Ok, let's look at what you have posted:
rosa mystifies the relationship between two stages of investigation
It is in fact impossible to mystify something that was already mysterious.
the first is the analysis stage, in which the process is viewed in its relations and in its development, and is understood as the sum of and unity of its internal contradictions.
the three laws of investigation of the analysis stage are revealed in my article 'dialectics' they are
1.the form is the sum of and unity of is elements
2.the elements are opposed to each other and determine each other
3.the form changes as the relationship between the elements change
But this is a dogmatic and
a priori way of viewing change -- something Engels advised you lot not to do:
"Finally, for me there could be no question of superimposing the laws of dialectics on nature but of discovering them in it and developing them from it." [Engels (1976), Anti-Dühring, p.13. Bold emphasis added.]
You:
the next stage of investigation is synthesis in which a process is looked at in a deeper way
i.e.the analysis stage explains the development of the form of society as the result of the struggle between roles in production.
the synthesis stage looks at the behaviours of each role in production and explains exactly why one role in production rose above the other
Fair enough, but what has this got to do with anything I have posted here or anywhere else for that matter?
reading my articles are a way to learn about these different stages
Also, so far, this isn't so.
evolution of consciousness (analysis stage of investigating consciousness) --> philosophy of materialism and the discovery of dialectics (synthesis stage of investigating consciousness)
Once more, what has this got to do with my alleged 'idealism'?
Nothing.
class struggle in the article dialectics (analysis stage of investigating social development)--> Surplus Value (synthesis stage of investigating social development)
Same comment.
the circle of life in the article dialectics is the analysis stage, the synthesis stage would explain how proteins are assembled by RNA, and thus as the animals compete with one another the RNA/DNA changes causing the overall form of an animal species to change.
But, as I have shown, if your theory were true, change would be impossible:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectica...536/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...0&postcount=31
understanding the relationship between the analysis and synthesis stage of investigation or explanation is Lenin's last law of dialectics. "the union of analysis and synthesis' which teaches us that the easiest way to explain something is through the analysis stage, and thus the best way to convince someone that communism is inevitable would be to explain the form of society is the result of the struggle between roles in production, and that the form of society changes as roles rise to prominence and other fall, so communism is the next stage which will arrive when the workers have reconstructed the social relationship that enslaves them.
before teaching someone this, it would be necessary to prove the laws of investigation of the analysis stage. by learning the union of analysis and synthesis through my articles, not only are people converted into revolutionaries, but revolutionaries who understand that the best way to convince others of the inevitability of communism is through teaching the rules of investigation of analysis which sets up the discovery of 'the union of analysis and synthesis' for that person, converting them into somebody who will spread dialectics as well.
Again, this has nothing to do with anything I have argued here, or at my site.
So, what is it doing in an article that is supposed to be addressing my alleged 'idealism'?
At last:
Rosa's idealism
she mystifies the relationship between historical materialism (synthesis) and dialectical materialism (rules of investigation of the analysis stage) by claiming dialectical materialism is idealist. to do this she says that forces dont exist
But, even Engels wanted to re-write 'forces' as relative motion, an idea that physicists have adopted this century!
It is expressly to be noted that attraction and repulsion are not regarded here as so-called 'forces', but as simple forms of motion.... [Engels (1954) Dialectics of Nature, pp.70-71. Bold emphasis added.]
You:
the circle of life is made up of forces we can see, animals, plants, etc.
the atom is made up of forces we cant see, forces of attraction, these are the forces rosa claims dont exist. to justify this, the relies on idealist science, that says forces have disappeared, when really they have merely changed their name.
But you can't see forces. And they haven't changed their name, any more than the 'ether' has changed it's name. According to modern physics,
there are no forces, like there is no ether.
she says that some particles are changeless.
protons, electrons & neutrons are arranged into higher forms of matter in the our solar system. the sun has a range of Hydrogen which has one proton and one electron. to Helium which has two electrons and two protons. the range on our earth is from Hydrogen to 'heavy' chemical elements such as lead or plutonium. this is because the force applied by the sun on these planets allows the protons, electrons and neutrons to condense more.
1)
I don't say so,
physicists say so.
2) How does the above show that these particles change?
our solar system is part of the star system which orbit the black hole at the centre of our galaxy. the range of chemical elements in the star system is Hydrogen --> Plutonium. the range of chemical elements in the black hole will be Plutonium --> toward heavier elements. in these conditions under extreme force, the nature of the protons, electrons and neutrons would change allowing them to condense more.
You are guessing here; where's your evidence?
Or are you, unlike Engels, happy to
impose your theory on nature?
as far as we can observe this part of our universe is expanding. inevitably we will find another part of the universe that is doing the opposite, decaying. when we understand the relationship between these two opposed parts, we will be able to understand the development of our own expanding part. later we will understand that these two opposed parts have a unity, which relates to other parts of the universe, and which is, as a whole, determined by these other parts, and which likewise, determines them, developing alongside one another, in spiralling leaps.
Again, how does this show that electrons, photons and protons change?
rosa opportunism lay in that she was trying to prevent people from discovering for themselves 'the union of analysis and synthesis' and has prevented hundreds of people from becoming revolutionaries as a consequence, she even said herself 'where did i ever say i was trying to teach people about revolution' and after 25 years of studying dialectical materialism she finally discovered how in her own little way, she could hold back the communist revolution, nothing lasts forever rosa, you are defeated.
I'm not 'preventing' anything? How could I? Unless you think that over an internet link can stop people finding out for themselves?
And where have I even so much as
suggested that I can "hold back the communist revolution"?
You really must try to stop inventing things to put in my mouth.
nothing lasts forever rosa,
In that case,
when is your theory going to change for the better?
But not by you, if the above is the best you can do!
