Rosa Lichenstein and Anti-Dialectics?
- This topic has 89 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
YMS:
“Nothing cannot be actual, by definition.”
In which case, it can’t have a relation to anything that is actual (since it’s not a ‘it’), and nor can it ‘struggle’ with anything actual. At which point your dialectic stalls.
But you have a reply:
“All I can know is that Thing is distinct from No-Thing. Now, it might be that No-Thing is a thing, of some different variety, but the fact of difference exists, and that is sufficient. All things are struggling with un-being, as the entropic principle moves through the universe towards heat death. We cannot know Things in themselves, but only through their acts, their actuality, and it is the aspect of action that separates Thing from No-thing. We can only know Thing and No-Thing through their mutual distinctions.”
Well, I am still not too sure how something actual can ‘struggle’ with something not actual.
Sure, the universe is running down (so scientists tell us), but how does that show there is a ‘struggle’ going on here? Are atoms really struggling to stay atomic? And what form does this ‘struggle’ take? Are electrons slugging is out with protons (or is with positrons)?
“We cannot know Things in themselves, but only through their acts, their actuality, and it is the aspect of action that separates Thing from No-thing. We can only know Thing and No-Thing through their mutual distinctions”
This reads like yet more a priori dogmatics, and is therefore, as I have shown, non-sensical.
What do you mean by ‘Things in themselves’? I know this term has been bandied about since Kant dreamt it up, but it seems to me to be an empty word, like ‘Slithy Tove’ — and so, with all due respect, what you posted makes about as much sense as this.
“Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.”
http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html
“Hardly metaphysical to say that everything is connected through common cause and (possibly) common substance. that’s mechanical. BTW, did you know taht, I think, every twentieth breath you take contains an oxygen molecule breathed in by Julius Caesar. he has touched you, and you have touched him. Across time, no less.”
Indeed, it is metyaphysical, since it purports to tell us about fundamental aspects of the universe that are way beyond any possibility of confirmation or disconfirmation — ad is based on no little speculation dressed up as popular science (of the sort that Cox is happy to pass of as solid sicience).
Your thought experiment about Julius Caesar, even if correct, hardly shows he has touched me — unless, of course, you are using the word ‘touched’ in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense. If so, what is it?
But, even if you are right, how does this show that regions of space and time that are outside our light cone are interconnected with us now?
“It was a source, IIRC, for where I got the notion that light could be everywhere at once”
‘Could’ is not the same as ‘is’; you need to prove with evidence, not speculation, that light is everywhere at once.
But, even if it is, how does that show that everything is interconnected? That yawning chasm in your argument has yet to be filled.
YMS — I’m sorry, I didn’t see this:
“At the initial point everything was very literally interconnected, since it was one object, since then that object has unfurled itself in different permutations. If I’m connected, as I am, to the Sun by gravtitational forces, and the sun is in turn bound to the galaxy by gravitational forces, and that galaxy to the rest of the universe, then I think it makes sense to say everything is connected.”
Well, if we accept the Big Bang Theory (and I see no reason not to — that is, until scientists again change their minds, which they always do), and as I pointed out earlier, all this shows is that everything had a common origin. It doesn’t show that everything is now interconnected. You are still conflating “common origin” with “interconnected”.
“If I’m connected, as I am, to the Sun by gravtitational forces, and the sun is in turn bound to the galaxy by gravitational forces, and that galaxy to the rest of the universe, then I think it makes sense to say everything is connected.”
But, the light cone argument shows that this is an unsafe inference to make.
I’m bowing out of this thread with a few concluding remarks.First, I am not confusing Leninism with Stalinism. This says about all that needs to be said on the matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz11K1wUbrcSecond, I think Rosa is partly right. He is criticising the dialectics of Lenin and Leninism, inherited from Engels. This is a silly dogma, and Rosa’s criticisms, although tediously lengthy and monomaniacal and equally dogmatic, are about right.Third, Adam is right that this is not at all the same as Dietzgen, who was a very interesting and subtle thinker, whose philosophy is in accord with modern science. (As an interesting aside, also with Buddhism’s worldview, at least in some respects, but that’s not important.)Fourth, yes, I do mean “he”. If Rosa is a woman, I’ll cut my cock off and eat it with my hat. I refer you to rule 16 of the Rules of the Internet.Thanks, anyway, Rosa, for an interesting discussion.All the best
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:In which case, it can’t have a relation to anything that is actual (since it’s not a ‘it’), and nor can it ‘struggle’ with anything actual. At which point your dialectic stalls.And yet we can only define Things by relation to No-Thing and the flow of information through things relies on the gaps, aporia, absences between them. The forces acting on (and against) Things comes about only because there is a limit to Thingness. Whether we call that non-thingness Nothing, or fishcakes, or spleen, is irrelevant. The binary distinction remains. This binary opposition is inherent in thing, and merely implies fishcakes; but we have seen things, and cannot see fishcakes.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Sure, the universe is running down (so scientists tell us), but how does that show there is a ‘struggle’ going on here? Are atoms really struggling to stay atomic? And what form does this ‘struggle’ take? Are electrons slugging is out with protons (or is with positrons)?Systems move from high entropic states to low entropic states, energy seems to have an impulse to spread itself about a bit. All language is ultimately human language, and ultimately metaphorical.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:What do you mean by ‘Things in themselves’? I know this term has been bandied about since Kant dreamt it up, but it seems to me to be an empty word, like ‘Slithy Tove’ — and so, with all due respect, what you posted makes about as much sense as this.In the context, I meant there is no way of defining thing without reference to nothing, or a third term, action.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Indeed, it is metyaphysical, since it purports to tell us about fundamental aspects of the universe that are way beyond any possibility of confirmation or disconfirmation — ad is based on no little speculation dressed up as popular science (of the sort that Cox is happy to pass of as solid sicience).Or, based on the best science available to us now. BTW, I note you snipped my comment about gravity, since that would, even with old Newtonian science, seem to present an adequate and provable example of all things being connected.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Your thought experiment about Julius Caesar, even if correct, hardly shows he has touched me — unless, of course, you are using the word ‘touched’ in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense. If so, what is it?An atom that was once part of him is now part of you.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:But, even if you are right, how does this show that regions of space and time that are outside our light cone are interconnected with us now?The key word is now, over time they will be connected, but if space/time is fundamental then each point is atomic, unless there are further dimensions to be unpacked.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:“It was a source, IIRC, for where I got the notion that light could be everywhere at once”‘Could’ is not the same as ‘is’; you need to prove with evidence, not speculation, that light is everywhere at once.But, even if it is, how does that show that everything is interconnected? That yawning chasm in your argument has yet to be filled.If light is everywhere (and when) at once, then we are all simultaneously bathed in the same universal sea of light, which touches us all.
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:“At the initial point everything was very literally interconnected, since it was one object, since then that object has unfurled itself in different permutations. If I’m connected, as I am, to the Sun by gravtitational forces, and the sun is in turn bound to the galaxy by gravitational forces, and that galaxy to the rest of the universe, then I think it makes sense to say everything is connected.”Well, if we accept the Big Bang Theory (and I see no reason not to — that is, until scientists again change their minds, which they always do), and as I pointed out earlier, all this shows is that everything had a common origin. It doesn’t show that everything is now interconnected. You are still conflating “common origin” with “interconnected”.”If I’m connected, as I am, to the Sun by gravtitational forces, and the sun is in turn bound to the galaxy by gravitational forces, and that galaxy to the rest of the universe, then I think it makes sense to say everything is connected.”But, the light cone argument shows that this is an unsafe inference to make.The light cone argument actually shows that over time everything will be connected, and given enough time, all points in space will come into contact with effects caused by me. It all depends, then if space/time is absolute, and if there are further dimensions.I think we’re getting back to greek style static versus dynamic universe here, and the Xeno’s paradoxes.Anyway, I reckon that’s the point where we’re argued out for now…
Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:Or does SPGB stand for ‘Spiritual Party of Great Britain’?Of course not and the spiritualists don’t think so either, but they do have the honesty to draw attention to our criticism of them as here:http://www.spiritualismlink.com/t1529-science-v-spiritism-socialist-standard-1927-ukAnd here’s the Society for Psychical Research publicising this too:http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=373797202648627&id=295503008217Obviously they consider us worthy, materialist opponents.The full exchange (recently added to our archives section on this site) which went on for months can be found here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1920s/1926/no-268-december-1926/materialism-v-spiritism-criticism-and-our-replyhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1920s/1927Incidentally, Isabel Kinglsey was a Leninist, expelled from the CPGB for her spiritualist views.
“this theory has helped ruin Marxism. If that is so, then the future of the planet partly depends on defeating this theory.” The ruin done by Leninism to Marxism (and the working class) has been historically far greater than any influence of Hegelian dialecticalism has ever been. You direct your criticism at the wrong ism when it comes to the future of the planet. But you refuse to debate the issue of Leninism and its relevancy to the REAL world, preferring to indulge in discussions that are better left “to the gnawing criticism of the mice” to steal a quote from Engels
Stuart
“I’m bowing out of this thread with a few concluding remarks.
First, I am not confusing Leninism with Stalinism. This says about all that needs to be said on the matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz11K1wUbrc”
Indeed, you are confusng the two, notwithstanding that biased video.
“Second, I think Rosa is partly right. He [??] is criticising the dialectics of Lenin and Leninism, inherited from Engels. This is a silly dogma, and Rosa’s criticisms, although tediously lengthy and monomaniacal and equally dogmatic, are about right.”
My work is ‘tedious’ since the ‘theory’ I am criticising is mind-numbingly boring. It’s impossible to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. And I am no more ‘monomaniacal’ than Marx was in his almost lifelong obsession with fighting to rid the planet of capitalism. I happen to think, and I also reckon I can show, that this theory has helped ruin Marxism. If that is so, then the future of the planet partly depends on defeating this theory.
“Third, Adam is right that this is not at all the same as Dietzgen, who was a very interesting and subtle thinker, whose philosophy is in accord with modern science. (As an interesting aside, also with Buddhism’s worldview, at least in some respects, but that’s not important.)”
I disagree; Dietzgen is among the very worst of theorists I have ever read; even worse than Engels. He’s no more in line with modern science than creationsists are. And Buddhism is not at all consistent with modern science. May I suggest you read Victor Stenger on this — particularly his The Unconscious Quantum?
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/meta.html
“Fourth, yes, I do mean “he”. If Rosa is a woman, I’ll cut my cock off and eat it with my hat. I refer you to rule 16 of the Rules of the Internet.”
Well, in that case, I’ll book you a bed in ER. [It looks like you have confused me with my ex-partner, which others have also done.]
I’m sorry, but my last repost to YMS has been garbled by the editor at this site. I’ll try to re-post it, since this editor doesn’t seem to respond to my attempts to repair it!
I will have to break that post into two halves; there seems to be a code in the definition I posted that this editor does not like:
“And yet we can only define Things by relation to No-Thing and the flow of information through things relies on the gaps, aporia, absences between them. The forces acting on (and against) Things comes about only because there is a limit to Thingness. Whether we call that non-thingness Nothing, or fishcakes, or spleen, is irrelevant. The binary distinction remains. This binary opposition is inherent in thing, and merely implies fishcakes; but we have seen things, and cannot see fishcakes.”
I’m sorry, but we define ‘things’ all the time without ever once thinking of ‘No-thing’ — whatever that is.
For example, here is a definition of ‘horse’:
“n.
1.
a. A large hoofed mammal (Equus caballus) having a short-haired coat, a long mane, and a long tail, domesticated since ancient times and used for riding and for drawing or carrying loads.
b. An adult male horse; a stallion.
c. Any of various equine mammals, such as the wild Asian species E. przewalskii or certain extinct forms related ancestrally to the modern horse.
2. A frame or device, usually with four legs, used for supporting or holding.
3. Sports A vaulting horse.
4. Slang Heroin.
5. Horsepower. Often used in the plural.
6. Mounted soldiers; cavalry: a squadron of horse.
7. Geology
a. A block of rock interrupting a vein and containing no minerals.
b. A large block of displaced rock that is caught along a fault.7. Geology
a. A block of rock interrupting a vein and containing no minerals.
b. A large block of displaced rock that is caught along a fault.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/horse
Success! I pasted it into Word and removed the formatting. This concludes my first reply to YMS:
I think if you look carefully at the above definition, you’ll be hard placed to spot any reference to ‘No-Thing’ — whatever that is.
Again, the rest of what you say looks like yet more dogmatic metaphysics, which is, as I have shown, non-sensical.
“Systems move from high entropic states to low entropic states, energy seems to have an impulse to spread itself about a bit. All language is ultimately human language, and ultimately metaphorical.”
I’d like to see the non-metaphorical proof (which, if you are correct, will have to be written in a non-human language) that “human language…[is]…ultimately metaphorical.”
“Or, based on the best science available to us now. BTW, I note you snipped my comment about gravity, since that would, even with old Newtonian science, seem to present an adequate and provable example of all things being connected.”
1) Which ‘best science’ shows that there are vast regions of space and time that can’t be connected, let alone interconnected.
2) I didn’t snip it. I apologised later for missing it — did you alter your original post on edit?
3) The point about gravity does not alter my argument in any way. Unless you think gravity acts instantaneously across all regions of space and time, then most things in the universe, past, present and future, can’t be connected, let alone interconnected.
Unless, of course, you are operating with a mystical notion of ‘interconnection’ — something Einstein called ‘spooky’.
“An atom that was once part of him is now part of you.”
So, let’s imagine that you move house, and want to be connected with the internet. You ring your favourite IP and ask them to connect you with the web. The person on the other end of the phone, who has read Dietzgen and believed far too much of it than is good for any human being, tells you that since all things are connected, you are still connected to the world-wide web, so why are you ringing her.
Would you accept such an argument?
I think not.
The only conclusion possible is that you are operating with a novel sense of ‘connection’ — and one which, as I noted, depends on a mystical view of nature, with all those ‘spooky’ influences.
“The key word is now, over time they will be connected, but if space/time is fundamental then each point is atomic, unless there are further dimensions to be unpacked.”
I think you need to re-read the material on light cones, since that tells us that there are vast regions of space that we will never be connected with each other or with us — unless, once more, you are using ‘connected’ in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense.
“If light is everywhere (and when) at once, then we are all simultaneously bathed in the same universal sea of light, which touches us all.”
[This sounds a bit too much like Christianity to me.]
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Unfortunately, you neglected to prove that light is everywhere — or why this shows everything is connected — except in your odd sense of ‘connected’, which you have yet to explain.
YSM:
“The light cone argument actually shows that over time everything will be connected, and given enough time, all points in space will come into contact with effects caused by me. It all depends, then if space/time is absolute, and if there are further dimensions.
I think we’re getting back to greek style static versus dynamic universe here, and the Xeno’s paradoxes.”
Well, Zeno’s paradoxes were based on a serious distortion of language; so no wonder he derived some odd conclusions.
I have demolished one of them here (in the second half):
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2005.htm
ALB:
“Of course not and the spiritualists don’t think so either, but they do have the honesty to draw attention to our criticism of them as here.”
Don’t take my remark too seriously; I certainly don’t think the SPGB stands for what I said. I was merely making light of what I took Stuart’s position to be — wrongly, as I he pointed out.
And yes, Leninism, like other political doctrines, attracts mystics (as Lenin himself acknowledged). Dialectics has, of course, opened the door to this.
I have removed this reply to YMS since the editor here garbled it. I have re-posted it in two parts below.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.