Good to make your acquaintance , Ralph. There was _another_ big thread debating Engels idea that there is a dialectics of nature, and especially as to whether Marx agreed with Engels. I'll bring link that.
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1998-December/012853.htm l http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1999-January/013151.html M-TH: Engels's formulations on dialectics Andrew Wayne Austin marxism-thaxis Mon, 4 Jan 1999 14:19:48 -0500 (EST) Previous message: M-TH: Engels's formulations on dialectics Next message: M-TH: Engels's formulations on dialectics Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] This will get anyone into the Thaxis archive point for the second really long thread. Jim F. participated. Charles ^^^^^^^ Reading this old thread of my late beloved Lisa brings back a lot of memories. I do not, remember, however, how this discussion proceeded from there. I do remember that it was an unfinished discussion, and that I had it in the back of my mind to engage Lisa once again attempting to divert her attention from dead-end leads and toward another direction. She was engaged and committed to the study of this material,. and to engagement with the marxists on the lists she moderated, perhaps much more than it or them deserved. Lisa had a voracious, unquenchable passion for knowledge and synthesis, and she studied a variety of subjects in addition to her professional scientific competence. I still think my interventions were sound. I did have to deal with the consequences of using a word without checking its meaning in the dictionary--"prevarication." Occasionally in our private discussions we would step on one another's toes, but she couldn't get enough of them. I remember that I had it in mind to discuss with Lisa something that was confusing her at the time, still struggling with Engels. It was on the question of dialectical "laws", which she tacitly assumed, as do sloppy Marxist thinkers on the subject (i.e. most of them), that these "laws" are something like laws of nature. Engels himself is responsible for this half-assed thinking, which is why I don't think it is useful to invest oneself in what Engels literally says. I meant to broaden the discussion to get Lisa out of struggling with an arguing against what is essentially a dead-end position. But then Lisa died suddenly, and this conversation, like many other conversations between us, was cruelly ended by circumstance. Sigh. At 06:09 PM 2/18/2005 -0500, Charles Brown wrote: >Dialectics of Nature > >ROSSERJB at jmu.edu <http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis> -TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically Andrew Wayne Austin marxism-thaxis Tue, 5 Jan 1999 14:03:17 -0500 (EST) Previous message: M-TH: Re: Marx conceiving of nature dialectically Next message: M-TH: Political Prisoner's post Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Charles Brown wrote: >I would say Marxism has a REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION that the universe is >material. This is stronger than agnosticism or Kantianism, but weaker >than what I have put on this thread. This means that until something pops >up that is not material, then we presume and anticipate AND INVESTIGATE >everything presuming it is material. Two interrelated problems with this argument. First, if we presume that everything is material then we run into the same problem that we do when we presume that everything is dialectical or that everything is God or that everything is ideas, etc. Second, and this follows from the first, if we are precise in defining what we mean by material, then we can only do so by differentiating it from what is not material. Charles seems to believe that everything in the universe is material and that there is nothing that contradicts this presumption. But are the contents of thoughts material? No; they are ideas. And it cannot be said that the content of thoughts is a reflection of the material world for a very basic reason: Is God part of the material world? Is God not content for some thought? No, God is not part of the material world, and, yes, God is the content of thought, therefore not all thought is material, and if some thought is not material (actually no thought is material) then not everything that exists is material since surely people have thought. Therefore Charles' premise fails on the facts, not only on logic. There is more than material and thought in Marx's system; there is the social world, and there is the physical substratum. If we define material precisely, the way Marx does, then we don't run into the problems of vulgar philosophical materialism. >Otherwise, the fundamental question of philosophical materialism would be >revisited by every scientific investigation. First, revisiting assumptions in scientific investigation is extremely important and this procedure is more a part of Marxian analysis then any other form of analysis since Marx's approach is simultaneously a scientific realist position and a sociology of knowledge. Second, philosophical materialism is rejected by Marx, anyway, and is replaced by a practical materialism, so the point is sort of moot. >Marx even uses the Latin literary allusion "immortal death" as a paradox >similar to "change is the only constant" or the "non-universal as >universal" as it has been formulated on this thread. I'll quote it at >length when I bring the book in. The passages in my post were extensive quotes from the relevant section. What is to be gained by quoting this again? Unless Charles really plans to show how that passage means something other than what I said it means I don't see the benefit. >On the recurrent issue on this thread of all change being dialectical >making it meaningless. I don't think Jim F. has succeeded in >demonstrating that. Nobody has to demonstrate the point; it is illogical to say that all change is dialectical. The brute fact that reality contradicts the proposition is just icing on the cake. >Dialectical change is actually the COMBINATION of quantitative and >qualitative change and the transformation of the one into the other AND >VICA VERSA. Dialectics also holds that qualitative change turns into >quantitative. Of course, because this way the universal dialectic is an even more thorough-going self-sealing argument. You have it both ways coming. >We need a definition of "heuristic" from Jim F. I will provide a definition. A heuristic is a tentative and flexible scheme or model that indicates to the investigator systemic elements and relations that may be important to attend to in order to explain or understand the behavior or character of a given system. It is a tool for discovery. A heuristic model is not a theory. Many different theories can emerge from a single heuristic model. A heuristic model is neither true nor false, only more or less productive. The model of social reality, and social reality "in itself," are not the same thing; a model is a symbolic representation of social reality at variable levels of abstraction. Using a heuristic model has a twofold purpose: (1) it is a flexible framework that orders our perceptions of reality (the empirical/factual world); and (2) it serves as a conceptual toolbox for theory construction and a means for furthering investigation. It is a mistake often made to present the conceptual categories generated by historical materialism as transhistorical entities (note that there is a difference between "transhistoric" and "transhistorical"). To assert rigidified historical categories (such as "imperialism") is contrary to the Marxian method. This reduces a science to the level of ideology. Andy _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
