I don't know how you construct your web pages, but I am unable to fully
access this page using Internet Explorer. My computer keeps freezing
up. After numerous attempts I have been able to get to the beginning of
note 18. Yet I can access presumably much larger size files on other
sites. I don't know what the problem is here. I see no purpose served by
the blue border on the left side of the page. It seems you are using MS
Front Page. Perhaps the HMTL code needs to be streamlined. When I use
Dreamweaver it strips out all of the crap Microsoft puts in. On the other
hand, I am easily able to access the whole page using Opera, although I'm
having a problem with the Magritte graphic.
A few quick notes on the content.
(1) The battle being waged here pertains to the natural sciences (and
mathematics) and hence there is a direct conflict between dialectical
conceptions and scientific knowledge. In other words, a war of
hard-science perspectives. That so much energy invested in Marxism should
be devoted to a subject matter having little to do _directly_ with
Marxism's subject matter itself is a curious historical phenomenon, and to
a large extent an unfortunate one. However, Engels' first interventions,
as later marxists', were often motivated not by the need to create a
positive ontology but to oppose obfuscations produced by the bourgeois
world, i.e. as critique. This is very important.
(2) The flaws in all the anecdotal uses of dialectical 'logic' are
customarily predicated on these implicit fallacies:
(a) logical abstractions are conflated with physical processes (also:
subjective and objective dialectics are conflated): logical ''laws" are
conflated with physical "laws";
(b) 'lawfulness' implies universal application rather than partial
approaches to the abstract characterization of selected phenomena.
This also enhances the confusion surrounding 'unity of
opposites'--dialectical contradiction or disequilibrium between opposing
forces. And confusing causal determination with logical description.
(3) A prominent feature of the argument is the alleged inconsistency
between the need to remove contradictions in theories and the assertion
that (physical) reality is contradictory. (John Rees is taken as an
example, ostensibly a more serious example because of his failed attempts
at qualification. Various Trot hacks such as Woods and Grant are also
cited.) However, there is an interesting and yet unresolved question here,
as the issue of contradiction involves limit cases: the limits of our
knowledge in various areas at given points in time, the limitations and
nature of basic concepts, totalities, the infinitely small, the infinitely
large. (See note 14.)
(4) The argument that dialectical attributions can not possibly be
empirical is reminiscent of the logical empiricism of Philipp Frank, who
would place such concerns in the realm of metaphysics.
(5) The application of dialectical notions to the nature of capitalism is
similarly ridiculed, based on ridiculous examples. However, the theory of
value, or the nature of the relation between the forces and relations of
production are not taken up here.
(6) The partial acceptance or rejection of Engels' ideas (e.g. by
'dialectical biology' is not adequately explained). A key aspect of
Engels' appeal is here overlooked, that dialectical materialism is also a
form of emergent materialism.
(7) I was the one who dug out Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels on
mathematics and made it available to others. The range of evaluation of
Marxist mathematicians to Marx's mathematical mss is rather odd. Dirk
Struik seems to have been purely descriptive, while Paulus Gerdes makes
extravagant claims for Marx, and Raya Dunayskaya's disciples are clearly
out of their minds. In general, a peculiar deference for Marx (and
sometimes Engels) is maintained, even by people who don't sanction certain
conceptual abuses.
At 02:55 PM 3/1/2006 +0000, Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
Ralph,
As far as my comments on wave-particle duality were concerened, I was of
course not trying to resolve this paradox (how could I? I am not a physicist!).
I was merely pointing out that given the thesis that all of reality is
contradictory, dialecticians should advise physicists to stop trying to
resolve this paradox, since they have an a priori solution to it.
In that case Physics can only advance by ignoring this advice.
In the Essay from which this is taken I give much more detail, but since
you have skim-read what i have posted, you missed it.
[I did try to tell Charles that this is why I have posted all this stuff --
to stop me having to keep making these points!]
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm
In Note 14, near the bottom of the page (and in the main body of the Essay
linked to this note).
And I only posted this in my last e-mail to Charles to show him that my
ideas are original, they are not hackneyed objections to DM (or 90% of
them are not!).
RL
_______________________________________________
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
