Rosa Lichenstein and Anti-Dialectics?
- This topic has 89 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:]Nothing mystical there. No occult forces at work. Nothing occult at all.
Actually, what’s fascinating about Dietzgen for me is that his vision/philosophy is precisely mystical – if you’d told me that the quote you posted was by a Buddhist, I would not have batted an eyelid. What I mean is that Dietzgen (and modern science) share a broad vision of reality that is similar in many respects to that which has been put forward by “mystics” for thousands of years. So yes, it is mystical, but it’s also true. As for occult forces, what could be more occult and mystical than Newton’s force of gravity?
stuartw2112 wrote:As for occult forces, what could be more occult and mystical than Newton’s force of gravity?For Dietzgen gravity is not a force on its own but a description and explanation for particular events we repeatedly and regularly observe and can predict in the world of phenomena. On the other hand, Buddha’s Seventh Heaven is a figment of the imagination and exists as that, ie it’s a real figment of the imagination.
ALB wrote:stuartw2112 wrote:As for occult forces, what could be more occult and mystical than Newton’s force of gravity?For Dietzgen gravity is not a force on its own but a description and explanation for particular events we repeatedly and regularly observe and can predict in the world of phenomena. On the other hand, Buddha’s Seventh Heaven is a figment of the imagination and exists as that, ie it’s a real figment of the imagination.
I’ve just been reading a Buddhist writer talking about the different realms, and he says, in common with every other Buddhist writer I’ve read, that the most important thing to remember is that these realms are “a projection of your own mind”, or, as you have it, a “figment of the imagination and exists as that”. So you’re more Buddhist than you know.But anyway, we weren’t talking about the different realms, but about “the practical world of sense perceptions, [where] there is nothing permanent, nothing homogeneous, nothing beyond nature, nothing like a “thing itself.” Everything is changing, passing, phantomlike, so to say. One phantom is chased by another”. Which couldn’t be more Buddhist (“mystical”) if you tried.
I see, we have now moved away from science and into pure fantasy.
As I said, the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class…
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:I see, we have now moved away from science and into pure fantasy.As I said, the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class…
The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class… Hmm, sounds more like fantasy than science to me. The ruling idea in molecular biology is that information flows from DNA to RNA to protein. A ruling class idea?
Of course, one has to read Marx’s work, as well as that of others, with some sensitivity and with no little common sense.
Here is what he said:
“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch.”
I don’t think we can call the transfer of ‘information’ between certain molecules a ‘ruling idea of the epoch’.
And it’s worth noting that Marx didn’t say that the ideas of the ruling class are the only ruling ideas — had he done so you might have had a point.
But, even so, I must apologise; silly me, I thought I had loggged into a socialist web site.
Or does SPGB stand for ‘Spiritual Party of Great Britain’?
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:As I said, the ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class…yet you have previously said
Rosa Lichenstein wrote:..I explain what I do mean, and why all philosophical theories are non-sensical, at the link I posted earlier.Here it is again:http://www.revforum.com/showthread.php?788-Why-all-Philosophical-Theories-are-Non-SensicalSo explain how you can say the above without being ‘non-sensical’. Why bother quoting Marx now you’ve proved that all philosophical theories are non-sensical? Seems to me there’s a bit of inconsistency going on here, but then I suppose that is necessary for one to be a Leninist.I’ve read the article by the way, there’s a simple equivocation error in the middle of your argument. Can you spot it?
Of course there is an ongoing dialectic between something and nothing. The dialectic that lies at the heart of computing and of genetics: without the absences – such as the white bits around the letters in this comment – there would be no positive meaning. The human mind also structures its apprehensions throught relational methods between object/non object. Leaving aside the bendier aspects of relativity which suggest that light may well be everywhere at once (IIRC), if the Big Bang theory holds, then everything in space/time is related and is just the ongoing expression of the initial explosion of energy constantly transforming itself into higher and lower concentrations of entropy.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Of course there is an ongoing dialectic between something and nothing. The dialectic that lies at the heart of computing and of genetics: without the absences – such as the white bits around the letters in this comment – there would be no positive meaning. The human mind also structures its apprehensions throught relational methods between object/non object. Leaving aside the bendier aspects of relativity which suggest that light may well be everywhere at once (IIRC), if the Big Bang theory holds, then everything in space/time is related and is just the ongoing expression of the initial explosion of energy constantly transforming itself into higher and lower concentrations of entropy.Indeed, we are all star dust – another piece of hippy-dippy mystical spiritual bullshit that just happens to be true. Sounds nicer when Brian Cox says it.
Stuart:
“I wasn’t commenting on Marx’s words but your own..”
Well, my words differed from Marx’s only in so far as I put ‘ruling ideas’ first, and not second, in my sentence about them, which, I think created the misunderstanding.
Instead of saying “The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling class”, I should have said “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.”
Having said that, your ideas seem to me to be pure fantasy, and subject to Marx’s comments about religious alienation.
“I am not a member of the SPGB.”
Well, I’m sorry for thinking you were, but you are a Marxist, I take it.
DJB:
“So explain how you can say the above without being ‘non-sensical’. Why bother quoting Marx now you’ve proved that all philosophical theories are non-sensical? Seems to me there’s a bit of inconsistency going on here, but then I suppose that is necessary for one to be a Leninist.”
Easy — as I pointed out, non-sensical sentences are those that are incapable of expressing a sense, no matter what we try to do with them — that is, they are incapable of being true, and they are incapable of being false. But, there are many different types of non-sensical sentences, which aren’t the least bit philosophical or metaphysical. For example, rules. Rules can’t be true and they can’t be false — since they are imperatives. They can only be practical, or otherwise, useful or not, obeyed or abrogated.
Now, my sentences are elucidatory rules; they are aimed at explaining where traditional philosophy goes astray. An analogy might help. Let us suppose that a certain individual is a novice at chess, and does not really grasp the rules. Let us further suppose that I try to explain where he/she is going wrong. I will say things like this “This is the queen and she moves like this”. This can’t be false, for if it were, it would not be a rule about the queen in chess, but about a figment of my own imagination. And if it can’t be false, it can’t be true either — since I am expressing a rule. Suppose I then go on to say “No, the bishop does not move like that, it’s an important piece that moves diagonally, like this”. These sentences look like they are in the indicative mood, but their role tells us they are imperatives.
Now, my comments about metaphysics are like this; they show where traditional philosophers have gone wrong by reminding them/us how we ordinarily use language — i.e., what it’s rules are.
And this follows Marx’s advice (in the German ideology):
“The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life.”
And when we do that, we can see philosophical theses for what they are: self-important, distorted and empty strings of words.
“Seems to me there’s a bit of inconsistency going on here, but then I suppose that is necessary for one to be a Leninist.”
I think sectarian remarks like that are out of place, don’t you?
Anyway, Leninists almost en masse agree with you (and give me a hard time for arguing this way). They also think that philosophy is important and can add to our knowledge.
“I’ve read the article by the way, there’s a simple equivocation error in the middle of your argument. Can you spot it?”
No, I don’t think there is — unless, of course, you can show otherwise.
Young Master Smeet:
“Of course there is an ongoing dialectic between something and nothing. The dialectic that lies at the heart of computing and of genetics: without the absences – such as the white bits around the letters in this comment – there would be no positive meaning. The human mind also structures its apprehensions throught relational methods between object/non object.”
How are ‘absences’ nothing? And, if there is a dialectic going on here, then this ‘something’ must be ‘struggling’ with this ‘nothing’. Do we see this in computing, or in genetics?
“Leaving aside the bendier aspects of relativity which suggest that light may well be everywhere at once (IIRC), if the Big Bang theory holds, then everything in space/time is related and is just the ongoing expression of the initial explosion of energy constantly transforming itself into higher and lower concentrations of entropy.”
Of course, the Big Bang Theory is about origins; it says nothing about universal interconnection right now; in fact, as I pointed out, if relativity is correct, then not everything can be interconnected (that was the point of the link I posted about light cones).
“Leaving aside the bendier aspects of relativity which suggest that light may well be everywhere at once (IIRC)”
There is no way that this can be confirmed, but even if it could, what has it got to do with the idea that everything is interconnected?
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:How are ‘absences’ nothing? And, if there is a dialectic going on here, then this ‘something’ must be ‘struggling’ with this ‘nothing’. Do we see this in computing, or in genetics?Two perfect circles would make very bad clockwork, the gaps between the teeth are not there, and yet they make the whole thing go. They are defined by the something of the cogs. Likewise in the electron states of semi conductors which are either on or off: there is a definite somehing that is nothing.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Of course, the Big Bang Theory is about origins; it says nothing about universal interconnection right now; in fact, as I pointed out, if relativity is correct, then not everything can be interconnected (that was the point of the link I posted about light cones).Except everything is interconnected by its share of the initial energy impetus, if everything was once all part of one sub-microscopic spot. If we expand the light cone back, then everything in the universe leads up to point E in the diagram in that article.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:“Leaving aside the bendier aspects of relativity which suggest that light may well be everywhere at once (IIRC)”There is no way that this can be confirmed, but even if it could, what has it got to do with the idea that everything is interconnected?All light is everywhere and all light is in contact with everything at once, then everything is interconnected via light. It could be, from a certain point of view, that the universe is one still spot of light that we misinterpret as having dimensions. Certainly, Great Cthulhu thinks so.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Having said that, your ideas seem to me to be pure fantasy, and subject to Marx’s comments about religious alienation.Right back atcha: I personally can’t understand how a person living in the modern world could possibly subscribe to the sinister religion of Leninism. I guess it’s cos you’re alienated.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:“I am not a member of the SPGB.”Well, I’m sorry for thinking you were, but you are a Marxist, I take it.No need to apologise. I suppose I’m a bit of a Marxist, I’m a bit of lots of things, but basically a libertarian socialist. I’m certainly someone who believes that fantasies are far less harmful than Leninism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.