments to be accepted without hesitation. It is clear, Rosa, that what you want is for us to simply swallow all your words without question.

I might be disrespectful to you as compared to how other comrades treat you here. But I do it because you do not respect others' opinions, or my opinions. You treat others merely as low-level students of yours. You seem to feel that you are the most intelligent people here on earth. Your arrogance wasn't matched by anyone I ever met. Only you display this kind of attitude.

Redstar2000 was also arrogant before, but not as arrogant as you are. He was, at least, respectful of others views as compared with you. Yes, he was also and anti-dialectician and an anarchist through and through, but at least he knows how to treat other people and he knows how to respond well to the posts made for or argued against him.

Well, I think what you said for me are only excuses so as not to argue against me. You want me to shut up because it is apparent that I am the most ardent "anti-Rosa" poster here. I guess that's what you think. And I can't force you to put a single word of substantial, argumentative points in response to my posts, but at least I made you do some responses, although your responses are nonsense and evasive and biting. But that's all you want to offer to me. And that's all I can get out of you. But nonetheless, you are, in my opinion, a confused old fellow.

[angus_mor]

You identify the substance in question, but compare their properties (properties that beong to substances, so they cannot be substances). This shows that in practice even you know the difference between these logical categories, but somehow want to conflate them.

I am not conflating anything; I didn't say that quality is substance, I said there is a difference between the quality of one substance and another; hydrogen and gold. I hope you can tell the difference between a colorless, gaseous nonmetal and a brilliantly colorful, solid metal. It is not I who is conflating, but you who is confusing what I have already stated, perhaps you should take your own advice and read more carefully.


That would not distinguish it from, say, a wrestling match.

A wrestling match is a great example of a dialectic, we could even say that the two parties in question are struggling without implicating idealism, as a wrestling match is an open struggle. The first party, one wrestler, struggles with the second party, another wrestler, synthesis being the outcome of said wrestling match.


But how do you know that this word in dialectics is a verb? It has had its meaning altered so much, it might be an adverb for all you know.

First of all, the word hasn't been altered at all, you only claim that it has been altered. Secondly, I hope somebody who's been reading about dialectics for as long as you have can understand simple grammar. An adverb describes a verb, adjective or another adverb; contradict conjugated as an adverb would be contradictingly or contradictively. How am I supposed to take you seriously if you can't tell the difference between a noun, a verb and an adverb?


Wow, this is an example of dialecticians' brilliant logic! Attempting to have something disproved prior to it being proved! I love it!

Care to disprove that long passage of mine you just quoted, CR?


Sweet Newton, you can't even understand chemistry! Why is the Hydrogen atom highly reactive? What makes it so? Hmmm...?

If you would've actually bothered to, perish the thought, read carefully yourself, you'd realize you quoted the answer. But since this is obviously too much reading for you, I'll say it outright; hydrogen, and all members of the alkali group, are highly reactive because they have only one electron. To become completely stable, an atom must have eight electrons, this is why the noble gases are unreactive; they already contain eight in their outer electron shell. The alkali group is so highly reactive that none of them can be found naturally uncombined.


It's sad that you truly believe such idealistic garbage as that; deriving reality from dialectics, I weep for you.

I am not saying this at all, I am not deriving reality from dialectics, reality derives from matter, the only thing we can know for certain to exist. I am saying that matter interacts dialectically; in order to view the monitor from which you are reading this, you need to have an ocular receptor; your eyes. Light conducted from the monitor is received by the cornea in your eye which transmits this information through your nervous sytem to the brain in your head. Light interacts with your eye, and synthesis in this dialectic is sight.


The plain fact of the matter is that I've criticized dialectics before. Whether or not it would be beyond your scope is another matter; I can understand how you could interpret it as mere "insults".

I'm not saying that your criticism is insulting, I'm saying that you have done nothing but insult and condescend to me for being a dialectician. I respect your position so the least you can do is argue respectfully in return, as Rosa did so wonderfully and maturely.


AWw, I :wub: you too! :rolleyes:

That's the spirit! Brothers don't shake hands, brothers gotta hug! *overwhelms CR with a bear hug*


My challenge, by the by, remains open to do a mathematical proof dialectically...if you are up for it.

A simple math problem is a dialectic:

2 + 2 = 4

The first party, two, is added to the second party, two, which equals four! You could also subtract two from two, in which case the answer is 0 (duh)! In order for any arithmatic to be performed, the two numbers must interact, so you use dialectics every time you do the math you love so much!

[ComradeRed]

Care to disprove that long passage of mine you just quoted, CR? Seeing as it hasn't proved dialectics, that would be (as I iterated a number of times all ready) logically impossible.


If you actually would've bothered to, perish the thought, read carefully yourself, you'd realize you quoted the answer. But since this is obviously too much reading for you, I'll say it outright; hydrogen, and all members of the alkali group, are highly reactive because they have only one electron. To become completely stable, an atom must have eight electrons, this is why the noble gases are unreactive; they already contain eight in their outer electron shell. The alkali group is so highly reactive that none of them can be found naturally uncombined. Why is this though? If you had actually bothered to, perish the though, read carefully yourself, you'd realize that I asked you that very question.

Oh, and by the by, your use of semiclassical chemistry to explain quantum phenomena is ri-god damn-diculous. I'm hoping to actually see a dialectical derivation of QM, though I won't hold my breathe. (In layman's terms, you are using incorrect chemistry. The Bohrian model which you are using works only for hydrogen, your beloved example; for everything else it fails miserably.)


I am not saying this at all, I am not deriving reality from dialectics, reality derives from matter, the only thing we can know for certain to exist. I am saying that matter interacts dialectically; in order to view the monitor from which you are reading this, you need to have an ocular receptor; your eyes. Light conducted from the monitor is received by the cornea in your eye which transmits this information through your nervous sytem to the brain in your head. Light interacts with your eye, and synthesis in this dialectic is sight. --emphasis added.

Yeah, you intend to derive reality dialectically. Though you admit that reality is made out of matter and then assert dialectics applied to matter yields reality. I'm waiting to see you do the second step, as it has not been done in rigor. Here's a rough outline of what happens in others' attempts:

Proof that some event P happens with conditions C
1. Matter exists.
2. A Miracle happens.
3. Therefore P happens because of dialectics due to conditions C.
Conclusion: Dialectics can be used to obtain information of reality accepting the premise that all that exists is matter.



A simple math problem is a dialectic:

2 + 2 = 4

The first party, two, is added to the second party, two, which equals four! You could also subtract two from two, in which case the answer is 0 (duh)! In order for any arithmatic to be performed, the two numbers must interact, so you use dialectics every time you do the math you love so much! You didn't exactly do what I suggested. First problem: you are doing math then saying "Uh...it's dialectical!"

Second problem: you aren't doing math dialectically. You are doing math and explaining your steps dialectically. I didn't ask for that. I asked to see a proof done dialectically. That is not a proof, rather you are using the definition of addition and subtraction then asserting it's somehow magically dialectical for no apparent reason.

Further, dialectics fail in your scenario if we use a infinite dimensional complex Hilbert space using + as a compactified adjoint operator whose spectrum would be the set of all real numbers. Wacky things start to arise if you do that, like there isn't always an operator to undo what was done by another operator.

Or in category theory (similar things can occur, where there is a morphism f: X -> Y where there is no inverse f^-1 : Y -> X).

Or in...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:


Well, it is evident that you don't want a debate.

At last, you have got the message: no I do not want a debate with you. You are a dogmatist, who can only quote holy writ.

I'd rather debate with a robot; I'd get more sense.

And why have you not taken my advice and merely posted a blank space?

I try to help you improve your argument and you just ignore that advice!


You want me to shut up because it is apparent that I am the most ardent "anti-Rosa" poster here.

On the contrary: keep posting!

You are the best advert at RevLeft for the damage that this Hermetic virus (dialectical materialism) can do to comrades' brains.

I could bang on for months about this, but you are a walking health warning to others.

A far more effective deterrant.

Please keep posting your aimless 'thoughts'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM, apologies, this time, I am guilty of not reading what you posted originally:


But I have defined the quality; the quality in the substance in question.

But, you have now entered an area that has perplexed philosophers since well before Plato: what sort of quality do you mean?

Some properties of substances are 'inessential' to them (so that altering them does not affect the nature of that substance).

On the other hand, some are 'essential', in that altering them does alter that substance.

Hegel, following Aristotle, opted for the latter.

Which characterisation do you accept: every 'quality', no matter how inessential, or only those that are essential?

And you will also note that even if you were clear on this, the description you chose was prejudicial, and not forced on us by nature.

The substances you refer to alter just as much (but I would argue more than) by the addition of new qualities as they do quantities.

So, your way of viewing the world cannot distinguish between these two.

If you choose one way, then it would be merely to adopt a certain convention, but worse, it would be to impose a decison onto nature, one based on a 'definition' (and a none-to-clear defintion at that).

In that sense you would be theorising nature as an extension of your use of language, which would make you an idealist -- as I said.


A wrestling match is a great example of a dialectic,

Well this is where your theory becomes watery thin: as I pointed out to you, the dialectic is predicated on the idea that there is a logical connection between things that initiate change in reality (according to Hegel): objects are confronted by their own opposites (or 'others' as Hegel put it), which are internally related to them, which 'contradict' them.

This cannot be the case with a wrestling match, which is why I chose it, and I did so to expose the loose way you are going about this whole discusssion.

You are seizing on things that do struggle, helping yourself to them, generalisig from them, but not noticing that there is nothing dialectical (in Hegel's sense) to them. There is no logical connection in a fight.

So, your 'dialectic' is not a dialectic -- unless you want to change that word too.

And if you do, your theory becomes watery thin since it is unclear what causes the changes here.

Now we can all win an argument by screwing around with words; I could 'define' capitalism as fair, and 'refute' socialism. But I rather suspect you'd not accept that line of argument.

Same here.


First of all, the word hasn't been altered at all, you only claim that it has been altered.

In ordinary language, to contradict means to 'gain-say' whatever has been said (with no truth-functional implications necessarily involved).

In logic it means (in its simplest form) the conjunction of a propositon with its negation.

Which of these two do you mean?

If neither, then you must have altered its meaning to make your 'argument' work.

As did Hegel.


An adverb describes a verb, adjective or another adverb; contradict conjugated as an adverb would be contradictingly or contradictively. How am I supposed to take you seriously if you can't tell the difference between a noun, a verb and an adverb?

Ah, now you are appealing to the superficial physical aspects of a word as a clue to its grammatical role, as opposed to the way it is being used.

Fine, I now see your point, but it won't always work. Take the word 'bank'; it can function as a verb (i.e., to turn a plane), or as a noun (i.e., an institution of corporate theft), and an associated verb (i.e., to bank some money).

How do you know which way this 'word' (ie., 'contradict') is featuring in any of your sentences? Or any in Hegel -- especially if there is no connection with the ordinary language or the logical use of that word?

Please do not say that you intend it one way or another, since you would not accept me saying that when I bank some money I intend it becomes an aeroplane manoeuvre.

Or worse (which is more closely analogous to the radical change you are inflicting on this word), that when I bank some money, I am in fact changing it into a gorilla.

Or even better, I say that that when the planet Pluto banks some money, it is in fact changing it into the adhedral triangle, but then refuse to/cannot say what that is, but reject the accusation that this personifies Pluto.

But this is what you dialecticians do all the time: take words from their natural home in ordinary language, or in logic, alter them radically, use them in ways that suggest nature is Mind, but throw your hands up in horror when you are accused of being mystics.

How can I take you seriously if you do that?

[angus_mor]

Oh, and by the by, your use of semiclassical chemistry to explain quantum phenomena is ri-god damn-diculous. I'm hoping to actually see a dialectical derivation of QM, though I won't hold my breathe. (In layman's terms, you are using incorrect chemistry. The Bohrian model which you are using works only for hydrogen, your beloved example; for everything else it fails miserably.)

I must admit that I know nothing of Quantum Mechanics, other than it has replaced Newtonian Physics, but none of these theories has ever replaced the Periodic Table of Elements, which supports my theory, not just "my beloved example," hydrogen. Quantum Mechanics may be a specialized theory of the interactions of matter, but that doesn't mean it's incompatible with dialectics, a generalized theory of the interactions of matter, per se. Instead of saying that my example doesn't work, could you explain why it doesn't work?


Yeah, you intend to derive reality dialectically. Though you admit that reality is made out of matter and then assert dialectics applied to matter yields reality.

You are again puting words in my mouth; I'm not saying that the application of dialectics to matter yields reality, I'm saying that matter interacts dialectically.


Second problem: you aren't doing math dialectically. You are doing math and explaining your steps dialectically. I didn't ask for that. I asked to see a proof done dialectically. That is not a proof, rather you are using the definition of addition and subtraction then asserting it's somehow magically dialectical for no apparent reason.

This is also how I explain the interaction of matter, and while it may not be a proof, it's not "magically dialectical for no apparent reason," it is the definition of a dialectic.

[angus_mor]

But, you have now entered an area that has perplexed philosophers since well before Plato: what sort of quality do you mean?

Did you mean to say quantity? As in; the quantity of certain factors necessarily affects the quality of the substance? If so, I'd have to agree with both Hegel and Aristotle in that regard. I myself have not come across an example that violates this understanding, but could you please provide one if it exists?


In that sense you would be theorising nature as an extension of your use of language, which would make you an idealist -- as I said.

Which is why I rejected the Hegelian phrases thesis, antithesis and contradiction outright:


Since Hegelian thought uses phrases such as thesis, antithesis, and contradiction, which are idealistic, biased interpretations unique to human beings, it becomes necessary to use neutral phrases such as first party, second party and interaction instead.

I was merely debating the grammatics of the word, not advocating the phraseology. The context of the word bank certainly affects its use as a noun and a verb, but both bank and contradict would have to be conjugated in order to be used as an adverb as you suggest otherwise here:


But how do you know that this word in dialectics is a verb? It has had its meaning altered so much, it might be an adverb for all you know.


Well this is where your theory becomes watery thin: as I pointed out to you, the dialectic is predicated on the idea that there is a logical connection between things that initiate change in reality (according to Hegel): objects are confronted by their own opposites (or 'others' as Hegel put it), which are internally related to them, which 'contradict' them.

This cannot be the case with a wrestling match, which is why I chose it, and I did so to expose the loose way you are going about this whole discusssion.

You are seizing on things that do struggle, helping yourself to them, generalisig from them, but not noticing that there is nothing dialectical (in Hegel's sense) to them. There is no logical connection in a fight.

True, this is incompatible with Hegel's dialectic, but I am not explicitly defining one wrestler as another's polar opposite, simply that they are two parties that interact. This also applies to the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.


Or even better, I say that that when the planet Pluto banks some money, it is in fact changing it into the adhedral triangle, but then refuse to/cannot say what that is, but reject the accusation that this personifies Pluto.

But this is what you dialecticians do all the time: take words from their natural home in ordinary language, or in logic, alter them radically, use them in ways that suggest nature is Mind, but throw your hands up in horror when you are accused of being mystics.

Yes, it would seem dialecticians have been quite irrational, but so far my working example has not done this. So far both you and CR haven't outlined mysticism within my application of neutral terminology, only the Hegelian phrases; thesis, antithesis and contradiction. The term struggle has proven to be just as idealistic in application as contradiction, but I'm still unsure of the terms first party, second party and interact, though they appear to be neutral in my understanding; your thoughts?


On the contrary: keep posting!

You are the best advert at RevLeft for the damage that this Hermetic virus (dialectical materialism) can do to comrades brains.

I could bang on for months about this, but you are a walking health warning to others.

A far more effective deterrant.

Please keep posting your aimless 'thoughts'.

Perhaps the reason why many don't like your attitude towards dialecticians is because you like to use rhetorical devices that make out those like red_che to be straw men, who is, at the fault of his own immature reasoning (or rather a lack thereof), I'm sad to say, a sitting duck.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


Did you mean to say quantity? As in; the quantity of certain factors necessarily affects the quality of the substance? If so, I'd have to agree with both Hegel and Aristotle in that regard. I myself have not come across an example that violates this understanding, but could you please provide one if it exists?

No, let us go back to the original argument, when I tried to point out:


Angus:

QUOTE
A quantitative difference in either the protons or electrons results in a qualitative change in the atom. A quantitative difference in protons will qualitatively change the element, whereas a quantitative difference in electrons leads to a qualitative change in stability. For example, an atom with a single proton is hydrogen, and supposing we can add a second proton, it would be an atom of helium. QUOTE

Well, this can be interpreted several ways; we do not have to view it al a Hegel or al la Engels.

So, not just any quantitative increase will do, it has to be the right sort of increase. In that case, the deciding factors here are the qulaities you are changing/adding. Only protons will do, since they have the right properties; or only protons and electrons..... [I make this point at length in Essay Seven, so if you have read my work, you must have missed it.]

In that case we could just as well say (with equal if not more justification) "Qualitiative change caused by qualitative increase"....

Moreover, there are just as many places where it fails as where it even supposedly applies (see my Essay Seven).

So, it cannot be a law.

I included a reference to neutrons, which somehow distracted you, so I have edited that out.

Now, you can only make this idea work (that quantity changes into quality) if you ignore the fact that it is equally, of not more, accurate to say that quality alters quality.

[And Aristotle did not go in for this confused idea; it is entirely Hegel's invention, and even he did not think it was a universal law.]

As to counter-examples to this 'law', here are a few from my Essay Seven (links and references have been left out -- many of the arguments are further developed in the footnotes you will see dotted throughout this extract):


For many dialecticians, "Three Laws Of Dialectics" encapsulate the core ideas of classical DM; others regard them as far too crude and formulaic....

This Essay is aimed at showing that these 'Laws' are at best false, at worst terminally vague and hopelessly confused, and in the case of at last two of them, too confused to be assessed for their truth or falsehood.

The Three 'Laws'

Engels summarised his 'Laws' in the following way:

"The law of the transformation of quantity into quality, and vice versa; The law of the interpenetration of opposites; The law of the negation of the negation." [Engels (1954), p.62.]

Earlier, he had characterised them thus:

"Dialectics as the science of universal inter-connection. Main laws: transformation of quantity into quality -- mutual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes -- development through contradiction or negation of the negation -- spiral form of development." [Engels (1954), p.17.]

[1] Quantity Into Quality

This 'Law' Engels outlined as follows:

"...the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa. For our purpose, we could express this by saying that in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy)…. Hence it is impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration of the body concerned." [Engels (1954), p.63; emphasis added.]

Exactly how Engels knew that it was impossible to "alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion" he annoyingly kept to himself. This worry is made all the more acute when we recall that for Engels, matter itself is an abstraction [cf., Engels (1954), p.255]; in that case, it seems energy must be too. If so, how can anything be altered by the addition (or subtraction) of an abstraction?

However, Engels did at least try to deny that these:

"...laws [have been] foisted on nature and history as laws of thought, and not deduced from them."

But, this precipitous deduction of a necessary law (i.e., one that uses the word "impossible") from only a handful of cases (largely drawn from certain parts of chemistry, buttressed by a handful of quirky anecdotal examples from everyday life or from the popular science of his day) is a neat trick only dialecticians like Engels (and traditional philosophers) seem capable of performing.

Less partisan observers might be forgiven for concluding that Engels either did not know what the word "foisted" meant, or he hoped no one would notice when he actually indulged in a little of it himself.

However, we have encountered this sort of a priori Idealism many times in other essays posted here. Indeed, it forms the main topic of Essay Two.

Of course, Engels had an answer for this (one he derived from Hegel):

"'Fundamentally, we can know only the infinite.' In fact all real exhaustive knowledge consists solely in raising the individual thing in thought from individuality into particularity and from this into universality, in seeking and establishing the infinite in the finite, the eternal in the transitory. The form of universality is the form of completeness, hence of the infinite. We know that chlorine and hydrogen, within certain limits of temperature and pressure and under the influence of light, combine with an explosion to form hydrochloric acid gas, and as soon as we know this, we know also that this takes place everywhere and at all times where the above conditions are present....The form of universality in nature is law, and no one talks of the eternal character of the laws of nature than the natural scientists.... All true knowledge of nature is knowledge of the eternal, the infinite, and hence the essentially absolute.

"...[this] can only take place in an infinite asymptotic progress." [Engels (1954), pp.234-35. Italic emphases in the original.]

But, since the scientists in Engels's day were Christians (as was Hegel), you'd expect them to talk in this way, and their conclusions do not follow from the evidence any more than the existence of God does. As we will see in a later Essay, in their attempt to explain the results of their work, scientists often indulge in some amateur Metaphysics (which was in Engels's day clearly coloured by their religious beliefs), but this should no more influence us than their political opinions do. Moreover, since scientists are constantly changing their minds over what these 'eternal' laws are, only the unwise will base their philosophy on such shifting sands.

As I argue in Essay Eight Part Two:

"How is it possible to translate the word "infinite" as "law-governed process"? Now Engels tries to equate the two, but an "always" and "at all times" are not an "infinite".

[In a later Essay, we will see that this view of scientific law is a carry-over from ancient animistic ideas about nature, and so it is no surprise to see this idea re-surface here in such Hermetically-compromised company. On this see here, and here; the first is Swartz (2006), the second Swartz (2003).]" [This is quoted from here, as part of my demolition of this aspect of Hegel's Super-Science.]

Nevertheless, this 'Law' is at best only partially true; as we shall see, many processes in nature 'disobey' it, so it cannot be a law (in any sense of that word).

Engels's first 'Law' is supposed to work discontinuously (i.e., "nodally"), allowing nature and society to develop by making "leaps" (a term all DM-fans like to use, but, as we are about to see, they clearly do not look before they appeal to 'leaps'). This is how Plekhanov explained things:

"It will be understood without difficulty by anyone who is in the least capable of dialectical thinking...[that] quantitative changes, accumulating gradually, lead in the end to changes of quality, and that these changes of quality represent leaps, interruptions in gradualness…. That is how all Nature acts…." [Plekhanov (1956), pp.74-77, 88, 163. Bold emphases alone added.]

However, many things in nature change qualitatively without going through a DM-inspired "nodal point" -- or even so much as a tiny "leap". [Engels (1976), p.160.]

These include the following: melting or solidifying plastic, metal, rock, sulphur, tar, toffee, sugar, chocolate, wax, butter, cheese, and glass. As these are heated or cooled, they gradually change (from liquid to solid, or the reverse). There isn't even a nodal point with respect to balding heads! In fact, it is difficult to think of a single phase transformation from solid to liquid (or vice versa) that exhibits just such "nodal points" -- and this includes the transition from ice to water (and arguably also the condensation of steam). Even the albumen of fried or boiled eggs changes slowly (but non-nodally) from clear to opaque white while they are being cooked.1

Now, since the duration of a "nodal" point remains undefined (or even so much as mentioned), dialecticians can safely indulge in some sloppy, off-the-cuff, a priori Super-Science here (as they all seem to do -- nary a one fails to come up with their own favourite/idiosyncratic example, tested, of course, only in the laboratory of the mind, and studiously un-peer reviewed; remember this is Mickey Mouse Science!).

A favourite recent example is Steven Jay Gould's theory of "Punctuated Equilibria". Unfortunately, amateur dialectical palaeontologists have failed to notice that the alleged "nodal" points involved here last tens of thousands of years, at least. This is a pretty unimpressive "leap" -- it's more like a painfully slow crawl.

Moreover, since no individual organism actually changes into a new species, there is no obvious object that alters in quality either, as quantitative variations mount up. We seem to have neither an Hegelian nor an Aristotelian "substance" here, in which qualities can inhere and hence change. And it is not easy to see what even the quantities are supposed to be in this case.

Of course, if we regard a species as an object of some sort -- perhaps stretched out in time, as some taxonomists do --,1a then that 'object' will seem to alter as changes accumulate. But, if a species is defined in this way as a temporally extended 'object', then that object cannot actually change in any straight-forward sense. To be sure, that depends on how we define the object in question and how we depict change.

[It is no surprise therefore to find both these notions are left impressively vague by those comrades who quote this example, which is probably why they think they can get away with it. For example, here.]

However, if a species is characterised in this way as a sort of four-dimensional 'sausage' (i.e., a manifold in 4-space), then even if the first 'Law' applied to it, that 'species' won't have changed as a result of 'internal contradictions'. This is because such manifolds do not change; four-dimensional objects do not 'exist' in time to change -- time is one of their 'in-built' dimensions, as it were. Since everything temporally-true of this manifold is true of the whole of it (because it is a single four-dimensional 'object'), it cannot lose or gain properties or qualities, unless we embed it in a fifth-dimension and confusingly call that "Time". [But then, of course, this five-dimensional 'object' could not change, and for the same reason.]

Without this extra-dimension, any predicates true of the four-dimensional manifold will stay true of it for good, for there is no past, present or future as far as this 'object' is concerned. In that case, 'change' would amount to no more than our subjective mis-perception of orthogonal hyper-plane 'slices' through this manifold. [This forms part of the so-called "Block view of time". On this, see the PDF article here.]

As should now seem obvious, dialecticians can only afford to view the universe in this way if they are prepared to abandon their belief in change -- or consign the latter merely to our 'subjective' view of reality.

Alternatively, if a species is not to be defined as a four-dimensional 'object', then since no single organism actually evolves, change to any species would not be the result of 'internal contradictions' once again, since a species would be a collection, not an object, on this view. In such a population, individual animals/plants do not change each other by contradicting one another, however this word is understood. There are no internal contradictions in such populations here to cause change. Indeed, no single thing actually changes in an evolutionary sense -- on this view --, only whole populations, and they do so non-dialectically.1b

Hence, not only is Gould's theory not an example of this 'Law' at work, not even Darwin's is.1c

Another recent favourite is Catastrophe Theory.

[Some comments on this will be added here at a later date.]

The difficulties the First 'Law' faces do not stop here; when heated, objects change in quality from cold to warm and then to hot, with no nodal point separating these particular qualitative stages. Moving bodies similarly speed up from slow to fast (and vice versa) without nodal punctuation marks affecting the transition. In like manner, the change from one colour to the next in the normal colour spectrum is continuous, with no nodal points evident at all -- and this is also the case with the colour changes that bodies experience when they are heated to red or white heat. Sounds, too, change smoothly from soft to loud, and back, in a node-free environment. In fact, with respect to wave-governed phenomena in general, change seems to be continuous rather than discrete, which means that since the majority of particles/objects in nature move in such a manner, most things in reality seem to disobey this aspect of Engels's unimpressive 'Law' -- at least at the macroscopic level.

[The application of this 'Law' to microscopic phenomena is considered in detail in my thesis. Some comments will be posted here at a later date.]

In that case, at best, the 'nodal' aspect of this 'Law' is only partially true.

Unfortunately for DM-apologists, if we now mischievously apply this non-nodal aspect of the First 'Law' to Capitalism (as dialecticians themselves do, but only with respect to the liquid/gas phase change, in a bid to illustrate by analogy the revolutionary transformation from one Mode of Production to another, as quantity allegedly builds into quality), then since Capitalism is clearly not a liquid, but a solid of sorts, the transition to socialism should, on this analogy, go rather smoothly (as is the case with phase changes experienced by most solids).

Interpreted that way, it looks as if the First 'Law' is of little use to revolutionaries since it clearly suggests that they are not needed, and that Capitalism can be reformed away non-discontinuously -- a bit like the way a rock, say, can slowly melt to form lava, or heads can slowly turn bald as they lose hair. But, if dialectical revolutionaries are not needed, their antiquated theory isn't either. In that case, this aspect of dialectics seems to be responsible for issuing its own auto-redundancy notice.2

This 'Law' is in difficulties in other respects, too. Clearly not every change in quantity "passes over" into a change in quality. But one way of reading the "vice versa" codicil attached to this law suggests that they should:

"The first law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa. For our purpose, we could express this by saying that in nature, in a manner exactly fixed for each individual case, qualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy)…. Hence it is impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration of the body concerned." [Engels (1954), p.63. Underlined emphasis added.]

If this is so, then we should expect all changes in quantity to "pass over" into changes in quality. However, I have not been able to find a single DM-theorist who interprets this 'Law' in this way, so perhaps I am the only one who has ever noticed this loop-hole (but it's more like a Grand Canyon) in this 'Law'. But, even if this is not so, it would still be difficult to explain why only some changes in quantity "pass over" into changes in quality. One will look in vain for any attempt to address this problem in the highly clichéd and repetitive writings of DM-fans (where quantity definitely does not morph into quality) -- or for any recognition that such a difficulty exists.

Moreover, the same number of molecules at the same energy level can exhibit widely differing properties/qualities depending on circumstances: think of how the same amount of water can act as a lubricant, or have the opposite effect, say, on wet clothes; the same amount of sand can help some things slide, but prevent others from doing so; the same amount of poison given over a short space of time will kill, but given over a longer period it could benefit the recipient -- Strychnine comes to mind here. To be sure, the effects of quantitative stasis of this sort (supervenient on qualitative change) are sensitive both to temporal constraints and to the level of concentration of the substance in question; but the extremely vague First 'Law' said nothing of these. And, try as one might, it is not easy to see how such eminently material aspects of nature can be accommodated to the Ideal dialectical universe Engels inherited from Hegel.

But, what sort of scientific 'Law' leaves details like this out? In fact, if a Mickey Mouse 'Law' like this were to appear in any of the genuine sciences, it would be treated with derision -- [i]even if it had been aired in an undergraduate paper.

However, other recalcitrant examples spring rapidly to mind: if the same colour is stared at for several minutes it can undergo a qualitative change into another colour (several optical illusions are based on this fact). Something similar can happen with regard to many two-dimensional patterns and shapes (for example the Necker Cube and other optical illusions); these undergo considerable qualitative change when no obvious quantitative differences are involved. There thus seem to be numerous examples where quantity and quality do not appear to be connected in the way that DM-theorists suppose.3

In fact, there are so many exceptions to this 'Law' that it would be wise to demote it and consign it to a more appropriate category, perhaps along with the trite rules of thumb that sometimes work -- a bit like "An apple a day keeps the doctor away", or even "A watched kettle never boils". Indeed, given the fact that this 'Law' has no discernible mathematical content it is rather surprising it was ever called a "law" to begin with.

Nevertheless, the situation is even worse than the above might suggest; there are countless examples where significant qualitative change can result from no obvious quantitative difference. These include the qualitative dissimilarities that exist between countless different chemicals for the same quantity of matter/energy. Isomeric molecules (studied in stereochemistry) are a particularly good example, especially those that have chiral centres (i.e., centres of asymmetry). Here, the spatial ordering of the constituent atoms, not their quantity, affects the overall quality of the resulting molecule (something Engels said could not happen); a change in molecular orientation, not quantity, affects a change in quality.

To take one example of many: ®-Carvone (spearmint) and (S)-Carvone (caraway); these molecules have the same number of atoms (of the same elements), and the same bond energies, but they are nonetheless qualitatively distinct because of the different spatial arrangement of the atoms involved.

This un-dialectical aspect of matter is especially true of the so-called "Enantiomers" (i.e., symmetrical molecules that are mirror images of each other). These include compounds like ®-2-clorobutane and (S)-2-chlorobutane, and the so-called L- and D-molecules, which rotate the plane of polarised light the left (laevo) or the right (dextro)) -- such as, L- and D-Tartaric acid. What might appear to be small energy-neutral differences like these have profound biochemical implications; a protein with D-amino acids instead of L- will not work in living cells since all life on earth uses L-organic molecules. These compounds not only have the same number of atoms in each molecule, there are no apparent energy differences between them; even so, they have easily distinguishable physical qualities. Change in quality, identical quantity.4

Moving into Physics: if two or more forces are aligned differently, the qualitative results are invariably different (even when the overall magnitude of each force is held constant). Consider one particular example: let forces F1 and F2 be situated in parallel (but not in the same line of action), diametrically opposed to one another. Here these two forces can exercise a turning effect on a suitably placed body. Now, arrange the same two forces in like manner so that they are still parallel, but act along the same line. In this case, as seems clear, these forces will have no turning effect on the same body. Change in quality with no change in quantity, again. Since there are many ways to align forces (as there are with other vector quantities, like velocities and accelerations, etc.), there are countless counter-examples to this rather pathetic First 'Law' here alone.4a

Perhaps more significantly, this 'Law' takes no account of qualitative changes that result from (energetically-neutral) ordering relations in nature and society. Here, identical physical structures and processes can be ordered differently to create significant qualitative changes. One example is the different ordering principles found in music, where an alteration to a sequence of the same notes in a chord or in a melody can have a major qualitative impact on harmony, with no quantitative change anywhere apparent. So, the same seven notes (i.e., tones and semi-tones) arranged in different modes (Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aolean and Locrian) sound totally different to the human ear. Of course, there are other ways of altering the quality of music in an energetically neutral environment over and above this (such as timing).

Another example along the same lines concerns the ordering principles found in language, where significant qualitative changes can result from the re-arrangement of the same parts of speech. For instance, the same number of letters jumbled up can either make sense or no sense -- as in "dialectics" and "csdileati" (which is "dialectics" scrambled up; but, which one of these makes more sense I will leave to the reader to decide).

Perhaps more radically, the same words can mean something qualitatively new if sequenced differently, as in, say: "The cat is on the mat" and "The mat is on the cat". Or, even worse: "It is impossible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic", compared with "It is impossible to understand Hegel's Logic, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Marx's Capital." Here there is considerable qualitative difference with no quantitative change at all.

[What are the odds that Engels would have tried to alter his First 'Law' to counter that awkward fact?]

There are many other examples of this phenomenon, but a few more should suffice for the purposes of this web site: a successful strike (one that is, say, planned first then actioned second) could turn into its opposite (if it is actioned first and planned second). Now even though the total energy input here would be ordered differently in each case, the overall energy budget of the system (howsoever this is characterised) need not be any different. So, the addition of no extra matter or energy here can turn successful action into disaster if the order of events is reversed. Of course, we can all imagine situations where this particular example could involve different energy budgets, but this is not necessarily or even always the case, which is all I need.

There are literally thousands of everyday examples of such qualitative differences (with no obvious quantitative changes), so many in fact that Engels's First 'Law' begins to look rather pathetic in comparison. Who for example would put food on the table then a plate on top of it? A change in the order here would constitute a qualitatively different (and more normal) act: plate first, food second. Which of us would jump out of an aeroplane first and put their parachute on second -- or cross a road first, look second? And is there a sane person on the planet who goes to the toilet first and gets out of bed second? Moreover, only an idiot would pour 500 ml of water slowly into 1000 ml of concentrated Sulphuric Acid, whereas, someone who knew what they were doing would readily do the reverse. But all of these have profound qualitative differences if performed in the wrong order (for the same energy budget).5

How could Engels have missed examples like these? Is dialectical myopia so crippling that it prevents dialecticians using their common sense?

Pushing these ideas further, context can affect quality in a quantitatively neutral environment. So, a dead body in a living room has a different qualitative significance compared to that same body in the morgue (for the same energy input). A million pounds in my bank account has a different qualitative feel to it if compared to the same money now in your account (and vice versa). "Ceci nest pa une pipe" has a different qualitative aspect when appended to a picture of a pipe, compared to when it might be attached to a picture of, say, a cigarette.

Indeed, "Ceci nest pa une pipe" itself can change from qualitatively false to true depending on how it is interpreted. Hence, as a depiction of what the painting by Magritte is about (i.e., a pipe) it is false. But, despite this, it is also literally true, since manifestly a picture of a pipe is not a pipe! Change in quality here, but no change in quantity....

More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

The above only scratches the surface.


Which is why I rejected the Hegelian phrases thesis, antithesis and contradiction outright:

Which makes your use of the word 'contradiction' (if you use it) even more obscure.


True, this is incompatible with Hegel's dialectic, but I am not explicitly defining one wrestler as another's polar opposite, simply that they are two parties that interact. This also applies to the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

But, then why call this 'dialectics'? It shares nothing with materialist dialectics as understoood by the majority of DM-fans, nor anything with Hegel, and you lose the causative principles Hegel thought his 'logic' provided.

As I said above, you might as well call this 'Susan'.


So far both you and CR haven't outlined mysticism within my application of neutral terminology

Well I think this appears in many places: for example you think that numbers can interact.

That is, you think that numbers are agents, with aims and intentions, which can move themselves and affect one another, just like human beings can.


Perhaps the reason why many don't like your attitude towards dialecticians is because you like to use rhetorical devices that make out those like red_che to be straw men.

Well, I have faced over 20 years of Red Che-like comrades (granted he is one of the worst); as a result one tends to get a little tetchy.

Jut imagine for a second: 20 years of the same brainless comments, with very little variation!

And he is not a straw man; that would be to praise him too highly.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 12:12 am

Oh, and by the by, your use of semiclassical chemistry to explain quantum phenomena is ri-god damn-diculous. I'm hoping to actually see a dialectical derivation of QM, though I won't hold my breathe. (In layman's terms, you are using incorrect chemistry. The Bohrian model which you are using works only for hydrogen, your beloved example; for everything else it fails miserably.)

I must admit that I know nothing of Quantum Mechanics, other than it has replaced Newtonian Physics, but none of these theories has ever replaced the Periodic Table of Elements, which supports my theory, not just "my beloved example," hydrogen. Quantum Mechanics may be a specialized theory of the interactions of matter, but that doesn't mean it's incompatible with dialectics, a generalized theory of the interactions of matter, per se. Instead of saying that my example doesn't work, could you explain why it doesn't work?
The problem is that the empirically observed spectra from the electrons changing orbital does not match up with Bohr's prediction for any atom other than Hydrogen. That is a serious problem for scientists!

Look up Atomic Orbitals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital) for more information.

And quantum mechanics isn't a theory of interactions, if it was quantum gravity would be impossible. You might be thinking about Feynman diagrams, or Dirac's picture; quantum mechanics itself says (roughly) each observer observing a sequence of events gets different values for the observables and the values are correct relative to the observer. In that sense it's an extension to relativity; though this is a very recent "interpretation".




Yeah, you intend to derive reality dialectically. Though you admit that reality is made out of matter and then assert dialectics applied to matter yields reality.

You are again puting words in my mouth; I'm not saying that the application of dialectics to matter yields reality, I'm saying that matter interacts dialectically. Now think very hard about the logical conclusion about this: matter constitutes reality, interactions of matter is dialectical (which would imply you could derive the interactions of matter precisely with dialectics, which I would love to see someone do against, say, quantum electrodynamics), thus with empirical knowledge of matter you could derive a great deal of reality (essentially what is left outside of the empirical knowledge).



Second problem: you aren't doing math dialectically. You are doing math and explaining your steps dialectically. I didn't ask for that. I asked to see a proof done dialectically. That is not a proof, rather you are using the definition of addition and subtraction then asserting it's somehow magically dialectical for no apparent reason.

This is also how I explain the interaction of matter, and while it may not be a proof, it's not "magically dialectical for no apparent reason," it is the definition of a dialectic. That does not follow from what you've done. You've done math, and now it's inherent in the definition of the dialectic? :huh:

What you are doing is using the definition of addition and subtraction, disguising it in psychobabble. Very disappointing, especially when you leap to the conclusion "Therefore all math == dialectics!!!!1".

[red_che]

angus_mor:


Perhaps the reason why many don't like your attitude towards dialecticians is because you like to use rhetorical devices that make out those like red_che to be straw men, who is, at the fault of his own immature reasoning (or rather a lack thereof), I'm sad to say, a sitting duck.

I'm not surprised to know that many don't like Rosa's attitude. It is quite natural to hate such an arrogant person.

As to my "immature reasoning", maybe it is immature, or perhaps English is my second language so it is hard on my part to say clearly what I would like to say, and made more difficult by typing it on the computer. My apologies on that aspect. But my points are there so it is only proper that comrades should try to "adjust", perhaps, to my responses. But it is improper to disregard and dismiss it like Rosa's actions.

By the way, I would like to thank you for your "well-reasoned" and "mature" arguments to Rosa (if you don't mind me thanking you) because in a way, I feel that you expressed what I wanted to say (especially since I know little Physics). And Rosa is desperately groping for answers to you. :blush:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Che:


It is quite natural to hate such an arrogant person.

My arrogance, if such it be, is nicely complemented by your self-inflicted ignorance.

Exhibit A:


And Rosa is desperately groping for answers to you

You would not know, since you know no logic and precious little philosophy.

[angus_mor]

red_che:


I'm not surprised to know that many don't like Rosa's attitude. It is quite natural to hate such an arrogant person.

I can't say I hate anyone, Rosa, CR, or you, red_che; it's a strong word that only reactionaries use, and I laugh at those that demonstrate just how reactionary they are by using it. I only feel pity for those that can't reason with their emotions and prejudices; I don't hate those that simply react and hold malice for those that think or look differently.


By the way, I would like to thank you for your "well-reasoned" and "mature" arguments to Rosa (if you don't mind me thanking you) because in a way, I feel that you expressed what I wanted to say (especially since I know little Physics). And Rosa is desperately groping for answers to you. :blush:

Well, I do apologize for being so curt, but regardless of your native tongue, posting an entire passage that does nothing but treat Rosa as arrogant does nothing to qualitatively change the dialogue in one stroke. While I don't understand Quantum Mechanics, I feel I have a fairly good understanding of the laws of physics, but keep in mind I did only qraduate from secondary school last year! I am quite flattered by your words, red_che, you are very welcome, but don't thank me just yet, I have some new developments in my thought to discuss.


I included a reference to neutrons, which somehow distracted you, so I have edited that out.

Well, I have addressed this:


Since protons have some quantity of charge, and neutrons have no quantity of charge, this explains why they can not qualitatively change the substance. Even a primary school student knows that no matter how many times you add zero to one, you'll end up with the same answer every time; one.

But even though neutrons shouldn't make any qualitative difference due to their lack of charge, the difference in the quality of uranium isotopes is necessary to sustain a stable, fissile reaction. To sustain a stable reaction, the uranium must be 80% U-238, but to provide an unstable reaction for a nuclear weapon, 20% is sufficient. But these quantitative changes make all the difference in quality.

However, after reviewing essay 7, I have realized, much to my shame, that I myself was being arrogant in my approach and ignoring other natural phenomena that contradict the law of quantity into quality. In an example that Rosa uses in essay seven, she demonstrates that you can change the quality of sound simply by changing the order in which you play the notes of a scale, without changing anything quantitatively. The order of operations of most anything can qualitatively change something without making any kind of quantitative change. For example:

6 - 2 = 4

If you change the order in which you engage these two numbers, you will get a qualitative difference without changing any of the quantities presented:

2 - 6 = -4

Although it seems to suggest a dialectical inversion, there's a qualitative difference that occurs without changing the quantities of any of the two numbers.

While this is true, it's interesting to note that quantitative changes must be made prior to the organization of these qualities into new qualities. To change the pitch of a guitar string, a quantitative change in either the length, width or tension must be applied. In a piano, there are qradual, quantitative differences in the length, width and tension of the piano wires of each note as you proceed from the bass section up; each getting shorter, thinner and more relaxed. But once they are in tune, you can arrange them as you desire to form Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata or Gershwin's The Entertainer. Once this is understood, it becomes obvious that making this idea a law is not only foolish but reactionary.


Well I think this appears in many places: for example you think that numbers can interact.

That is, you think that numbers are agents, with aims and intentions, which can move themselves and affect one another, just like human beings can.

I don't think that numbers can interact, however, my application of dialectics to arithmatic demonstrates that dialectics can not be understood materialistically, and one must be an idealist to some degree in order to accept this. Thus, it is, as you said, an unmendable theory, and I must now rethink my ideas from the ground up.

Withstanding this, I think there's still a practical application of dialectics once it is understood that applying it to matter is pure mysticism. It can be used to sort ideals from reality; à la the scientific method. When a scientist observes something that contradicts what is accepted as fact or otherwise, the scientist formulates a hypothesis and experiments to test this observation. If their observation can be proven through replicable experimentation which can reveal empirical evidence, then what was once regarded as fact is no more than fiction.


Well, I have faced over 20 years of Red Che-like comrades (granted he is one of the worst); as a result one tends to get a little tetchy.

Jut imagine for a second: 20 years of the same brainless comments, with very little variation!

Hot damn! That's gotta give ya one major headache! But believe me, I don't need to imagine what it's like to deal with those that can't reason outside of the doctrines they're presented; I live in the United States!

Although I now reject dialectics, there are some principles it uses that draw parallels with mechanism; that matter tends to polarize and synthesize. Many natural phenomena seem to be the synthesis of two parts, or atleast the synthesis of factors within a current something to form new something else. Is this at all related to mechanical determinism? What is the materialist theory for this?

Also, you mentioned a de-Hegelianized Historical Materialism, can you also explain this?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


Well, I have addressed this:

Forgive me, but you haven't; you have simply re-quoted the passage in which you became distracted, which is precisely why I re-posted my earlier comments with the reference to neutrons deleted.

You have not responded to my claim that it is just as accurate, if not more so, to argue that quality changes quality.


But even though neutrons shouldn't make any qualitative difference due to their lack of charge, the difference in the quality of uranium isotopes is necessary to sustain a stable, fissile reaction. To sustain a stable reaction, the uranium must be 80% U-238, but to provide an unstable reaction for a nuclear weapon, 20% is sufficient. But these quantitative changes make all the difference in quality.

Once more, not just anything will do here; it has to be the right sort of qualitative change.


While this is true, it's interesting to note that quantitative changes must be made prior to the organization of these qualities into new qualities. To change the pitch of a guitar string, a quantitative change in either the length, width or tension must be applied. In a piano, there are qradual, quantitative differences in the length,

Maybe so, but this is not the sort of example I considered -- where there can be massive changes in quality with no quantitative alteration anywhere in sight.


I don't think that numbers can interact, however, my application of dialectics to arithmatic demonstrates that dialectics can not be understood materialistically, and one must be an idealist to some degree in order to accept this. Thus, it is, as you said, an unmendable theory, and I must now rethink my ideas from the ground up.

This has already been done; there are eminently materialist ways of understanding how we material beings operate with numbers.


It can be used to sort ideals from reality; à la the scientific method. When a scientist observes something that contradicts what is accepted as fact or otherwise, the scientist formulates a hypothesis and experiments to test this observation. If their observation can be proven through replicable experimentation which can reveal empirical evidence, then what was once regarded as fact is no more than fiction.

Well, check this out then (also edited from Essay Seven, links not reproduced here):


However, as far as DM-contradictions are concerned, it is not at all clear how this process of confirmation is supposed to work -- even when it is executed exactly as intended. Presumably, on this basis, 'incorrect' contradictions will be eliminated because: (1) they were self-contradictions, or (2) they are falsified by experience, or (3) they could not be verified (by appropriate methods).

Howver, with respect to any of the contradictions that are retained (and thus seen to be correct reflections of reality), how could investigators ever be sure that future contingencies (in the shape of more evidence) will never require their elimination? [On this, see below.] And, as far as (1) is concerned, this cannot be right, otherwise we should have to reject Engels's analysis of motion, which sees it as self-contradictory. [On this, see Essay Five.]

Moreover, in connection with option (2), what evidence could possibly refute a contradiction? How is it possible for any contradiction to be falsified by experience? Presumably, that would occur if (propositions derived from) experience contradicted something that was already contradictory to begin with. But, what sort of monstrosity would that be?

But, as noted above, if reality itself were contradictory, the 'falsification' of a contradiction would also amount to its automatic 'verification', and vice versa. So, it seems that option (2) above is closed-off as far as the investigation of DM-contradictions is concerned. This must mean therefore that Rees's requirement that contradictions be tested against experience is an empty gesture, since, with respect to DM-contradictions, if reality were contradictory, it would both confirm and refute their presence. In which case, DM-theorists would have no reason whatsoever to reject any contradictions that appeared in their theory -- at the same time as having eminently good reasons for rejecting all of them (at least to prevent their theory from being defective). More on this in Essay Eleven Part One, here.

The quandary now facing dialecticians we might call the "Dialecticians' Dilemma" [DD]. The DD arises from the uncontroversial observation that if reality is fundamentally contradictory then true theories should reflect this supposed state of affairs. However, and this is the problem, in order to do this any such theory must contain contradictions itself, or it would not be an accurate reflection of nature.

But, if the development of science is predicated either on the removal of contradictions from theories, or on the replacement of older theories with less contradictory ones, as DM-theorists contend, then science could not advance toward a 'truer' account of reality. This is because scientific theories would then reflect the world less accurately, having had all (or most) of their contradictions removed.

[Of course, if the advancement of science is not dependent on the removal of all or most contradictions, then scientists themselves would face their own intractable difficulties over how to tell a defective theory (shot through with contradiction) from one that is not so afflicted. Fortunately to date, scientists have not adopted these ill-advised dialectical tactics, and have remained annoyingly loyal to the protocols of FL.]

[FL = Formal Logic.]

Conversely, if a true theory aims to reflect contradictions in nature more accurately (which it must do if reality is contradictory) then, in order to be consistent with such dialectical demands, scientists should not attempt to remove contradictions from -- or try to resolve them in or between -- theories. Clearly, on that score, science could not advance, since there would be no reason to replace a contradictory theory with a less contradictory one. Indeed, if DM were correct, scientific theories would become more contradictory -- not less -- as they approached more closely the truth about avowedly DM-'contradictory' reality. This, of course, would mean that scientific theory as a whole would become more defective with time!

Again, if science advanced because of the elimination of contradictions then a fully true theory should have had all (or most) of these removed. Science ought then to reflect (in the limit) the fact that reality contains no contradictions!

[It is worth noting here that critics of DM have already arrived at that conclusion, and they managed this without an ounce of dialectics to slow them down.]

However, according to DM, scientific theories should be replaced by ones that depict reality as fundamentally contradictory, this despite the fact that scientists will have removed every (or nearly every) contradiction in order to have reached that point. On the other hand, if scientists failed to remove contradictions (or, if they refused to replace an older theory with a newer, less contradictory one), so that their theories reflected the contradictory nature of reality more accurately, they would then have no good reason to reject any theory no matter how inconsistent it was.

Whichever way this rusty old DM-banger is driven, the 'dialectical' view of scientific progress, and contradictions, hits a very material brick wall in the shape of the DD each time.

Again, it could be objected that dialecticians do not believe that scientific theories should have all or most of their contradictions removed if science is to advance, merely the ones that hold up the progress of knowledge.

However, dialecticians have thus far failed to distinguish those contradictions which are the mere artefacts of a defective theory from those that supposedly reflect an 'objective' state of the world. But, how might these be distinguished in DM-terms? How would it be possible to tell whether a contradiction was an accurate reflection of reality or whether it was a consequence of a faulty theory, if all of reality (including scientific theory) is contradictory?

Practice is no help here since it takes place in the phenomenal world, which is riddled with contradictions, according to DM, and as such must be contradictory itself! It is to be wondered how practice can help confirm or refute a theory if its deliverances are themselves part of the contradictory reality on test. This is especially so if that practice was itself based on ideas that were contradictory to begin with. And, as we will see in Essay Ten Part One (summary here), practice is no friend of dialectics.

For example, DM-theorists generally argue that the wave-particle duality of light confirms the thesis that nature is fundamentally dialectical; in this case, light is supposed to be a UO of wave and particle. Precisely how they are a unity (i.e., how it could be true that matter is fundamentally particulate and fundamentally non-particulate all at once) is of course left eminently obscure -- and how this helps account for the material world is even less clear. This alleged UO does nothing to explain change -- unless we are supposed to accept the idea that light being a particle changes it into a wave, and vice versa. But what is the point of that? What role does this particular 'contradiction' play either in DM or in Physics? At best it seems to be merely ornamental.

[UO = Unity of Opposites.]

[When confronted with this objection in private correspondence, one benighted DM-fan said that these were 'illustrative' contradictions (even if they do no dialectical work). Presumably, like fundamentalist Christians (who think that, say, the three-dimensionality of space illustrates the Trinity --, God having left this and other clues littering reality for us to find -- don't believe me? then check this out), 'Being' itself has sent this one our way to inform DM-fans they are on the right path to dialectical Nirvana.]

Now, if we put to one side the 'solution' to this puzzle offered by, say, Superstring Theory, there are still Physicists -- with, it seems, a more robust commitment to scientific realism than the average dialectician can manage -- who believe that this 'paradox' can be resolved within a realist picture of nature. [Evidence appears here, and here.] Whether they are correct or not need not detain us here since DM-theorists (if consistent) ought to advise these rather rash realists not to bother trying to solve this riddle. This is because dialectics provides humanity with an a priori solution: since nature is fundamentally contradictory there is in fact no solution --, which paradoxical state of affairs should, of course, simply be "grasped".

In this case, it is possible to see here how practice cannot help: if experiments are conducted that allegedly show that light is both particle and wave, then DM-theorists will have no reason to question this supposedly contradictory data. However, anyone not committed to such a view of reality would on the contrary have good reason to question them, and this might, for all anyone knows, assist in the advancement of science as a result.

Not so with DM-fans, whose advice would permanently hold things up.13a

In that case, practice alone cannot distinguish between the two views here. Moreover, since we know that practically any theory can be made to conform to observation if enough adjustments are made elsewhere, this criterion is doubly defective.

[This allegation will be substantiated in more detail in a later Essay, but it is a well-known by-product of the scientific method.]

[QM = Quantum Mechanics.]

However, in advance of any test, DM-theorists should (if they are consistent) advise scientists not to bother trying to refute the orthodox interpretation of QM, since there is no point, in view of their a priori theory that nature is fundamentally contradictory.

Unfortunately, in that case, if physicists took this advice, Physics could not advance to a superior view of nature (if one exists) by eliminating this alleged contradiction. At best, this a priori DM-approach to knowledge would close available options down, forcing scientists to adopt a view of reality that might not be correct -- and given what we already know about the history of Physics, it probably isn't correct.13b

Fortunately, there is little evidence so far that Physicists have taken heed of this aspect of dialectics, even if any of them have ever heard of it.

Now, only those who disagree with Lenin about the incomplete nature of science (or, alternatively, have a rather poor grasp of the history of Physics) would risk concluding that contemporary science has a final and complete picture of reality, at least in this particular area. If so, Physics could only advance by eliminating this paradox (and hence removing one of the best examples DM-theorists have that supposedly illustrates the fundamentally contradictory nature of reality).

Of course, only those who would want to foist their ideas on nature will object at this point.

On the other hand, if DM-theorists' advice to scientists is that they should in general try to replace contradictory theories (such as this one) with less logically-challenged ones, then they will have to abandon the idea that nature is fundamentally contradictory -- at least here. This conclusion is all the more pressing in view of the fact that some scientists think they have already solved this problem (David Bohm being one, for example).14 But, this is just the DD once again: the DM-inspired belief in the contradictory nature of reality, coupled with the claim that science only advances by removing contradictions cannot, it seems, distinguish between contradictions that hold up the progress of science (and which are therefore artefacts of a defective or incomplete theory) from those that reveal the essentially 'contradictory' nature of reality.

Although some (like Plekhanov) have acknowledged the problem, it remains unresolved to this day. The various ways there might be for DM-theorists to escape from the hole they have dug themselves into will be examined in a later Essay, and there shown to fail.

Dialecticians are therefore advised to stop digging.

In addition, it is unclear how option (3) itself is supposed to work. How would it be possible even to try to verify a DM-contradiction? For example, does humanity possess technology sensitive enough to observe time intervals of the order of, say, 10^-100 seconds, so that Engels's claims about motion can be checked? What then about intervals of 10^-1000 seconds? And yet, observations of motion would have to be made using time intervals of this order of magnitude (and far better) in order to check whether it remains contradictory at this level of accuracy, at least. But, where do we stop?

Naturally, some might want to appeal to Planck time intervals (of the order of 5 x 10^-44 seconds) to provide a natural place to halt, but this is no help at all. A single one of these Planck 'instants' is, so we are told, 10^26 times shorter than the shortest time interval so far measured, an alto-second (or 10^-18 seconds). And since Planck intervals are theoretical entities, they will probably be revised away one day (in line no doubt with Lenin's claim that knowledge is never final).

The answer to that particular question is, of course, irrelevant. This is because, no matter how slender the time frame, no measurement could conceivably test whether a moving object was in two places at once, only at two places in the same finite interval.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm


Many natural phenomena seem to be the synthesis of two parts, or atleast the synthesis of factors within a current something to form new something else. Is this at all related to mechanical determinism? What is the materialist theory for this?

There is no reason to call such simple systems 'dialectical', or none other than an adherence to tradition.

Once more, you might as well call them "Susan" for all they share with 'materialist dialectics', or with Hegel.

[And I think you might find it difficult to account for systems that have more than two sides to them.]


Also, you mentioned a de-Hegelianized Historical Materialism, can you also explain this?

Hegel swiped his ideas on this score from the Scottish Historical Materialists (Fergusson, Millar, Smith and Hume); all we need do is go back to the originals, and couple them with Marx's path-breaking work, minus the mystical terminology (like "contradiction"), and we would have ourselves a modern scientific theory of history, and how to change it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Fergusson

[blake 3:17]

Is that putting the die into dialectics?

PS If you make T-shirts I want 15%.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blake:


Is that putting the die into dialectics?

PS If you make T-shirts I want 15%.

:blink:

Never mind that; the gold medal goes to you for being enigmatic.

[angus_mor]

Once more, you might as well call them "Susan" for all they share with 'materialist dialectics', or with Hegel.

I don't know if you missed this, but:


Although I now reject dialectics, there are some principles it uses that draw parallels with mechanism; that matter tends to polarize and synthesize.


There is no reason to call such simple systems 'dialectical', or none other than an adherence to tradition.

Once again:


Although I now reject dialectics, there are some principles it uses that draw parallels with mechanism; that matter tends to polarize and synthesize.

As in, I no longer refer to it as dialectical.


You have not responded to my claim that it is just as accurate, if not more so, to argue that quality changes quality.


However, after reviewing essay 7, I have realized, much to my shame, that I myself was being arrogant in my approach and ignoring other natural phenomena that contradict the law of quantity into quality. In an example that Rosa uses in essay seven, she demonstrates that you can change the quality of sound simply by changing the order in which you play the notes of a scale, without changing anything quantitatively. The order of operations of most anything can qualitatively change something without making any kind of quantitative change.

Can I stop repeating myself yet?


Once more, not just anything will do here; it has to be the right sort of qualitative change.

What the fuck does that mean? How isn't that the "right sort of qualitative change"? Doesn't the fact that it makes any qualitative change count? Wouldn't it support your theory if it didn't make any qualitative change? That's not argumentative, au contraire; it's completely evasive!


You are right, but I did not write this stuff for them, and I have had many comrades contact me thanking me for my Essays, which some have read in full, since it freed them from having to accept a theory for which they they had no respect, which was thus affecting their appreciation of Marxism.

I write for comrades like that.

I know that many are fixed in their ways, and far more stubborn than red_che, but I was a dialectician only yesterday, and it doesn't mean that others, like myself, can't use reason and change their minds. I have unlimited gratitude for your work and patience, though apparantly long winded, it is necessary to elaborate as thoroughly as you did; bravo.

[angus_mor]

In like manner, the change from one colour to the next in the normal colour spectrum is continuous, with no nodal points evident at all -- and this is also the case with the colour changes that bodies experience when they are heated to red or white heat. -- Rosa Lichtenstein, essay 7

This argument against qualitative leaps works splendidly when compared to visible light. But what about the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum? There are qualitative leaps that go far beyond such a concentrated perspective as can be seen by the naked eye. Quite notably, as well, when the frequency of an electromagnetic wave starts out as radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet light, x-rays and finally gamma rays; each so qualitatively different that they require a seperate method of reception. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


Can I stop repeating myself yet?

I have to say, either I am going ga ga, or one of us is not making him/herself clear.

Probably me....


What the fuck does that mean? How isn't that the "right sort of qualitative change"? Doesn't the fact that it makes any qualitative change count? Wouldn't it support your theory if it didn't make any qualitative change? That's not argumentative, au contraire; it's completely evasive!

I could not follow the above.


This argument against qualitative leaps works splendidly when compared to visible light. But what about the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum? There are qualitative leaps that go far beyond such a concentrated perspective as can be seen by the naked eye. Quite notably, as well, when the frequency of an electromagnetic wave starts out as radio waves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet light, x-rays and finally gamma rays; each so qualitatively different that they require a seperate method of reception. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I do not deny that in certain circumstances such things happen, but it cannot be a 'law' if it only occurs fitfully.

[angus_mor]

I do not deny that in certain circumstances such things happen, but it cannot be a 'law' if it only occurs fitfully.

I agree, it can't possibly be a law; how sad it is I have to repeat myself yet again:


While this is true, it's interesting to note that quantitative changes must be made prior to the organization of these qualities into new qualities. To change the pitch of a guitar string, a quantitative change in either the length, width or tension must be applied. In a piano, there are qradual, quantitative differences in the length, width and tension of the piano wires of each note as you proceed from the bass section up; each getting shorter, thinner and more relaxed. But once they are in tune, you can arrange them as you desire to form Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata or Gershwin's The Entertainer. Once this is understood, it becomes obvious that making this idea a law is not only foolish but reactionary.

However, to make my arguments completely crystal clear, what I am saying is the fact that you can take constants and interchange them to change quality by changing the order of operations is only possible because of prior quantitative changes that place the latter frame of reference into completely different qualitative understandings from the former.

While I may help myself to examples, it is clear that you helped yourself to the example of visible light, which can not be counted as an evident example because you were comparing colors, and since every color is part of that section of the electromagnetic spectrum, you were ignoring the rest of the spectrum which is in fact extremely qualitatively different in the many different stages of frequencies. They are so qualitatively different, that they aren't simply distinguished by the difference in frequencies they emit, they are distinguished by the type of frequencies they emit:


Also, some low-energy gamma rays actually have a longer wavelength than some high-energy X-rays. This is possible because "gamma ray" is the name given to the photons generated from nuclear decay or other nuclear and subnuclear processes, whereas X-rays on the other hand are generated by electronic transitions involving highly energetic inner electrons. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Em_spectrum

You are again the guilty party in ignoring the facts.


I have to say, either I am going ga ga, or one of us is not making his/herself clear.

Probably me....

Oh, it's definitely you (see above if not read correctly prior to reading this).


I could not follow the above.

You said that the qualitative difference in isotopes of uranium wasn't "the right sort of qualitative change", and I'm saying that there is a qualitative difference, which wouldn't support your theory if you're saying that there is no qualitative difference that results from quantitative changes. I hope you understand what I'm saying now, but I won't hold my breath (see the difference CR? Breath, not breathe).

Another thing, while it implicates idealism to have an interpositionary verb which implies agency, what if we dropped every verb? As in, dialectics being the synthesis of two parts, which don't necessarily contradict, interact or struggle with each other? It is clear that we can say that in simple arithmatic (2 + 2 = 4), the answer is definitely a synthesis of the two parts (engaged numbers). This might mean there's no point in calling it dialectics any longer, as it is no longer Hegelian in any sense of the word, but Susan? How would you feel if somebody decided to call the Doppler Effect Susan? Such arrogance is completely arbitrary and I know that someone as intelligent as you can make their point without being childish.


The problem is that the empirically observed spectra from the electrons changing orbital does not match up with Bohr's prediction for any atom other than Hydrogen. That is a serious problem for scientists!

Perhaps another example then?

Na + Cl → NaCl

Looks like the same thing is happening here; two parties that have similar qualities, both quite poisonous in their uncombined states, synthesize to form a chemical compound which is both qualitatively different, and quite necessary to the human diet; sodium chloride, a.k.a. table salt. Sodium, an alkali, having one electron, chemically combines with chlorine, a halogen, which has 7 electrons, forming a stable chemical compound. They are stable because together they have 8 electrons, as I said previously. I guess it doesn't look like my "beloved example" is simply hydrogen, but rather the whole periodic table.


And quantum mechanics isn't a theory of interactions, if it was quantum gravity would be impossible.

If it isn't a theory of the laws that govern the interactions of matter, then how can it replace Newtonian Physics? Wouldn't it have to encompass Newtonian Physics to do so?


Quantum gravity is the field of theoretical physics attempting to unify quantum mechanics, which describes three of the fundamental forces of nature, with general relativity, the theory of the fourth fundamental force: gravity.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity


A fundamental interaction is a mechanism by which particles interact with each other, and which cannot be explained by another more fundamental interaction.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

If quantum gravity is one of these fundamental interactions of said particles, particles being matter, doesn't that completely contradict what you're saying?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


I agree, it can't possibly be a law; how sad it is I have to repeat myself yet again:

Well, this just makes it impossibly difficult for me to figure out what exactly you are committed to.

Peacemeal and trite apercus, which are not laws?

Why bother mentioning them then?


However, to make my arguments completely crystal clear, what I am saying is the fact that you can take constants and interchange them to change quality by changing the order of operations is only possible because of prior quantitative changes that place the latter frame of reference into completely different qualitative understandings from the former.

And you could just as easily argue the other way round.


You are again the guilty party in ignoring the facts.

Not so, since I make no claims on this score.


You said that the qualitative difference in isotopes of uranium wasn't "the right sort of qualitative change", and I'm saying that there is a qualitative difference, which wouldn't support your theory if you're saying that there is no qualitative difference that results from quantitative changes. I hope you understand what I'm saying now, but I won't hold my breath (see the difference CR? Breath, not breathe).

I said no such thing, and I propound no theories; I merely assert that we can depict nature in many different ways, and your way (if I can figure out exactly what it is) is not forced on us.


As in, dialectics being the synthesis of two parts, which don't necessarily contradict, interact or struggle with each other? It is clear that we can say that in simple arithmatic (2 + 2 = 4), the answer is definitely a synthesis of the two parts (engaged numbers). This might mean there's no point in calling it dialectics any longer, as it is no longer Hegelian in any sense of the word, but Susan? How would you feel if somebody decided to call the Doppler Effect Susan? Such arrogance is completely arbitrary and I know that someone as intelligent as you can make their point without being childish.

The point about 'Susan' is that you have no more reason to call this 'dialectics' (even though you now claim you have dropped this term -- or have I misunderstood you again?) than you do for calling it after a girl's name.

And, I would not use if for the Doppler Effect since, unlike what you are trying to say (if I can ever get my head around it), it is quite clear and precise.

However, I do not think that labelling this as 'childish', or 'arrogant' is helping, especially when even now it is you who wants to anthropomorphise numbers, or turn them into things that can combine (synthesise).

Do you honestly think that 2 combines (synthesises) with 2 to give 4 (look, there they are still on your screen, uncombined, unsynthesised....)?


Perhaps another example then?

Na + Cl → NaCl

Not comparable at all with numbers. And I am not sure now what this has to do with anything worth saying, not least to me.

When have I denied that things can combine, or that we can synthesise things?

Your comments now look like superficial scientific musings to me (in that they are highly selective), and not the least bit philosophical.


Looks like the same thing is happening here; two parties that have similar qualities, both quite poisonous in their uncombined states, synthesize to form a chemical compound which is both qualitatively different, and quite necessary to the human diet; sodium chloride, a.k.a. table salt. Sodium, an alkali, having one electron, chemically combines with chlorine, a halogen, which has 7 electrons, forming a stable chemical compound. They are stable because together they have 8 electrons, as I said previously. I guess it doesn't look like my "beloved example" is simply hydrogen, but rather the whole periodic table.

Once more, this confirms my claim that it is quality that changes quality.

Can we now please move on?

[angus_mor]

And you could just as easily argue the other way round.

Well let's have it then.


Not so, since I make no claims on this score.

What about this claim?


In like manner, the change from one colour to the next in the normal colour spectrum is continuous, with no nodal points evident at all -- and this is also the case with the colour changes that bodies experience when they are heated to red or white heat. -- Rosa Lichtenstein, essay 7

Of course there aren't nodal points in between one color and the next, but you're only looking between that spectrum of visible light, but once you go farther than this range, there are nodal points between radio waves, infrared waves, UV rays, x-rays, and gamma rays. You are clearly ignoring the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. If you do not remove this from your essay, you're no better than the pundits that claim the struggle in Oaxaca has long since passed.


However, I do not think that labelling this as 'childish', or 'arrogant' is helping, especially when even now it is you who wants to anthropomorphise numbers, or turn them into things that can combine (synthesise).

I'm not anthropomorphizing anything, I'm acknowledging that it is of human mind to conceive a number in the first place; hence, engaged numbers. A human being must use idealism in any case in order to synthesize two numbers in a mathematical equation; such organization is unique to the human mind.


Do you honestly think that 2 combines (synthesises) with 2 to give 4 (look, there they are still on your screen, uncombined, unsynthesised....)?

They must be synthesized in order to be understood as four; otherwise the equation would appear as follows:

2 + 2 = 2 + 2

Not that it isn't correct, it's just evading the actual math (why didn't I think of that when I was in primary school! I could've gotten out of so much work!!!)


Not comparable at all with numbers. And I am not sure now what this has to do with anything worth saying, not least to me.

I was not comparing this to numbers, and it was not addressed to you; CR said that my reasoning only applied to hydrogen, and that simple chemical equation proves him quite wrong. Further, he's completely full of shit when he says that Quantum Mechanics isn't a theory of the interactions of matter, as my string of quotes makes plain.


Once more, this confirms my claim that it is quality that changes quality.

I am not denying this, but it also supports my claim that quantitative changes must be made in order to allow this to happen. 75% of all matter in the universe is hydrogen. A star is a gigantic ball of hydrogen that collects and concentrates as atoms of hydrogen gravitate towards one another for billions of years. Eventually they concentrate into a ball so massive they start to undergo nuclear fusion, creating helium, carbon, oxygen and, if massive enough, heavier atoms like gold, silver, etc. Matter must undergo such magnificent quantitative changes in order to chemically combine in such a way that qualitative changes can then occur independently of quantitative changes. Since hydrogen makes up such a large portion of existing matter, it is logically the first form of matter that appeared in the universe. If it was the only element present, well, obviously we wouldn't be here, as we're made up of complex carbohydrates.


Your comments now look like superficial scientific musings to me (in that they are highly selective), and not the least bit philosophical.

Good point; precisely why I have abandoned dialectical reasoning, but I still like to debate most anything, even to argue in favor of "quantity before quality" (hey, now that's a good one! Kinda like "i before e"!)


Can we now please move on?

I'll take that as a white flag =P. Fine, I guess... * sigh... * ... but what's next? Does this thread end here? If so, I'd like to thank my parents, my personal trainer, my debate coach, my dogs, (long list of random people) * hook takes angus_mor by the throat *

Cast of Characters:
(in order of appearance)

red_che as................. himself

Rosa Lichtenstein as... herself

Bretty 123 as.............. himself

angus_mor as............. himself

ComradeRed as.......... himself

THE END..?

(I smell a sequel!)

[ComradeRed]

Let me just say that I've never met someone so clueless as you; you'd make a fantastic philosopher of science, having absolutely no clue as to how to investigate reality and yet you decide what scientists should really be doing.

Originally posted by Angus Mor+--> (Angus Mor)I was not comparing this to numbers, and it was not addressed to you; CR said that my reasoning only applied to hydrogen, and that simple chemical equation proves him quite wrong. Further, he's completely full of shit when he says that Quantum Mechanics isn't a theory of the interactions of matter, as my string of quotes makes plain.[/b] Wow, what an intelligent assertion. I guess I'll have to show you the nitty-gritty details, I don't know if you'll follow the math or not and due to your characteristic politeness I don't really care.

An isolated quantum system evolves according to the schrodigner equation, i.e. unitarily, unless there is a measurement done on it by an observer, then the system collapses and what was measured is not what it is now. By shining a flashlight or laser on a particle, you are changing the amount of momentum the particle has, and so the amount you measure is what it had not what it has.

"AHA! IT'S INTERACTION!!!!!!!1112!three"

No genius, it's measurement. But if we take into account the observer and create a new system consisting only of the observing system and the observed system, this new system is closed and evolves unitarily. There would be no wave collapse.

Quantum mechanics is (in the words of Carlo Rovelli): ...a theory about the physical descriptions of physical systems relative to other systems, and this is a complete description of the world. (From his paper Relational Quantum Mechanics, page 7, bold is my emphasis)

Where in the hell do you see "interaction of matter"? That's not quantum theory, that's (specifically) quantized fields. They are different, like an island and a peninsula.

Your "String of quotes" is worthless garbage, so sorry.



Perhaps another example then?

Na + Cl → NaCl

Looks like the same thing is happening here; two parties that have similar qualities, both quite poisonous in their uncombined states, synthesize to form a chemical compound which is both qualitatively different, and quite necessary to the human diet; sodium chloride, a.k.a. table salt. Sodium, an alkali, having one electron, chemically combines with chlorine, a halogen, which has 7 electrons, forming a stable chemical compound. They are stable because together they have 8 electrons, as I said previously. I guess it doesn't look like my "beloved example" is simply hydrogen, but rather the whole periodic table. OK, boy, work your magic: how do you know that NaCl is going to not be reactive, poisonous, and deadly? It's elements are.

In short How do you derive the qualitative properties of the equation with dialectics? Quantum Mechanics can do it, and it's an elementary exercise in doing so.



If it isn't a theory of the laws that govern the interactions of matter, then how can it replace Newtonian Physics? Wouldn't it have to encompass Newtonian Physics to do so? No, genius, all it has to do is make more accurate predictions than Newtonian physics.

Newtonian physics completely break down when observing the behavior of the electron, that's elementary quantum mechanics. It's because the observer and measurement process isn't taken into account. :rolleyes:



If quantum gravity is one of these fundamental interactions of said particles, particles being matter, doesn't that completely contradict what you're saying? Provided Einstein was wrong, yeah I would contradict myself (since I base my views on quantum gravity on General Relativity rather than Quantum Theory). But because you cite the holy wikipedia, I figure I'll try citing someone who is barely as qualified: a credited theoretical physicist working in quantum gravity (Louis Crane).

He states in his paper Clock and Category: Is Quantum Gravity Algebraic?:


Crane @ pages 8-9
What I am proposing is that quantum gravity is not a quantum field theory at all. [...]

General Relativity is a theory of geometry. Hence a state in a special basis for the Hilbert space on a surface must assign values to lengths on the surface and probability amplitudes to combinations of lengths elsewhere. -- emphasis added

I know you couldn't follow that, so I'll try explaining it to you. Quantum gravity explains gravity using general relativity as opposed to the perspective of the vulgar string theorists that gravity is "just another force".

If you try and explain gravity using gravitons, the theory will be nonrenomalizeable either in the number of dimensions or in the effective force, there will be a singularity. The former is why string theory predicts such an outrageous number of dimensions, the latter has been seen by a vast number of quantization attempts on general relativity and is the common pit fall.

The same nitwits who claim that quantum gravity will be a UFT are those that support string theory despite the lack of empirical evidence.

[angus_mor]

Your "String of quotes" is worthless garbage, so sorry.

Quite true; I was asking for an explanation of your comments, and simply provoking them from you since it had been a few days since your last response. I'm still confused about it, but it makes more sense now; thank you. I'd probly have to do some serious study to comprehend it more fully, but it is something I wish to pursue, it's quite interesting indeed.


Let me just say that I've never met someone so clueless as you; you'd make a fantastic philosopher of science, having absolutely no clue as to how to investigate reality and yet you decide what scientists should really be doing.

I'm not deciding anything conclusively as of yet, and I'm most certainly not telling anyone how they should seek knowledge; it is to each their own as far as I'm concerned.


OK, boy, work your magic: how do you know that NaCl is going to not be reactive, poisonous, and deadly? It's elements are.

Well, call me crazy, but the chemical combination of these unstable elements makes it stable, I don't know if that's why it's something so simple as table salt.


In short How do you derive the qualitative properties of the equation with dialectics?

The qualitative differences are the result of synthesis between sodium and chlorine.


Quantum Mechanics can do it, and it's an elementary exercise in doing so.

If quantum mechanics isn't a theory of the interactions of matter, how does it explain such an interaction?


Wow, what an intelligent assertion. I guess I'll have to show you the nitty-gritty details, I don't know if you'll follow the math or not and due to your characteristic politeness I don't really care.

Somehow I get the impression you'd still be a dick even if I was polite.

[ComradeRed]

Well, call me crazy, but the chemical combination of these unstable elements makes it stable, I don't know if that's why it's something so simple as table salt. What makes something unstable? And I'm not talking about the textbook answer "Well, it has one valence electron..."; yes, yes it does, but how does that (without resorting to math) tell us the qualitative nature of the atom?

It doesn't make the cut to say "Well, the valence of the molocule is full, so there is no unstability" because it doesn't explain what is going on exactly.

Further, unstable element + unstable element DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL stable compound. For example, it is feasible that: CH_3 + Cp + Ni -> CpNiCH_3. All of the elements and compounds on the left hand side are unstable (CH_3 is very unstable, so unstable it's not found in nature), and the compound that it creates is equally (if not, moreso) unstable. How does your dialectics explain this? Why is it different than Na + Cl -> NaCl?


The qualitative differences are the result of synthesis between sodium and chlorine. So if I put "Shit happens" as an answer to "What is causality?", that would be acceptable? No, of course not; neither is "qualitative changes are caused by quantitative ones."


If quantum mechanics isn't a theory of the interactions of matter, how does it explain such an interaction? Measurement, it's a theory of measurement, that's what Rovelli was saying! That's actually what Heisenberg said originally too. Curious how he got drowned out to Dirac.


Somehow I get the impression you'd still be a dick even if I was polite. I guess you'll never know.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


Well let's have it then.

Done it, several posts ago, and in Essay Seven.


Of course there aren't nodal points in between one color and the next, but you're only looking between that spectrum of visible light, but once you go farther than this range, there are nodal points between radio waves, infrared waves, UV rays, x-rays, and gamma rays. You are clearly ignoring the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. If you do not remove this from your essay, you're no better than the pundits that claim the struggle in Oaxaca has long since passed.

Once more, this was not my point, and I do not know why you are perseverating on it.

I was seeking counterexamples to Engels's claims, not examples that could be used (I think erroneously) to support them.


I'm not anthropomorphizing anything,

To tell you the truth, it is not too clear what you are doing; on your account numbers seem to be able to act on their own, as if they were agents, or something called the 'mind' can do things to them, as if they live somewhere, and can be moved about the place and worked upon.

This might be the result of your loose use of language, but it might equally be because you have not really thought this through.


A human being must use idealism in any case in order to synthesize two numbers in a mathematical equation; such organization is unique to the human mind.

As I have said, there is a materialist explanation for our capacity to do mathematics, one that does not anthropomorphise the brain, the mind or numbers themeselves (one or more of which you seem to be doing).


They must be synthesized in order to be understood as four; otherwise the equation would appear as follows:

2 + 2 = 2 + 2

Well, why isn't it "2 + 2 = 10 - 6", or a potentially infinite number of different things?

Your theory cannot account for this, but the materialist theory I alluded to above can.


I am not denying this, but it also supports my claim that quantitative changes must be made in order to allow this to happen. 75% of all matter in the universe is hydrogen. A star is a gigantic ball of hydrogen that collects and concentrates as atoms of hydrogen gravitate towards one another for billions of years. Eventually they concentrate into a ball so massive they start to undergo nuclear fusion, creating helium, carbon, oxygen and, if massive enough, heavier atoms like gold, silver, etc. Matter must undergo such magnificent quantitative changes in order to chemically combine in such a way that qualitative changes can then occur independently of quantitative changes. Since hydrogen makes up such a large portion of existing matter, it is logically the first form of matter that appeared in the universe. If it was the only element present, well, obviously we wouldn't be here, as we're made up of complex carbohydrates.

This is all wasted effort, and I am loathe to respond to it since, not only have I already done so, I do not want to feed your desire to perseverate.

Can we move on, please?


I'll take that as a white flag

In view of my previous comment, you can take this as an expression of boredom.

The only other alternative is for me to cut and paste my earlier responses, and for you to do the same.

[stevensen]

rosa ran away last time i confronted her over being a leninist but an anti dilaectical one..wonder why she ran away

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stevensen indulges in yet more make-belief:


rosa ran away last time i confronted her over being a leninist but an anti dilaectical one..wonder why she ran away

Proof?

Or do you mystics not believe in proof?

[angus_mor]

What makes something unstable? And I'm not talking about the textbook answer "Well, it has one valence electron..."; yes, yes it does, but how does that (without resorting to math) tell us the qualitative nature of the atom?

Well, actually, valence electrons don't account for the qualities in an atom. As I have previously stated, the number of protons in an atom make one atom qualitatively different from another atom, and thus these qualities affect the quality of the compound they form. A methyl group, cyclopentadiene and nickel are all seperate chemical compounds/elements; you can't necessarily expect a different combination of elements to yield a nonlethal compound any more than you can expect it to form the same compound; salt.

Furthermore, I'm waiting for the quantum mechanist's explanation for this, other than "uhh... it's different because of measurements!" which doesn't sound any more intelligible than "uhh... it's because of dialectics!"



The qualitative differences are the result of synthesis between sodium and chlorine.

So if I put "Shit happens" as an answer to "What is causality?", that would be acceptable? No, of course not; neither is "qualitative changes are caused by quantitative ones."

In this case, you are misinterpreting my explanation; I am saying that the differences in quality are due to the synthesis (chemical combination) of sodium and chlorine, which in turn have different qualities due to quantitative differences in nuclear content.


Done it, several posts ago, and in Essay Seven.

I didn't read one example where quality preceeds quantity, so if you could please provide an example.


Once more, this was not my point, and I do not know why you are perseverating on it.

I was seeking counterexamples to Engels's claims, not examples that could be used (I think erroneously) to support them.

My point is that it is not a counterexample because any dialectician would agree that the nodal points do not occur within the range of visible light; they occur outside of it; radio waves, infrared waves, UV rays, x-rays, gamma rays; all of them seperated by the supposed nodal points that don't exist.


To tell you the truth, it is not too clear what you are doing; on your account numbers seem to be able to act on their own, as if they were agents, or something called the 'mind' can do things to them, as if they live somewhere, and can be moved about the place and worked upon.

This might be the result of your loose use of language, but it might equally be because you have not really thought this through.

True, I had not thought it through the first time I stated it; that's why I restated it with the explanation that it's of mind to conceive arithmatic. As in, numbers don't add themselves; human beings add numbers.


As I have said, there is a materialist explanation for our capacity to do mathematics, one that does not anthropomorphise the brain, the mind or numbers themeselves (one or more of which you seem to be doing).

Mind is a result of matter; the developed human brain. It has the capacity to bend or twist matter through interpretation, not that it's necessarily correct when one does so.


Well, why isn't it "2 + 2 = 10 - 6", or a potentially infinite number of different things?

Your theory cannot account for this, but the materialist theory I alluded to above can.

Sure it can; the sum of the parts, the synthesis of the two, is four. You would have to use a seperate type of mathematical equation to account for such a radically different answer, though I don't think that such an answer can be reached in any way. I am attempting to explain "dialectics", for lack of a better word, as a materialist theory, which is why it can account for the same change you're talking about. Such an answer could only be achieved idealistically, which is why it is not 10 - 6, but 2 + 2, or in a combined state, four.


This is all wasted effort, and I am loathe to respond to it since, not only have I already done so, I do not want to feed your desire to perseverate.

Can we move on, please?

I guess we just can't understand each other, or atleast it would seem so.


In view of my previous comment, you can take this as an expression of boredom.

I was only joking...


The only other alternative is for me to cut and paste my earlier responses, and for you to do the same.

Which means both of us are unwilling to accept the other's proposals.


rosa ran away last time i confronted her over being a leninist but an anti dilaectical one..wonder why she ran away

Are you really a Leninist? What a waste of time, another victory for the vanguard! * pushing Rosa's buttons *

[ComradeRed]

Well, actually, valence electrons don't account for the qualities in an atom. As I have previously stated, the number of protons in an atom make one atom qualitatively different from another atom, and thus these qualities affect the quality of the compound they form. A methyl group, cyclopentadiene and nickel are all seperate chemical So the number of protons in the NaCl molocule determines the qualitative nature of it? :huh:

That makes no sense since you ignore the role of the orbitals, which according to modern chemistry is a huge (if not, the) role in bonding. But hey, it's about time a dialectician informed those damn scientists they're wrong :rolleyes:


Furthermore, I'm waiting for the quantum mechanist's explanation for this, other than "uhh... it's different because of measurements!" which doesn't sound any more intelligible than "uhh... it's because of dialectics!" It's beyond you but if you really want to know, it's because of the flavors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_%28particle_physics%29) of the particles, and in the case of atoms the electrons and the Pauli exclusion principle.

Because you are unable to read Rovelli's paper, I guess I'll have to spoon-feed you physics. You represent the ("observable") properties which you are interested in as (self-adjoint) operators on a Hilbert space, and then you take the observer as a quantum system (mapping the "observables" as operators again), take the tensor product of these two spaces, put the measurement in "question" form, and calculate out the answers. Got it? :rolleyes:


In this case, you are misinterpreting my explanation; I am saying that the differences in quality are due to the synthesis (chemical combination) of sodium and chlorine, which in turn have different qualities due to quantitative differences in nuclear content. This totally ignores the important role of the valence electrons in bonding, as well as the flavor symmetries. What about the bond between the two which is governed by the valence electrons and not the nucleus?

Further, you don't make any meaningful statements about the properties of the NaCl molocule. "Two unstable molocules synthesize into a stable molocule" is not accurate, as there are a large number of counter-examples which you so gleefully ignore.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


I didn't read one example where quality preceeds quantity, so if you could please provide an example.

Your own examples do this, as I argued earlier.

Once more, can we move on?


My point is that it is not a counterexample because any dialectician would agree that the nodal points do not occur within the range of visible light; they occur outside of it; radio waves, infrared waves, UV rays, x-rays, gamma rays; all of them seperated by the supposed nodal points that don't exist.

Yet again, what has this to do with anything I have argued?

And they (or even you?) can only get away with this because, like everything else in DM, the term 'nodal' is left hoplessly obscure, if not entirely subjective.


As in, numbers don't add themselves; human beings add numbers.

But your use of lanuage suggests that things are synthesised, when numbers are not things.

And, your claim that this is done 'ideally' commits you to an anthropomorphic view of the 'mind'.


Mind is a result of matter; the developed human brain. It has the capacity to bend or twist matter through interpretation, not that it's necessarily correct when one does so.

This is a very quick piece of superscience; you have yet to show there is such a 'thing' as the mind for it to be connected with anything.

And, just as soon as you do, you will brand yourself a dualist, not a materialist.

Your use of metaphor here is not too reassurting either.


Sure it can; the sum of the parts, the synthesis of the two, is four. You would have to use a seperate type of mathematical equation to account for such a radically different answer, though I don't think that such an answer can be reached in any way. I am attempting to explain "dialectics", for lack of a better word, as a materialist theory, which is why it can account for the same change you're talking about. Such an answer could only be achieved idealistically, which is why it is not 10 - 6, but 2 + 2, or in a combined state, four.

No it can't, since your subjectivist view cannot tell us why the answer you give is the right answer.

And, numbers are not parts. You are confusing this with a jig-saw puzzle.


Which means both of us are unwilling to accept the other's proposals.

Yours are unclear; as soon as they become clear I will be able to say whether I accept them or not.

[As far as the comments of 'stevensen' are concerned, he blundered into an earlier discussion, received a sand-bagging from me, and sulked off.

So, with posters like him, and Red Che, I just wind them up.

Of course I am a Leninist; as I told him several times -- but as you can see, DM does not just stand for Dialectical Materialism, it also stands for "Dialectical Myopia".]

[angus_mor]

CR:


That makes no sense since you ignore the role of the orbitals, which according to modern chemistry is a huge (if not, the) role in bonding. But hey, it's about time a dialectician informed those damn scientists they're wrong :rolleyes:

I'm not saying they're wrong; of course the role of the orbital is most important, as the electrons are the entire reason that elements bond at all, as I've stated before; this is made plain by the fact that elements such as the noble gases are almost completely unreactive because of their ample amount of electrons:


The noble gases are the elements in group 18 of the periodic table. They are the most stable due to having the maximum number of valence electrons their outer shell can hold. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_gases

I'm saying that the qualities of the elements affect the qualities of the molecule (not molocule) they form. If this were not true, then other elements paired with sodium or chlorine would be just as likely to form salt, but I hope you're not that gullible.


Because you are unable to read Rovelli's paper, I guess I'll have to spoon-feed you physics.

Is there ever a time when you aren't condescending? It's kinda hard to read a paper you won't link, it might even be more helpful than being an arrogant jerk.


You represent the ("observable") properties which you are interested in as (self-adjoint) operators on a Hilbert space, and then you take the observer as a quantum system (mapping the "observables" as operators again), take the tensor product of these two spaces, put the measurement in "question" form, and calculate out the answers. Got it? :rolleyes:

I can see how it can make more accurate predictions than Newtonian physics, however, I'll need to study these types of mathematical functions; I've never seen 'em before in my life. Keep in mind I've only completed high school level algebra; I'm familiar with matrices, but that's about it... Also, what kind of answers have these functions and predictions revealed?


Further, you don't make any meaningful statements about the properties of the NaCl molocule. "Two unstable molocules synthesize into a stable molocule" is not accurate, as there are a large number of counter-examples which you so gleefully ignore.

Such as..?

Rosa:


Your own examples do this, as I argued earlier.

To quote such a brilliant woman:


Proof?


Once more, can we move on?

Only if you will stop being so evasive and stop treating everything as though it is nondescript. But if we are to move onward, what next?


Yet again, what has this to do with anything I have argued?

And they (or even you?) can only get away with this because, like everything else in DM, the term 'nodal' is left hoplessly obscure, if not entirely subjective.

If it is so obscure, then how can you argue against it so endlessly as though it had a specific meaning? But to make it totally plain, when a change in quantity exceeds or receeds to a certain point, there is a drastic change in quality that occurs. Isn't that the type of leap that you're arguing against? My point is that your example ignores the rest of the em spectrum, which makes your argument erroneous. I'm advising you to remove it from your essay because for this reason it makes you look foolish. Please, I'm only trying to help you be honest in your work as your fellow contemporary. Since you have so many other wonderful examples you help yourself to, you could atleast consider that I might be right.


And, numbers are not parts. You are confusing this with a jig-saw puzzle.


part – noun

1. a portion or division of a whole that is separate or distinct; piece, fragment, fraction, or section; constituent.

5. any of a number of more or less equal quantities that compose a whole or into which a whole is divided. (emphasis added)

I'm sorry, what's that about parts not being numbers again?


No it can't, since your subjectivist view cannot tell us why the answer you give is the right answer.

Do I really need to explain simple math to you? Let's make it even easier than 2 + 2. If you have one apple, and then group it with another apple, you have two apples. Is this making any sense? Interchange the phrases add, subtract, group, etc. with synthesis and you have the dialectical understanding of it.


This is a very quick piece of superscience; you have yet to show there is such a 'thing' as the mind for it to be connected with anything.


And, your claim that this is done 'ideally' commits you to an anthropomorphic view of the 'mind'.

Okay, perhaps I was not being clear. From what I understand, mind is a collection of thoughts, and what we can know materially to be thoughts are brainwaves, which are a product of the human brain in action. The interesting part is that although mind is a result of matter, it can sometimes get carried away and make up things that are either incorrect or even completely nonexistent. Everyone has been wrong at one point in their lives, and if you deny this you are most certainly a liar. Moreover, we may have bad dreams which can completely distort reality, making us quite relieved that they were no more than illusions. For instance, you argue that it is a fallacy to assert that matter contradicts itself in reality, as a contradiction only arises in language; a product of the mind. Futhermore, it is ridiculous to assert that apples can count, group and recount themselves; this is a concept of mind which apples clearly do not possess. It is not necessarily idealistic to suggest that mind exists (materialism); to suggest that mind can or does exist independently of matter (dualism), or that matter is a product of mind (absolute idealism) would be idealism.


Yours are unclear; as soon as they become clear I will be able to say whether I accept them or not.

Is that clear enough for ya?

[ComradeRed]

I'm not saying they're wrong; of course the role of the orbital is most important, as the electrons are the entire reason that elements bond at all, as I've stated before; this is made plain by the fact that elements such as the noble gases are almost completely unreactive because of their ample amount of electrons:


The noble gases are the elements in group 18 of the periodic table. They are the most stable due to having the maximum number of valence electrons their outer shell can hold. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_gasesI'm saying that the qualities of the elements affect the qualities of the molecule (not molocule) they form. If this were not true, then other elements paired with sodium or chlorine would be just as likely to form salt, but I hope you're not that gullible. OK, using dialectics, explain why NaCl is not deadly whereas (say) LiI is (as far as I know, I haven't tried any).

At what point adding protons and neutrons will the compound become deadly?

Further, out of curiousity, how do you explain using dialectics the fact that the s, p, d, f, etc. orbitals can contain different numbers of electrons? There is no real explanation that I've seen.


Is there ever a time when you aren't condescending? It's kinda hard to read a paper you won't link, it might even be more helpful than being an arrogant jerk. Piece of advice: every technical paper that I will ever reference (unless otherwise stated) is freely available from http://arXiv.org; and -- holy hell! -- the second entry on a google search (http://www.google.com/search?q=relational+quantum+mechanics&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial) for relational quantum mechanics is the paper! (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9609002)

And there are times when I'm not a "condescending arrogant jerk", it's when I'm dealing with neither philosophers nor string theorists. You fall into the former category.


I can see how it can make more accurate predictions than Newtonian physics, however, I'll need to study these types of mathematical functions; I've never seen 'em before in my life. Keep in mind I've only completed high school level algebra; I'm familiar with matrices, but that's about it... Also, what kind of answers have these functions and predictions revealed? As I stated, I don't have the patience to teach the stuff (at least, over the internet; there is not a black board for me to show you what to do with plenty of examples).

You would need to know calculus and vector analysis first, otherwise it'd be useless trying to study quantum mechanics.

The basic idea is that there is this space with an axis for each "dimension" of the system in question. A particle, e.g., would have 3 spatial coordinates for its placement (q_{x}, q_{y}, q_{z}; this is LaTeX format, the A_{subscript} is used), 3 momentum coordinates (p_{x}, p_{y}, p_{z}), and any other number of coordinates.

A vector represents the state of the system in this space.

Well, measuring the (say) momentum of the particle would be a linear transformation on the space. The same would hold for the measurement of the position of the particle. It'd be easiest to do this for one dimension, and the evolution of the system (as well as measurements on it) are represented as linear transformations of the space on itself.

I don't expect you to understand all of this, if you only know algebra; but as I stated, I can't effectively teach this to you, so I won't bother.


Such as..? What's the amount of energy necessary to break up NaCl into Na+ and Cl-?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


Only if you will stop being so evasive and stop treating everything as though it is nondescript. But if we are to move onward, what next?

As I suggested earlier, because you are perservating still, we should merely post what we have each earlier published, and continue until one of us desists, or the moderators call a halt.

Is that the way you want to go?

This is a classic example:


If it is so obscure, then how can you argue against it so endlessly as though it had a specific meaning? But to make it totally plain, when a change in quantity exceeds or receeds to a certain point, there is a drastic change in quality that occurs. Isn't that the type of leap that you're arguing against? My point is that your example ignores the rest of the em spectrum, which makes your argument erroneous. I'm advising you to remove it from your essay because for this reason it makes you look foolish. Please, I'm only trying to help you be honest in your work as your fellow contemporary. Since you have so many other wonderful examples you help yourself to, you could atleast consider that I might be right.

Once more, what has this got to do with anything I have argued?

If you post more of the same, I will do likewise.


I'm sorry, what's that about parts not being numbers again?

Yet again, not my point.


Do I really need to explain simple math to you? Let's make it even easier than 2 + 2. If you have one apple, and then group it with another apple, you have two apples. Is this making any sense? Interchange the phrases add, subtract, group, etc. with synthesis and you have the dialectical understanding of it.

Thanks, but I have a degree in mathematics.

Moving apples about the place is not mathematics.

And now, yet more a priori superscience:


From what I understand, mind is a collection of thoughts, and what we can know materially to be thoughts are brainwaves, which are a product of the human brain in action. The interesting part is that although mind is a result of matter, it can sometimes get carried away and make up things that are either incorrect or even completely nonexistent. Everyone has been wrong at one point in their lives, and if you deny this you are most certainly a liar. Moreover, we may have bad dreams which can completely distort reality, making us quite relieved that they were no more than illusions. For instance, you argue that it is a fallacy to assert that matter contradicts itself in reality, as a contradiction only arises in language; a product of the mind. Futhermore, it is ridiculous to assert that apples can count, group and recount themselves; this is a concept of mind which apples clearly do not possess. It is not necessarily idealistic to suggest that mind exists (materialism); to suggest that mind can or does exist independently of matter (dualism), or that matter is a product of mind (absolute idealism) would be idealism.

This is all vague, ill-defined, and sub-speculative --, and if I may say so, much of it is meandering and irrelevant.

It does however suggest you are a dualist, and possibly an idealist: if your thoughts about brainwaves are in your 'mind', they cannot be material.

That destroys your 'evidence' (since it only exists in your mind), and it thus makes your views idealist.

If you think the two (matter and mind) interact, that makes you a dualist, with no account of how two fundamentally different things can interact.

If you identify the two (mind and matter) you will need to explain how two things with totally different properties can be identical.

I'd advise you against going down any of these routes -- 2500 years of considerably more professionally excecuted accounts of 'mind' and 'matter' than your attempt manages have all floundered.


Is that clear enough for ya?

If anything, it is worse.

[stevensen]

its easy to see the the outcome...obviously u will die before dialectics dies. i dont know what u think of ur million worded essay.it seems to be the last word in dialectics to u..my challenge to u still remains unanswered. i think marxism has suffered setbacks not because of dialectics but because of doubting thomases like u. u are an hinderance to marxism. a collosal revisionist whom stalin would rightly have banished to the labor camps.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stevensen, who thinks violence is an argument:



its easy to see the the outcome...obviously u will die before dialectics dies. i dont know what u think of ur million worded essay.it seems to be the last word in dialectics to u..my challenge to u still remains unanswered. i think marxism has suffered setbacks not because of dialectics but because of doubting thomases like u. u are an hinderance to marxism. a collosal revisionist whom stalin would rightly have banished to the labor camps.

Too bad history has refuted Stalinism.

I am so sad about that..... :(

[Herman]

Too bad history has refuted Stalinism.

History has refuted nothing. The bourgeoisie and the trotskyists have.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red H:


History has refuted nothing. The bourgeoisie and the trotskyists have.

Much as I hate to disagree with you, Red, but you will no doubt have noticed that the former USSR is no more, and neither are the Stalinist states of E Europe.

China has 'sold out' and N Korean is a basket case.

Precious little there for a single Stalinist to rejoice over.

But, I do.

Good riddance.

History 1 Slalinism 0

[Leo]

History has refuted nothing.

Communists and workers will then... Stalinists are so helpless and pathetic now, without secret police working for you. If, and that's a big if, you manage to rule a state again, sending us to death won't be as easy as it has been in the past. Stalinism did it's service to capitalism, but those days are over now :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hey, Leo stop waving a red rag to non-reds!

[Herman]

Much as I hate to disagree with you, Red, but you will no doubt have noticed that the former USSR is no more, and neither are the Stalinist states of E Europe.

China has 'sold out' and N Korean is a basket case.

Precious little there for a single Stalinist to rejoice over.

But, I do.

Good riddance.

History 1 Slalinism 0

I'd have to go into those arguments that it was the bourgeoisie from within who caused this and the revisionists, but then it'd get tedious and repetitive, since this has been discussed countless times. At least we can agree the necessity of a vanguard party formed by the most advanced section of the proletariat.

Besides, it's better to understand and simply nod at each other and walk forward.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red H:


I'd have to go into those arguments that it was the bourgeoisie from within who caused this and the revisionists, but then it'd get tedious and repetitive, since this has been discussed countless times. At least we can agree the necessity of a vanguard party formed by the most advanced section of the proletariat.

Quite amazing: with the working class allegedly in power, we had a counter-revolution, and not a single worker there to defend his/her state.

So, not only has history refuted Stalinism, the working class abandoned it too.

I'd quit while you are behind, Red.

[angus_mor]

CR:


OK, using dialectics, explain why NaCl is not deadly whereas (say) LiI is (as far as I know, I haven't tried any).

Different reactants, different products; it's that simple. I can't tell you precisely why one substance is deadly and the other's a necessary part of the human diet, but it doesn't take a chemist to know that a chemical reaction is a materialist dialectic... or does it?


At what point adding protons and neutrons will the compound become deadly?

Protons remain constant, otherwise substances would oscillate wildly between one element and another.


Further, out of curiousity, how do you explain using dialectics the fact that the s, p, d, f, etc. orbitals can contain different numbers of electrons? There is no real explanation that I've seen.

I'm not sure that dialectical materialism is designed to answer that question, but either way, I can't answer that question at all!


Piece of advice: every technical paper that I will ever reference (unless otherwise stated) is freely available from http://arXiv.org; and -- holy hell! -- the second entry on a google search for relational quantum mechanics is the paper!

Thanks for the tip and the links, I'll keep that in mind.


And there are times when I'm not a "condescending arrogant jerk", it's when I'm dealing with neither philosophers nor string theorists. You fall into the former category.

Isn't that rather prejudicial and narrow-minded for a Marxist?


As I stated, I don't have the patience to teach the stuff (at least, over the internet; there is not a black board for me to show you what to do with plenty of examples).

You would need to know calculus and vector analysis first, otherwise it'd be useless trying to study quantum mechanics.

I don't expect you to teach me something so abundantly complex as calculus, but if we could spend the time in doing so (in person), it would be quite an exhilirating experience.


What's the amount of energy necessary to break up NaCl into Na+ and Cl-?

Ah, once again, we enter into a dialectic! An increase in energy, quantitative change, will eventually cause the bonds of a molecule to break, qualitative change. It takes a terrific amount of energy to do so, but a catalyst can lower the activation energy needed. I don't how much energy it takes, or what kind of enzyme breaks the bonds of sodium chloride, but what difference does it make? The necessary quantitative changes must be made in order to qualitatively change the molecule; thus supporting my theory.

Rosa:


As I suggested earlier, because you are perservating still, we should merely post what we have each earlier published, and continue until one of us desists, or the moderators call a halt.

It would seem that that's all we can do, and since both of us are equally hard headed, this could go on forever! :wacko: Let's let by-gones be by-gones; whether we agree or not, we shouldn't let it get in the way of our ability to cooperate for social change, especially when, aside from dialectics, we agree on so much more!


Once more, what has this got to do with anything I have argued?

Weren't you arguing against the prevalence of qualitative leaps?


Yet again, not my point.

Then what's the meaning of this?


And, numbers are not parts. You are confusing this with a jig-saw puzzle.

Am I dreaming, or are you changing your side of the story?


Moving apples about the place is not mathematics.

And yet it's an example commonly used for introducing primary students to arithmatic.. how very odd...


This is all vague, ill-defined, and sub-speculative --, and if I may say so, much of it is meandering and irrelevant.

Are you suggesting that someone exhibiting zero brainwaves is thinking or at the very least alive? What is the mind to you Rosa? Does it exist at all to you? How are you capable of thinking, let alone comprehending language, or even written language, like the type you're reading right now?


It does however suggest you are a dualist, and possibly an idealist: if your thoughts about brainwaves are in your 'mind', they cannot be material.

First of all, I'm saying that thoughts are brainwaves, not that I have thoughts about brainwaves; someone who is lifeless or braindead exhibits zero Hz in brainwaves; there can not possibly be a thought in their head. Secondly, I do not profess any kind of dualism or idealism; I'm saying that mind is a collection of thoughts, which are the result of actions in the brain; a product of material relations and interactions. I would be a dualist if I said that mind exists independently of matter, and an absolute idealist if I were to suggest that matter is a product of mind. Furthermore, empirical evidence firmly denies the possibility of mind preceeding matter; idealism is physically impossible, to believe so is delusional.


If you think the two (matter and mind) interact, that makes you a dualist, with no account of how two fundamentally different things can interact.

If you identify the two (mind and matter) you will need to explain how two things with totally different properties can be identical.

I'd advise you against going down any of these routes -- 2500 years of considerably more professionally excecuted accounts of 'mind' and 'matter' than your attempt manages have all floundered.

This I know, which is exactly why I'm neither dualist nor idealist!


If anything, it is worse.

So sorry, but do you understand what I meant to say yet?


a collosal revisionist whom stalin would rightly have banished to the labor camps.

How can you call her revisionist when you compare her to a revisionist? How can you be so naive as to blindly follow an opportunist like Stalin, let alone support inhumane practices that were developed by Nazis?! The only ones that deserve to be put in labor camps are the ones that would willingly do so to others, you wretched, dogmatic authoritarian!!!


But, I do.

Good riddance.

History 1 Slalinism 0

Cheers to that; here, here!


At least we can agree the necessity of a vanguard party formed by the most advanced section of the proletariat.

I couldn't disagree with you more; a vanguard party is what allowed that abomination to occur in the first place, and if there's ever going to be real social change, it can't happen again. The proletariat must actively fight for its own political supremacy, and if we don't end political parties, we can't end the state. If anything is evident from the utter failure of the Soviet Union, it is this; bureaucracies can only perpetuate themselves. The proletariat's political character and the proletarian state will not just magically disappear; it must actively destroy its own political character and the state simultaneously.


Quite amazing: with the working class allegedly in power, we had a counter-revolution, and not a single worker there to defend his/her state.

The proletariat has never gained political power anywhere; your precious vanguard parties made damn sure of that.

[ComradeRed]

Different reactants, different products; it's that simple. I can't tell you precisely why one substance is deadly and the other's a necessary part of the human diet, but it doesn't take a chemist to know that a chemical reaction is a materialist dialectic... or does it? My point was that the different reactants have different products, and the qualitative nature of the products is beyond the description of dialectics.

That is why I remarked that thebest dialectics could do on causality is "Shit happens", it simply is not capable of answering anything beyond that. It is the same answer that is given for chemical reactions too, it's rather disappointing.


Protons remain constant, otherwise substances would oscillate wildly between one element and another. That's not really answering my question, my point was that there is not a precise relation between quantitative changes and qualitative changes.

Again, it's coarse-grained to "Shit happens" at best.

Or at least that's what the dialecticians can get out of dialectics applied to anything.


I'm not sure that dialectical materialism is designed to answer that question, but either way, I can't answer that question at all! That is the point I was getting to: dialectics cannot really get down to the detail that is needed for science.

It is coarse-grained too much (it generalizes too much) when applied.


Isn't that rather prejudicial and narrow-minded for a Marxist?
No, being naive is not a requirement for being a Marxist.

Further it is based off of my (recent) experiences with philosophers of science when discussing quantum gravity. It turns out I wasn't calculating out an equation according to the whims of the philosophers, yet it was mathematically correct.

Philosophers are the back seat drivers to science, that's what they've become anyways. Dialectical Materialists have always played this role, however, and that is my major pain.

It's one thing to say "Well, if I were doing the experiment (or calculation), I would do such and such." It's another thing completely to say "You're doing it completely wrong, even though I don't have a clue how to do it nor have I ever done it, so take my word on it as a philosopher that I know more about what you are doing than you."

Of course most philosophers don't see it as such.


I don't expect you to teach me something so abundantly complex as calculus, but if we could spend the time in doing so (in person), it would be quite an exhilirating experience. Calculus isn't that difficult, it's simply multiplication and division with a few extra properties (if you think about it correctly).

I doubt however that I'll ever meet you or anyone on this board in person in the near future (year or two). But don't intimidate yourself by saying "Ah, I can't learn about that, I need to take a class on it." Just be sure not to fool yourself while studying this stuff independently, because fooling yourself is the easiest thing to do.


Ah, once again, we enter into a dialectic! An increase in energy, quantitative change, will eventually cause the bonds of a molecule to break, qualitative change. It takes a terrific amount of energy to do so, but a catalyst can lower the activation energy needed. I don't how much energy it takes, or what kind of enzyme breaks the bonds of sodium chloride, but what difference does it make? The necessary quantitative changes must be made in order to qualitatively change the molecule; thus supporting my theory. Prove it, calculate out the ionization energy of NaCl using dialectics. We'll use empiricism to verify your result.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


Weren't you arguing against the prevalence of qualitative leaps?

No, I was trying to show that this could not be a law, since so many things abrogated it.

Plus, I was trying to demonstrate that the notion was too vague to do anything with -- since 'quality' still remains undefined, so does 'leap' and so does 'node'.


Then what's the meaning of this?

It was your point, you tell us.


Am I dreaming, or are you changing your side of the story?

Dreaming, I think.


And yet it's an example commonly used for introducing primary students to arithmatic.. how very odd...

You'll be telling us next that play dough is cooking.


Are you suggesting that someone exhibiting zero brainwaves is thinking or at the very least alive? What is the mind to you Rosa? Does it exist at all to you? How are you capable of thinking, let alone comprehending language, or even written language, like the type you're reading right now?

Since neither you, nor anyone in the entire history of philosophy, can tell us what this strange entity 'the mind' is, this paragraph lacks a meaning.


First of all, I'm saying that thoughts are brainwaves

Once more, how can two 'things' that have different properties be identical (if that is what you are saying)?


I'm neither dualist nor idealist!

And yet you talk as if you are one or the other.


So sorry, but do you understand what I meant to say yet?

That makes two of us

It is clear that you have not thought any of this through.


The proletariat has never gained political power anywhere; your precious vanguard parties made damn sure of that.

Not so in Russia in the winter of 1917.

[angus_mor]

My point was that the different reactants have different products, and the qualitative nature of the products is beyond the description of dialectics.

That is why I remarked that thebest dialectics could do on causality is "Shit happens", it simply is not capable of answering anything beyond that. It is the same answer that is given for chemical reactions too, it's rather disappointing.

It's only disappointing if you're looking for the answers that go beyond the simple dialectics of it, but I'm not saying that there aren't answers to these questions, all I'm saying is that dialectics is correct in its aims. It's like Newtonian Physics; it gives a basic understanding of material interactions, like "for each action, there is an equal, yet opposite reaction," or inertia "shit will keep doing what it's already doing unless acted upon by an outside force," but these simple maxims can't completely explain complex particle physics, like Quantum Mechanics. Dialectics can't replace any manner of science, nor is it meant to. However, it is part of the logical approach to science. Although, I think the dialectical approach would be "shit is the synthesis of its parts."


That is the point I was getting to: dialectics cannot really get down to the detail that is needed for science.

Bingo, bango, bongo. Once understood, there's really no point in thinking about it; you can be completely correct without referencing it at all, just like how you can almost completely ignore Classical Mechanics when approaching Quantum Mechanics. Dialectics isn't essential in understanding Marxism, or anything really, I don't give a shit if you accept it or not, I just think that making a fuss for or against it is stupid, the only reason I'm making a fuss now is because of the latter. That's why I think that codifying it into law is stupid, and condemning dialecticians like witches is just as stupid.


That is the point I was getting to: dialectics cannot really get down to the detail that is needed for science.

It is coarse-grained too much (it generalizes too much) when applied.

Indeed; it is an abstract physical approach, but like I said; dialectics isn't meant to replace science.


No, being naive is not a requirement for being a Marxist.

Did you just call yourself naive? Finally; something we can all agree with.


Further it is based off of my (recent) experiences with philosophers of science when discussing quantum gravity. It turns out I wasn't calculating out an equation according to the whims of the philosophers, yet it was mathematically correct.

Wow, those assholes are full o'shit, but you can't lump me in with them; I'm not trying to use philosophy to explain away anything. You're quite a brilliant mathematician, this I can't deny, even though I don't have the knowledge to verify it.


It's one thing to say "Well, if I were doing the experiment (or calculation), I would do such and such." It's another thing completely to say "You're doing it completely wrong, even though I don't have a clue how to do it nor have I ever done it, so take my word on it as a philosopher that I know more about what you are doing than you."

I agree wholeheartedly; I'm not the one saying you're wrong, I'm just saying we're both right.


Calculus isn't that difficult, it's simply multiplication and division with a few extra properties (if you think about it correctly).

I doubt however that I'll ever meet you or anyone on this board in person in the near future (year or two). But don't intimidate yourself by saying "Ah, I can't learn about that, I need to take a class on it." Just be sure not to fool yourself while studying this stuff independently, because fooling yourself is the easiest thing to do.

I don't doubt myself in the least; I don't think I'm incapable of learning it, but I don't think I can teach myself calculus or even geometry. I'm working fulltime and waiting for my fiancée to graduate from secondary school at the moment, but once she does we're going to study together in the fall of next year.


Prove it, calculate out the ionization energy of NaCl using dialectics. We'll use empiricism to verify your result.

The answer goes beyond dialectics, as you've said. The fact that an ionization energy is needed to break the bond is the point I'm making.


No, I was trying to show that this could not be a law, since so many things abrogated it.

Well, as I've stated, I agree with you there, but from what I've seen, quantitative changes must be made prior to qualitative variation.


Plus, I was trying to demonstrate that the notion was too vague to do anything with -- since 'quality' still remains undefined, so does 'leap' and so does 'node'.


quality - noun* 1. an essential or distinctive characteristic, property, or attribute.

Leap and node are completely inaccurate descriptions of the dialectic, but I was only using them in reference to your work. If by nodal point you meant the point at which there is a qualitative leap, ie, qualitative change, then that is what I mean.


It was your point, you tell us.

My point was that numbers are parts, you said I was confusing them with a jig-saw puzzle, and then I quoted the dictionary to prove you wrong.


Dreaming, I think.

No, you definitely changed your story:


And, numbers are not parts. You are confusing this with a jig-saw puzzle.

Here you are saying that numbers are not parts, and when I corrected you, you said:


Yet again, not my point.

If it's not your point, then what's the point in saying it?


You'll be telling us next that play dough is cooking.

You can cook playdough, but it won't be edible.


Since neither you, nor anyone in the entire history of philosophy, can tell us what this strange entity 'the mind' is, this paragraph lacks a meaning.

You're good at avoiding questions, ya know that? Can you just answer this one question for me? Is someone thinking when they register zero Hz in brainwaves?


Once more, how can two 'things' that have different properties be identical (if that is what you are saying)?

You can't tell specifically what someone is thinking through an EEG analysis, but you can tell how they're thinking, what state of mind they're in, the focus of cognition:


Theta waves can be seen during hypnagogic states such as trances, hypnosis, deep day dreams, lucid dreaming and light sleep and the preconscious state just upon waking, and just before falling asleep.

Alpha (Berger's wave) is the frequency range from 8 Hz to 12 Hz. It is characteristic of a relaxed, alert state of consciousness.

Sensorimotor rhythm (SMR) is a middle frequency (about 12–16 Hz) associated with physical stillness and body presence.

Beta is the frequency range above 12 Hz. Low amplitude beta with multiple and varying frequencies is often associated with active, busy or anxious thinking and active concentration.

Gamma is the frequency range approximately 26–100 Hz. Gamma rhythms appear to be involved in higher mental activity, including perception, problem solving, fear, and consciousness. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwaves

Given there is a link between concentration of thought and brainwaves, I think that the empirical evidence suggests that the two are one and the same, especially since one who exhibits zero brainwaves clearly isn't thinking at all or even alive.


And yet you talk as if you are one or the other.

How so?


It is clear that you have not thought any of this through.

How can you think if thoughts don't exist? Didja think that one through? If you are thinking about this then you have already proven yourself wrong.


Not so in Russia in the winter of 1917.

Any amount of workers' control in Russia was first and foremost subject to the Communist Party of Russia, which was compromised by "War Communism." Workers' democracy was further discontinued by the NEP, and the Soviets had been stripped of any power by then, rendering them nothing more than an organ of the state apparatus. Power came to rest solely with the Politburo and to a lesser extent the Central Committee of the CPSU. That's democratic centralism for ya.

[ComradeRed]

It's only disappointing if you're looking for the answers that go beyond the simple dialectics of it, but I'm not saying that there aren't answers to these questions, all I'm saying is that dialectics is correct in its aims. It's like Newtonian Physics; it gives a basic understanding of material interactions, like "for each action, there is an equal, yet opposite reaction," or inertia "shit will keep doing what it's already doing unless acted upon by an outside force," but these simple maxims can't completely explain complex particle physics, like Quantum Mechanics. Dialectics can't replace any manner of science, nor is it meant to. However, it is part of the logical approach to science. Although, I think the dialectical approach would be "shit is the synthesis of its parts." Then what the hell is the point of dialectics if it can't tell us anything meaningful? :huh:

Further, you generalize newtonian mechanics to philosophical precepts. That's not what it is in the least. It's a set of equations, which tells us meaningful things about reality.

Worse, when doing science no one says "Huh...what does my method tell me to do?" Scientists observe reality, then try to replicate conditions, and explain what's going on. Refer to Feynman's first volume as to the methods of science that is used.

You'll note the absence of dialectics amongst what real scientists' methods are.


Bingo, bango, bongo. Once understood, there's really no point in thinking about it; you can be completely correct without referencing it at all, just like how you can almost completely ignore Classical Mechanics when approaching Quantum Mechanics. Dialectics isn't essential in understanding Marxism, or anything really, I don't give a shit if you accept it or not, I just think that making a fuss for or against it is stupid, the only reason I'm making a fuss now is because of the latter. That's why I think that codifying it into law is stupid, and condemning dialecticians like witches is just as stupid. That's my point though, and if you follow it to its logical conclusion it would then follow that dialectics is useless as it is not essential or necessary to understand "anything really"!

Being the lazy sod that I am, I drop dialectics like a hot potato. It's excess baggage that is un-necessary.

The problem is that (and I know this from personal experience over and over again as a theoretical physicist) dialecticians claim that nature works according to dialectics (though they start by saying the opposite and then work to derive nature from dialectics).

That's just wrong!


Indeed; it is an abstract physical approach, but like I said; dialectics isn't meant to replace science. Then why bother with dialectics at all?


Did you just call yourself naive? Finally; something we can all agree with. Good English skills, I'm calling your "being open minded" as the equivalent to "being naive". Something you would know all about :rolleyes:


Wow, those assholes are full o'shit, but you can't lump me in with them; I'm not trying to use philosophy to explain away anything. You're quite a brilliant mathematician, this I can't deny, even though I don't have the knowledge to verify it. See the above, dialecticians have historically tried to derive reality from their method (supersymmetry anyone?). That's what really boils my blood...along with the other "philosophers of science" who are the backseat drivers to science (I actually recently was doing a calculation on a blackboard, and this philosopher of science stops me to tell me that I'm doing science wrong :lol: he didn't even have a clue what I was calculating either!).

And don't call me brilliant. I'm no more brilliant than anyone else here; I just put more time to studying math and science than others have. It's something that's relative in reference (so sayeth Einstein :lol:). I'm utterly convinced anyone could do this if they put as much work into it as I have (or this and additional stuff!).


I agree wholeheartedly; I'm not the one saying you're wrong, I'm just saying we're both right. This is where I disagree, because my point is that if you do science, you never stop to think of your method!

What you do think about, however, is what you are trying to accomplish. E.g. my work in quantum gravity is something that revolves around a few general equations and ideas (the ideas are easier to understand as ideas for the non-mathematically savvy), things like gravity's not a force, the total energy from gravity is 0, etc.

These are just general principles that I need to work around, and doing it by any method necessary provided the answer makes sense and explains a great deal of phenomena is perfectly acceptable. There is no algorithm, method, recipe, or superstition used when trying to figure out a new paradigm!

That's just the fact of the matter! The dialecticians are asserting that you can, from these general principles of quantum gravity that have been laid down (not by me, but by physicists of olde), somehow magically get quantum gravity. That's just not how you do it, and I think that no dialectician will ever understand that until they try it.


The answer goes beyond dialectics, as you've said. The fact that an ionization energy is needed to break the bond is the point I'm making. What I am curious about now is since dialectics seems to be so coarse-grained that it can only tell us simple things, then how can they be used effectively (i.e. something beyond "Shit happens")?

[Bretty123]

Then what the hell is the point of dialectics if it can't tell us anything meaningful?

I just read something that Wittgenstein touched on this subject. He says he isn't debating the correctness of the concept one has, but what is its use?

So I agree with you CR.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


I just read something that Wittgenstein touched on this subject. He says he isn't debating the correctness of the concept one has, but what is its use?

You have to recall that Wittgenstein said many other things about meaning too -- indeed, we should look at how we use that word.

So, there was for him no single way to determine meaning, mainly because there are many senses to the term.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


Well, as I've stated, I agree with you there, but from what I've seen, quantitative changes must be made prior to qualitative variation.

Hence my puzzlement over your perserveration.

Why are you trying to resurrect the dead?

As here:


Leap and node are completely inaccurate descriptions of the dialectic, but I was only using them in reference to your work. If by nodal point you meant the point at which there is a qualitative leap, ie, qualitative change, then that is what I mean.

Once more, you have to use ill-defined terms, possibly dead metaphors, to help you out.

That is one reason why I call this 'theory' 'Mickey Mouse science'; it's a joke and you do yourself no favours by perserverating still.


My point was that numbers are parts, you said I was confusing them with a jig-saw puzzle, and then I quoted the dictionary to prove you wrong.

Numbers, of course, are not parts; to be parts they would have to be objects (of some sort), at which point it will be clear that you will have confused them with numerals.


No, you definitely changed your story:

Not so, you responded with:


I'm sorry, what's that about parts not being numbers again?

Parts being or not being numbers is not the same as my assertion that numbers are not parts.

You responded to my negative claim about numbers with a question about parts.

Notice the difference?


You can cook playdough, but it won't be edible.

You are either being disingenous here, or helpfully fulfilling my prediction.


You're good at avoiding questions, ya know that? Can you just answer this one question for me? Is someone thinking when they register zero Hz in brainwaves?

You are good at asking empty questions, but do not like to be reminded of that fact.

In response to the last part: is the person dead?

If so, no.

If not, you will need to ask that person, or those trying to revive him/her, not me.


You can't tell specifically what someone is thinking through an EEG analysis, but you can tell how they're thinking, what state of mind they're in, the focus of cognition:

I deny this, and you will need to do more than quote Wiki to prove it.


I think that the empirical evidence suggests that the two are one and the same,

At best this 'shows' that 'two processes/things' are correlated.

It does not show that there are two things, or that these 'two' processes, with totally different properties, are identical.

That is a logical problem you keep ducking.

And, that is of course independent of your incapacity to show that there is such a thing as the 'mind', or that 'thinking' goes on on the brain, or anywhere else for that matter.

Or even that there is such a 'thing/process' as thinking.

These are all assumptions you share with dualists/idealists.


How so?

See above.


How can you think if thoughts don't exist?

This is yet another empty sentence, or it is until you show that there is such a 'thing/process' as 'thought' -- or better, what this could possibly mean.

Notice, I am not denying this, just questioning your odd use of words.


Any amount of workers' control in Russia was first and foremost subject to the Communist Party of Russia, which was compromised by "War Communism." Workers' democracy was further discontinued by the NEP, and the Soviets had been stripped of any power by then, rendering them nothing more than an organ of the state apparatus. Power came to rest solely with the Politburo and to a lesser extent the Central Committee of the CPSU. That's democratic centralism for ya.

Not so, the soviets were dominated by bolshevik workers in 1917.

And note I did say the winter of 1917; why you refer to later is a mystery.

Any more on this: take it to the history or the politics section.

[angus_mor]

CR:


Then what the hell is the point of dialectics if it can't tell us anything meaningful?

I didn't say it isn't meaningful, it just doesn't tell us everything; it's a starting point.


Further, you generalize newtonian mechanics to philosophical precepts. That's not what it is in the least. It's a set of equations, which tells us meaningful things about reality.

I'm not leaving it simply to those devices; it expands on these precepts with functions for velocity, acceleration, force, momentum, energy, etc. Those equations describe the quantitative exchanges that occur within the actions and reactions described by Newton's third law. Kinetic energy is transferred from a pool cue to a billiard ball, which now has momentum. This momentum carries through to another billiard ball, which is again exchanged to this second object. But there is no transfer of kinetic energy without a first object and a second object. That is the dialectical principle in classical mechanics; an object exchanges energy with another object, the synthesis is a change in the frame of reference. Another key principle of the dialectic is that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only changed. If there is no change, there is no synthesis. The dialectic acknowledges that synthesis incorporates the two bodies in some way, and since both matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, this must be the case.


Worse, when doing science no one says "Huh...what does my method tell me to do?" Scientists observe reality, then try to replicate conditions, and explain what's going on. Refer to Feynman's first volume as to the methods of science that is used.

My methods don't tell me what to do, I only use them to analyze what is happening; analysis is science in and of itself.


You'll note the absence of dialectics amongst what real scientists' methods are.

What about the scientific method? Where an observable phenomenon contradicts a given thesis, thus pointing to the need for further inquiry, examination and experimentation? Like I said; observing the dialectic is the starting point of scientific inquiry.


Then why bother with dialectics at all?

Because ignoring them doesn't make them magically disappear.


That's my point though, and if you follow it to its logical conclusion it would then follow that dialectics is useless as it is not essential or necessary to understand "anything really"!

It is necessary for understanding material exchanges of energy, but if you prefer to call it classical mechanics, it's just the same. I like to use both phrases.


The problem is that (and I know this from personal experience over and over again as a theoretical physicist) dialecticians claim that nature works according to dialectics (though they start by saying the opposite and then work to derive nature from dialectics).

That's just wrong!

Indeed it is, but that is something I do not do; matter is structured upon itself, and nothing more. But once matter is divided into seperate entities, it can then exchange energy from one entity to another. I'm sure you agree that this is correct, but why is interpreting this as dialectical incorrect?


See the above, dialecticians have historically tried to derive reality from their method (supersymmetry anyone?). That's what really boils my blood...along with the other "philosophers of science" who are the backseat drivers to science (I actually recently was doing a calculation on a blackboard, and this philosopher of science stops me to tell me that I'm doing science wrong he didn't even have a clue what I was calculating either!).

What a douche bag, that really sucks, but didja notice that I didn't do that?


And don't call me brilliant. I'm no more brilliant than anyone else here; I just put more time to studying math and science than others have. It's something that's relative in reference (so sayeth Einstein ). I'm utterly convinced anyone could do this if they put as much work into it as I have (or this and additional stuff!).

I didn't call you the greatest, most intelligent being to have ever materialized, I'm just saying that you're brilliant period, and intelligence is nothing without effort. I believe it was Einstein who said, "Genius is one part inspiration, and nine parts perspiration."


This is where I disagree, because my point is that if you do science, you never stop to think of your method!

If you never question your methods, then how can you be sure you're doing it correctly? If you stare at the sun without special equipment and fry your retinas, certainly you must rethink your methods a bit.


What I am curious about now is since dialectics seems to be so coarse-grained that it can only tell us simple things, then how can they be used effectively (i.e. something beyond "Shit happens")?

By correctly identifying what causes shit to happen. First, a person; first object, eats a sandwhich; second object, which is processed by the digestive system; synthesis. What can be used by the body is removed from the intestinal tract by the villi, which carries the nutrients to cells in the body through the blood stream. Once in the cell, it can be utilized through Aerobic Cellular Respiration to convert glucose and O2 into ATP which stores the energy needed to perform the actions of the cell. The matter that can not be used is carried and expelled by the body; then shit happens!


This is basically an algorithm. The "fitness function" is:

We have a population of "humans"
Their "material conditions" is the instructions on how to build commodities
Not all humans are identical, the relations to the means of production creates diversity.
Each class has a way of solving a problem or problems.

Each time step:

Each local class has to solve some problem or problems.
The class' "fitness" is rated according to this test.
Reproduction involves expanding a class.
Crucially, some change in the means of production must be possible, otherwise no new solutions can arise.
One of the major sources of change is technology.
Another source of change is simply introduction of new commodities.
The less fit simply don't rule.
The new population of creatures arises from the fittest old ones and so satistically are more like the fitter end of the previous population (class evolutionary dynamics).
The old regime die to make way for the new.
The new population is revolutionary itself, and is tested in its turn, and so on.

This should be it :) The rough outline for the mathematics of Historical materialism.

You define seperate classes that have seperate interests, but all you did was ignore how these class interests conflict; it's just a drawn out way of saying:

1. The basis of human society is how humans produce the means of subsistence.

2. There is a division of labour into social classes (relations of production) based on property ownership where some people live from the labour of others.

3. The system of class division is dependent on the mode of production.

4. Society moves from stage to stage when the dominant class is displaced by a new emerging class.

Rosa:


Why are you trying to resurrect the dead?

First of all, nobody's hooking up electrodes to corpses. Second of all, if dialectics wasn't alive in the first place, then what am I resurrecting? Finally, why are you anthropomorphing dialectics? I smell idealism!


Once more, you have to use ill-defined terms, possibly dead metaphors, to help you out.

That is one reason why I call this 'theory' 'Mickey Mouse science'; it's a joke and you do yourself no favours by perserverating still.

^ Abstract Assertation ^


Numbers, of course, are not parts; to be parts they would have to be objects (of some sort), at which point it will be clear that you will have confused them with numerals.

Isn't a numeral only a symbol, letter or word that expresses a number? Isn't that the same thing?


You are either being disingenous here, or helpfully fulfilling my prediction.

The former and definitely not the latter; it's fun to be a smart ass!


In response to the last part: is the person dead?

Anyone who exhibits zero brainwaves is quite dead, I assure you. But dead or no, if you exhibit zero brainwaves, you are definitely not thinking.


I deny this, and you will need to do more than quote Wiki to prove it.


Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

All hail Rosa Lichtenstein, Queen of Denial!


And, that is of course independent of your incapacity to show that there is such a thing as the 'mind', or that 'thinking' goes on on the brain, or anywhere else for that matter.

So you're not thinking? No wonder I can't get an answer out of you! But the fact that you can find these correlations between brainwaves and thoughts means at the very least that thought occurs in the brain. Afterall, you're not gonna find brainwaves in your heart!


Not so, the soviets were dominated by bolshevik workers in 1917.

And note I did say the winter of 1917; why you refer to later is a mystery.

Any more on this: take it to the history or the politics section.

There were soviets to be sure, but they never gained control over anything, and once power was actually established, this continued. Furthermore, they were only tolerated because they were bolshevik workers, as you said.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AM:


Finally, why are you anthropomorphing dialectics? I smell idealism!

As in, Hegel is dead, but you keep trying to revive the corpse. [He is dead, I think you will agree.]


Abstract Assertation

Ditto.


Isn't a numeral only a symbol, letter or word that expresses a number? Isn't that the same thing?

That is like thinking your name is identical with you.


Anyone who exhibits zero brainwaves is quite dead, I assure you. But dead or no, if you exhibit zero brainwaves, you are definitely not thinking.

Once more, this is too ill-defined to comment upon.


All hail Rosa Lichtenstein, Queen of Denial!

Just so long as you remember your place in the pecking order, sonny.


So you're not thinking? No wonder I can't get an answer out of you! But the fact that you can find these correlations between brainwaves and thoughts means at the very least that thought occurs in the brain. Afterall, you're not gonna find brainwaves in your heart!

At best this shows a correlation, not an identity.

And you have still failed to say what this 'inner process' called 'thinking' is. So your words here are devoid of meaning.

[A rhetorical question, that uses this empty word, is not an argument.]

And, when you manage to get your head around the logical problem (of how two 'things/processes' with totally different properties can be identical, something you keep dodging, get back to me.


There were soviets to be sure, but they never gained control over anything, and once power was actually established, this continued. Furthermore, they were only tolerated because they were bolshevik workers, as you said.

Take this to the sections I mentioned.

[ComradeRed]

I didn't say it isn't meaningful, it just doesn't tell us everything; it's a starting point.
No, I'm the one saying it doesn't do anything meaningful. It doesn't even provide a coherent starting point.

Did ya notice the non-response to my quantum gravity challenge? I did.


I'm not leaving it simply to those devices; it expands on these precepts with functions for velocity, acceleration, force, momentum, energy, etc. Those equations describe the quantitative exchanges that occur within the actions and reactions described by Newton's third law. Kinetic energy is transferred from a pool cue to a billiard ball, which now has momentum. This momentum carries through to another billiard ball, which is again exchanged to this second object. But there is no transfer of kinetic energy without a first object and a second object. The problem is that this dialectical approach gives us nothing meaningful, it doesn't tell us anything exactly!


That is the dialectical principle in classical mechanics; an object exchanges energy with another object, the synthesis is a change in the frame of reference. This makes no physical sense, changes in energy doesn't change the reference frame.


Another key principle of the dialectic is that energy is neither created nor destroyed, only changed. If there is no change, there is no synthesis. The dialectic acknowledges that synthesis incorporates the two bodies in some way, and since both matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, this must be the case. --emphasis added

This also makes no sense, there is change in the form of energy, but there is no change, so there is no synthesis, but there is change and there should be a synthesis? :huh:


My methods don't tell me what to do, I only use them to analyze what is happening; analysis is science in and of itself. How can you analyze how to drive a car without having ever driven a car? You can't, not really.

Likewise how can you analyze science without having ever done science?


What about the scientific method? Where an observable phenomenon contradicts a given thesis, thus pointing to the need for further inquiry, examination and experimentation? Like I said; observing the dialectic is the starting point of scientific inquiry. There is no "scientific method", if you can come up with an explanation of what's observed and it's accurate, then fine. It doesn't matter how you got it inasmuch as how correct it is!

Further, the dialectic begins with word games not observation; every attempt I have seen that tries to apply dialectics to reality results in trying to derive reality from dialectics. That's called "idealism". It has a terrible record in science, very rarely (if ever) has it ever succeeded.


Because ignoring them [dialectics] doesn't make them magically disappear.
Ah, so paying attention to them magically makes them mystically perceive truth instaneously?

Further that's not an argument for dialectics; I asked "Why bother with dialectics" and you replied that they won't stop existing if we stop bothering with them. That does not equate with them being correct!


It is necessary for understanding material exchanges of energy, but if you prefer to call it classical mechanics, it's just the same. I like to use both phrases. Well, for one thing that's not really correct; what about the "exchanges" from measuring? Or are you forgetting that you, the observer, are also a system that needs to be taken into account?


Indeed it is, but that is something I do not do; matter is structured upon itself, and nothing more. But once matter is divided into seperate entities, it can then exchange energy from one entity to another. I'm sure you agree that this is correct, but why is interpreting this as dialectical incorrect? I can't agree with this as correct because I can't understand what the hell you're talking about.


What a douche bag, that really sucks, but didja notice that I didn't do that? You just haven't been studying dialectics long enough to realize that you, as a dialectician, "must" do it.

If you look at some of them (Woods comes to mind), they are real "douche bags" about it.


I didn't call you the greatest, most intelligent being to have ever materialized, I'm just saying that you're brilliant period, and intelligence is nothing without effort. I believe it was Einstein who said, "Genius is one part inspiration, and nine parts perspiration." Not having met a genius, I can't really say; though I have once met a Nobel Laureate (however you'd like to spell that ;)) and compared to him I'm not brilliant. This is really irrelevant though.


If you never question your methods, then how can you be sure you're doing it correctly? If you stare at the sun without special equipment and fry your retinas, certainly you must rethink your methods a bit. See my above point, if you never drive a car, how can you analyze how to drive a car?

If you don't do science, how can you analyze how to do science? You can't!

It turns out, at the end of the day, method doesn't matter provided it is consistent with what reality says!


By correctly identifying what causes shit to happen. First, a person; first object, eats a sandwhich; second object, which is processed by the digestive system; synthesis. What can be used by the body is removed from the intestinal tract by the villi, which carries the nutrients to cells in the body through the blood stream. Once in the cell, it can be utilized through Aerobic Cellular Respiration to convert glucose and O2 into ATP which stores the energy needed to perform the actions of the cell. The matter that can not be used is carried and expelled by the body; then shit happens! You really dodged my point here; look into light cones and think about the real complexity of causality (there is a book too that delves into the complexity of causality which you are willing to ignore called "Causality" I think, written by some Comp Sci professor at UCLA).


You define seperate classes that have seperate interests, but all you did was ignore how these class interests conflict; it's just a drawn out way of saying:

1. The basis of human society is how humans produce the means of subsistence.

2. There is a division of labour into social classes (relations of production) based on property ownership where some people live from the labour of others.

3. The system of class division is dependent on the mode of production.

4. Society moves from stage to stage when the dominant class is displaced by a new emerging class. You have to begin with definitions in math, otherwise you begin with nothing. What I am trying to do is derive this from complex dynamical systems, rather than impose these things onto the model.

The interaction of classes based on independent interests will result in class struggle, that's just how a complex dynamical system works!

So, no, I did not "ignore" class conflict, I simply derived it. That's what you do with math!