[LBird]

Once you tell me your ideology, robbo, we can proceed.We can then examine physics from class perspectives: my Marxist, proletarian, communist, democratic one, and your…?Whilst you don't tell us your class perspective, you can pretend to have an 'objective', politically-neutral, view of physics.This is an ideologically-loaded stance, and I want to make sure, both that you are aware of it and that you openly proclaim it to everyone.The pretence that physics is not class-based is an ideological view. I've already mentioned which class I think is behind it, and why they created the ideology, and when the ideology emerged.Unless you either acknowledge this socio-historical emergence of the ideology of bourgeois science, or completely deny my account and give a different political account, then we can't get any further.You'll simply pretend that Marx was wrong, and that humans don't create their object, as the bourgeoisie alleged when Engels was forming his ideas.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

If you identify our object 'the sun' with 'inorganic nature', then our 'sun' must be a reflection of that 'organic nature'.

Ah, no.  I chose my words carefully, I didn't say that, and (again), what you says doesn't follow.  I said the object delimits what we can do with it, not that it is a reflection.  More of a translation, under restricted symmetry.

LBird wrote:

You're separating a supposed object 'sun' from our conscious production.

As, as you so rightly pointed out, did Marx with his notion of 'inorganic nature'.

[my bold]Again, YMS, this is where we disagree.For Marx, 'the object' is created by humanity from human theory and practice: so 'the object' can't 'delimit'. That would make inorganic nature the active side, as the materialists argue.And Marx did not 'separate an object from consciousness' by referring to 'inorganic nature'; the latter is an ingredient, taken with labour (ie. conscious human purposive activity) from which 'an object' is produced.So, Marx unifies 'consciousness and being', to produce 'our reality', or 'nature-for-us'. It's Engels who unwittingly separated 'being' from 'consciousness' by meekly following bourgeois science, the 'success story' of the 19th century.But, then the 20th century proved Marx to have been correct, and now physicists are seeking for a way to link 'being and consciousness', but without the 'elephant in the room', of 'socialised productive property', the ultimate unification of humanity and our world, coming into being.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Ah, but you've already accepted that 'inorganic nature' exists, and must be exterior to our creative powers, there is a 'sun' outside the world we create ourselves, and which, must delimit what we can do with that sun.

If you identify our object 'the sun' with 'inorganic nature', then our 'sun' must be a reflection of that 'organic nature'.But, it isn't. Our 'sun' is a product of human labour upon inorganic nature. We actively produce our knowledge, it isn't a passive reflection.You're separating a supposed object 'sun' from our conscious production.The class that does this is the bourgeoisie, and if they can do this, as they allege, history ends, because once 'inorganic nature' was known, that would be the end of socio-historical products and the start of 'eternal knowledge', the 'knowledge that is the same for every observer, outside of time and place'. It would be the pretence that 'we finally know the mind of god'.If you argue that there is a 'sun' outside the world we create ourselves, then, once known 'as it is', there could be no possibility of further progress. Science would be simply the discovery of the world 'as it is', and the passive listing of this 'inorganic nature' in a great book. A great book named 'The Mind of God, the True Creator'.We differ on this, YMS. Marx argued for the active creation of our objects. And this creation is socio-historical, not individual or timeless.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Obviously by "The practical creation of an objective world, the fashioning of inorganic nature" Marx is also saying we make a world of our objects (and as much again, our consciousness resides in our products and the objects we create), not that we create the objective universe, we didn't make the sun, but we made the objects (words, ideas, notions) that accompany it.

No, this is where we differ.We did 'make the sun', because without our consciousness, 'the sun' would be meaningless, for example to another consciousness which did not share our 'natural' existence (ie., size, speed, pressure, temperature, etc.).You're making the mistake of thinking that Marx was only talking about creating ideas ('words, notions'), but he's talking about us creating our world, 'nature-for-us', if you like.The ideological belief that humans only create ideas, whilst god creates the rest, is at root a religious one, that is, 'idealism'.We must retain the relationship between 'consciousness and being'; a 'being' outside of a 'consciousness' would be meaningless.The bourgeoisie pretended to separate 'being' from 'consciousness' as part of their class rule, and reflects their separation of 'social property' from 'social control'.The 'objects' we make are both ideal and material, a product of social theory and practice.To argue otherwise, YMS, is to argue that 'our sun' (as an 'ideal' object) is an image of 'inorganic sun' (as a 'material' object).The 'sun' we know is our product, an ideal-material product, a mixture of inorganic nature and human labour embodied in our own 'object'.That's why 'the sun' changes for different societies. Unless you wish to argue that the bourgeoisie have 'discovered' eternal knowledge, a 'Truth' that will never change. Science and physics in the last 130 years have taught us otherwise. Or, should have. I wonder why this fruit of science isn't known or taught in schools? Why aren't physicists up in arms about this censorship?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Nature is man's inorganic body — that is to say, nature insofar as it is not the human body.

No, YMS, 'nature' includes humanity, and therefore consciousness.So, natural humanity changes 'inorganic nature' into 'organic nature', the part of 'nature' which is 'nature-for-humanity', our 'object'.That is to say, your characterisation of 'inorganic nature' as "nature insofar as it is not the human body" is wrong.'Inorganic nature' is "nature insofar as it is not the human body or socially produced organic nature". That is, 'objective nature' is our creation, our organic nature, fashioned by conscious humans, actively using socio-historical theory and practice, out of inorganic nature.Nature metabolises itself. We are thinking natural consciousness which creates. We are our own god.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Thinking is not and never has been a violation of socialist discipline so as far as i know. LBird is fully entitled to challenge what he believes to be flaws in our case and offer what he considers improvements but remember – on many other matters he is wholeheartedly by our side, and i think that fact is often forgotten.  But others are free to counter his ideas as they see fit.

Yes, this is a political debate on a political site. It's about the class power of (allegedly neutral) science.I have no problem whatsoever with any comrades disagreeing with me – as long as it's political criticism.But when I'm insulted personally, I'll return the favour.And I include bogus psychological diagnostics in the 'insults' box.Criticise my politics, not my alleged mental state, and we'll all be fine.I've no problem comrades criticising my 'democratic politics', I just point out that, to me, democratic workers' control of the means of production IS socialism.If anyone else wants elite control, that's their opinion – I just think they should be open about their own opinion, and not hide it behind the word 'socialist', as so many have done in the last 130 years since Marx's death.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…even if that is a human created world, it is one that exists for me as if objective and given, since I cannot alter it by merely chosing, but only be workign upon what I find, and changing it…

Hmmm…. I… me… sounds like individualist and empiricism, YMS. Why not openly declare your allegiance to this ideology?And the killer… 'as if'… what was it Marx said about science and the need to go beyond individual appearances?

YMS wrote:

For anyone who dabbles in thinking, the only way in which this makes sense is if there is a nature exterior to human labour upon which we work.

You're repeating what I've already said, again, YMS. Marx called this 'inorganic nature'.Please tell me which ideology you're using to understand 'nature'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Values come from all kinds of sources.  Do you value your partner, friends and family, LBird? Do you value your environment – natural wilderness, for example? ,Are you concerned with the wellbeing of animals? Are you a fan of Arsenal or Chelsea and which one of these incarnates the material interests of the proletariat? (no dont answer that LOL) Anything you attach importance to, that means something to you, is a source of value in that subjective sense.

So, none of these are political issues?To me, they all are.Which ideology separates out the 'political' from the 'personal'; the 'individual' from the 'social'?Why won't you tell us your ideology? Once we know that, we can then talk about our constrasting views of physics.But we can't have you pretending to everyone that your views are 'objective', untainted by your living in this society. You're hiding something, robbo, as do the academic physicists, which we'll find out, once you reveal your ideological viewpoint.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

At times, he has been accusatory,  too, alleging that the WSM  reflects  Leninism…although i get the impression that he would not classify us as really being Leninists if push came to shove. I'm sure he would depart if he genuinely believed that.

Spot on, alan.I think that the SPGB clearly has some members and sympathisers who hold to a bourgeois philosophy, mainly through ignorance, rather than thought-out Leninism.But, nevertheless, these 'materialists' clearly espouse a politics that will lead to Leninism. That's also clear from what they themselves have argued on this very thread.The materialists have no time for talk of democracy or workers' power, or the social control of the means of production, which obviously includes the social activities of maths and physics.If the SPGB announces that 'materialism' is its core philosophy and all of its members must espouse this or resign, then I'll 'depart'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The point I was making was that your claim that the existence of an objective external world automatically leads to bourgeois ideology and minority rule is patently false…

But, it's only 'patently false' from your ideological perspective, YMS. That's why I'm keen for you to expose it, to others, and perhaps even to yourself.The claim that there is 'an objective external world' (ie. outside of a consciousness) is opposed by Marx's claim that we humans create our own world, by our social theory and practice upon inorganic nature. That produces organic nature, or nature-for-us, our own creation.So, if by 'objective world' you mean 'organic nature', then you are wrong, according to Marx's ideas. The 'objective world' is the one we create, not one 'out there' 'outside of human consciousness'.The bourgeoisie allege that the 'objective world' is the one we find or discover 'as it is'. Well, to echo Mandy, 'they would say that, wouldn't they?'. The 'external world' we live in, is the very one they have created, by their class-based theory and practice, and so to accept this 'external reality' as the basis of our practice is obviously a conservative method. That's why they are keen on the inductive method, which starts from 'what is', rather than criticism of 'what is' and the determination to change 'what is'.The only 'objective world' for humans is our 'socially-objective world'.So , to accept their class-based claim that the 'objective world' is not created by them, but simply 'is', removes the possibility of democratic creation anew, and thus maintains 'minority rule'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

YMS wrote:

What about a materialism that allows for collective open investigation of the world…

YMS, are you actually unable to read?Idealism-MATERIALISM, Idealism-MATERIALISM, Idealism-MATERIALISM…Why do you materialists keep asking the same questions?

Well, given that idealism states that the world is made of ideas, and materialism that it is made of matter, either you are advocating dualism, or some sort of third substance that is an amalgam of ideas and matter: what to call it I know not what.  The substantive point is, there is a world outside our minds that we cannot change nor know merely by thinking about it.  If our minds are intimately connected to that exterior world, then we are subject to causation as well, and open to investigation.

Which bit of 'theory and practice' do you keep missing, YMS. It seems that you keep reading Marx's phrase 'theory and practice' as 'theory' (alone).I think I know why you do this: you are using Engelsian materialism, which argues that there are only two philosophical trends, ie. idealism and materialism. So, you categorise any talk of 'theory' as 'idealism' and forget that Marx unified 'idealism and materialism', ie. 'idealism-materialism', 'theory and practice'.So, NO-ONE is saying that 'ideas' alone (idealism) is the route to go down.Marx argued that we need ideas to inform our practice, as we create our world: I've already given a quote from Capital to support this view.So, YMS, are you starting from Engels' 'materialism' or Marx's 'idealism-materialism'? We can all forget 'idealism', so stop mentioning it – that dichotomy is an Engelsian myth, propagated by the 19th century bourgeoisie, of which Engels took in, hook, line and sinker. But, he had an excuse, the massive achievements of bourgeois science in the 19th century.However, we're in the 21st century, and Engels' poor repetition of positivism is long gone, in physics. We workers, too, have to move on.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

My particular gripe with your position is that you seem to think all values boil down to class values.

So, where do these 'values' come from, robbo, if not classes?

robbo203 wrote:

I am specifically questioning the assertion that class forms the basis of the values that steers the development of ideas in science.

I know you are, robbo. I don't doubt your sincerity, either.All I'm asking is 'what does steer the development of ideas in [unprefixed, which is an ideological omission] science?'

robbo203 wrote:

I do believe that there is a qualitiative distinction to be drawn in that respect between the hard sciences and the other subjects…

Yes, this is a normal part of bourgeois ideology: that 'science' divides into 'hard' and 'soft' sciences. It's reflected in the division between science and art, too.This viewpoint that you start from, is not just a personal belief of yours, that you just happened to think of 'as an individual', but a central plank of the move by the bourgeoisie in the 1660s to separate 'stuff' from 'ideas': it was helpful to break the existing link in revolutionary science between 'consciousness and being', which lead to some thinkers, following the ancient Greek ideas that the purpose of science was 'the good life' (for an elite), to extend this 'good life' purpose to be for the benefit of all society, and thus amenable to democracy.So, for over 250 years, until Einstein's work, it went socially assumed that 'physics' was about 'out there', and 'sociology' was about 'us'. You might think this distinction is helpful, and it was…… to a social group who wanted to have 'stuff' that was not amenable to 'democratic controls': ie. 'private property'.Now, robbo, we can continue to discuss these issues, and I will continue to help you with further answers, explanation and, if needed, references for you to follow up with further reading.But… you really must tell me where these 'values' supposedly come from, to which you allude.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

"No doubt if you and the rest of the undemocractic Leninists on here had their way, I'd be packed off to some Stalinist asylum"In this quote you are saying that I would "no doubt" have you incarcerated because of your political beliefs. Not only is there nothing in what I have said in my contributions to back up this extraordinary statement, the statement is in itself a personal and professional slur. I would go as far as to say that, as it is directed to me by name, it could be regarded as defamatory and defined as libelous. Can I suggest you withdraw the remark immediately and apologise.

So, you think you can 'defame' me and yet I can't be allowed to expose your ideological guff?And bourgeois law is the answer?It's a historical fact that the 'materialists' packed off those democratic workers who disgreed with them to the asylums or the gulag. It's not 'nasty individuals like Stalin' (as NO DOUBT your ideology tells you), who are behind this, but a belief that an elite knows better than the mass of workers.Do me a favour, 'Tim by name', (or, 'Tim, nasty and dim'), and do one.I never lose my sheer disbelief that posters think that they can personally attack me (rather than my politics) without reply in similar personal terms, and then start crying about the result.My advice, comrades: stick to criticising my politics, and we'll all get along just fine.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

You state that I have not engaged with the issues, although that is clearly not true, it does appears that generally speaking people are not in that much disagreement with you. This therefore leads me to examine motive.

Tim, you haven't got a clue.My 'motive' is entirely political, you haven't engaged with the issues, and the entirety of the thread is people disagreeing fundamentally with me, about politics.You seem to think you are some sort of 'psychologist', and no doubt if you and the rest of the non-democratic Leninists here had their way, I'd be packed off to some Stalinist asylum to find evidence of 'my motive'.Yeah, it would be declared counterrevolutionary to argue for workers' control in science, and that physics and maths should be democratically produced.

TK wrote:

Psychological Games are not, as you imply, a sign of poor mental health, they are, according to Berne, a sub conscious phenomena in which we all engage as part of our transactional strategies, in an attempt to gain what he described as strokes of recognition. As you are continuing to engage in a thread where no one really disagrees with you,  it leads me to the conclusion that you must be sub-consciously be seeking strokes of recognition. The source of these strokes may be as follows:A – Positive strokes from forum members – something along the lines of "wow that's really interesting, I'd never seen Marx in that way" (these don't appear to be on offer at the moment)B – Positive self strokes – Intrapsychic conversation along the lines of "wow, I really pointed out to those lot in the SPGB how well read and clever I am (whether these strokes are available, only you will know)C negative strokes – along the lines of "what the hell is he picking an argument about now, what a complete………" (these types of strokes appear to be very available on the forum.As Berne stated, negative strokes are better than no strokes at all!

I suspect that you've been 'stroking' yourself.Now, you can analyse my psychological usage of polite euphemism. I suppose if I called you a wanker, you'd put it down to my penis fixation and wish to 'know' my mother, rather than self analyse your own political ideas, and where they came from.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

So explain to me what is class basis or string theory in theoretical physics. Is it bourgeois or proletarian and how so?  Please answer this question LBird(Oh, and incidentally I didnt say 'values' in society have little to do with classes..  I was talking specifically about the theoretical content of scientific theories.  Please dont twist my words)

I'm not 'twisting your words', robbo. On the contrary, I trying to get you to 'untwist' your own words.You now appear to be arguing (and I can be corrected, because only you can answer this, as I said before) that there is 'theoretical content' (why not just say 'ideas'?) in 'theories' (of the 'scientific' type) which are 'value-less' (not that they aren't 'valuable', but that they are 'outside of consideration of social values' – I had to clear up that usage of 'value-less', because some clown will be claiming next that 'LBird says science is of no use whatsoever').So, if you already believe that 'theory in physics is valueless', then you already know that 'there is no class basis to string theory'.Alternatively, if (like me) you already believe that 'theory in physics, just like every other human activity, contains social values', then you would simply be looking for the 'class basis of string theory'.The concepts and arguments that would be accepted as 'useful' to this debate are already presupposed in the beliefs of the debator.Someone who wishes to prove the absence of class ideology in physics will do so, because they are not looking for signs of class ideology in physics, and any signs produced by someone who thinks that physics in a class society is socially-produced according to its social values, will be dismissed.It's like trying to prove that '(Marx's) value exists' to an adherent of neo-classical economics. The economist trained in neo-classical ideas, theories, concepts, values and methods simply won't accept the starting point of the Labour Theory of Value, ie. social production. They start from 'the individual' or 'the firm' within 'a market', not from 'classes', 'class consciousness' within 'class struggle'.Since I'm a Marxist, I look for the class basis of social activities, and since I regard physics as a social activity, I look for the class basis of physics, just as I would look for the class basis of economics, or history, sociology, philosophy, etc.The root of the issue is your  'position of observation', to put it in Einsteinian terms.If you don't believe that you have a 'position of observation', but that you are a 'neutral observer' of 'out there', of 'the external world', of the world of 'matter', then my request is meaningless.And if you regard yourself as an 'unbiased observer' of 'matter', then you will assume that there are other individuals who can do this, like theoretical physicists, like Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Born, Schrodinger, or mathematicians like Godel. You will believe that they are 'value-less observers of matter'.Unfortunately, when you read their works, and I have, they constantly tell you of their social values and philosophical influences, and their belief that social consciousness plays a part.In fact, physicists who write about these philosophical issues have long given up with the 19th century beliefs and methods of 'materialism'. More recent physicists, like Rovelli, who I have quoted so many times that I won't do so again, or Brian Cox in The Guardian this year, who I also quoted and linked to, and said that 'physicists are plumbers', or Lee Smolin (that a comrade in the SPGB recommended to me), who writes a book titled 'The Trouble with Physics', show us that 'values' are at the heart of their social activities.So, to summarise, we have 'materialists', who look to outdated 19th century ideas about 'objectivity in science', and we have the physics profession, who for 100 years now have tried to understand the 'position of the observer'.Of course, there are many physicists (Hawking?) who poo-poo the notion of the social context of physics, but these are the 'practical men' who just 'get on with science', and ignore 'mere philosophising'.People of this bourgeois bent, who just want to get on with the 'practice', don't like 'ideas' – and there are a number of posters here who don't like talking about 'theory' but wish to believe that 'theory' emerges from 'practice', that there is a 'neutral observation point' for understanding 'matter', and that talk about 'ideas' is 'idealism'.I write this post more in hope than in expectation. Which is quite damning of the SPGB in a way.

[Author]

Posts