LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
YMS wrote:…it's character of hurdle would still limit they way in which we could traverse it.
No, it's the character of the hurdle in relation to a human that would limit, an individual runner, for example.But, if we were much smaller, say, the size of a neutrino, would could pass through the hurdle, or if we constructed a projectile the size of a neutrino, we could pass something through a hurdle.So, the 'limits' are of a relational kind, between 'being and consciousness', not a 'quality' of 'inorganic nature'.Once more, YMS, you're assigning the 'active side' (eg., the ability to limit) to 'inorganic nature'.This would make humans passive. Funnily enough, you seem to be, by pure coincidence no doubt, arguing what the bourgeoisie argue, that we are passive in the face of 'material facts', like property.Their physics does this too, the separation of 'being and consciousness', which is why they are having so many theoretical problems at the moment.But, being bourgeois physicists, they can't unite property (material being) with democracy (ideas in consciousness), because it'll fuck up their society.What was it Marx said about the relations of production inhibiting the development of the forces of production? Bourgeois physics seems to be at such an impasse. Let's hope communist workers can take advantage, eh?
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:OK, robbo, benefit of the doubt and all that, and I'll assume once more that you really do want to understand Marx.blah blah blah …LBird cut the crap and answer directly the challenge I posed:Show me how the internal structure and logic of the theory itself corresponds to a capitalist dynamic and reflects the class relations of capitalismYou are beginning to sound like a capitalist politician being interviewed on telly in your capacity to evade straightforward questions
Throwing childish tantrums, because you neither understand Marx, nor want your beloved bourgeois ideology exposing, is no answer to ignorance, robbo.
YMS wrote:I will assert that 'inorganic nature' has varying qualities.[my bold]That's fine, as your assertion, YMS, but is nothing to do with Marx.Since I'm influenced by Marx, my view of physics will then be different to yours, because I don't 'assert' the same thing. It'd be nice if you would say just where you got this 'assertion' from, but I suppose my request will pass ignored, as before.
YMS wrote:The relationship is between two entities (inorganic nature and human labour), both have varying qualities. They must both bring something to the party, else one of them doesn't exist.No, you are ignoring relational products and looking at individual properties.'Qualities' are produced, by the relationship between 'consciousness and being', and the 'active side' (as Marx puts it) is human social theory and practice, not 'inorganic nature' (or, as Marx puts it elsewhere the 'material substratum').Inorganic nature/material substratum is the 'stuff' we change for our purposes – we don't merely 'interpret' 'inorganic qualities', that would be passive, as Marx warns when criticising materialism, which argues just that.
YMS wrote:Even if we could, it would require different processes and methods to making a silk purse out of silk.Yes, of course it would, but it's nice to see that you accept the possibility, now, of 'making a silk purse out of a pig's ear', by 'different processes and methods'.We're getting somewhere.
robbo203 wrote:What I was trying to convey to you through my feeble attempt at satire is that there is nothing in string theory itself that warrants the suggestion that it is a "bourgeois" concept, that somehow reflects the capitalist relations of production…[my bold]OK, robbo, benefit of the doubt and all that, and I'll assume once more that you really do want to understand Marx.Your statement "there is nothing…that warrants" is a pre-existing assumption made prior to looking at 'string theory'.It's an acceptable assumption, though one I don't share because of ideological reasons (I'm Democratic Communist, heavily influenced by Marx).All I keep asking is: what ideology makes this assumption that you state? You seem to think either that you've thought this up all alone, as an individual genius, or that Marx's claims are wrong, and 'string theory' is not the product of a class.I don't mind if you go for the 'I'm a genius' claim, or the 'Marx was a ignorant knobhead' claim, or indeed some other explanation of your assumption, I'm just saying that, from my ideological perspective about 'physics', the position of the observer has to be exposed. In fact, that's what Einstein claimed, too, so Marx seemed to be onto something, nearly 60 earlier.Over you, robbo…[one tip: keep the comedy in the bag until we establish comradely working relations, otherwise it's likely to go unappreciated: there's nothing wrong with 'satire', whether 'feeble' or not]
Ah well, robbo…It was going so well, but now it appears you were deceiving us about your 'democratic communism', and have reverted to bourgeois science, and the myth that 'string theory' is nothing to do with social production.It's a shame, because I actually thought we were making progress.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote: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.Let's take this slowly. You agree with Marx that there is 'inorganic nature' (lets stick with his terminology). This exists/occurs/originates beyond/outside/before human consciousness and labour. Do you agree with that proposition?Now, assuming this 'inorganic nature' has varied qualities, i.e. different parts of inorganic nature have different capabilities, that means that with part A you can do things your cannot do with part B, when you apply human labour.That is not active, it can do nothing (lets us suppose for now) without human labour, but you cannot turn a pigs ear into a silk purse, no matter (pardon me) how much labour you apply. That is how inorganic nature sets limits on the infinite capacity of abstract labour. Yes?
You're fishing in deep philosophical waters, now, YMS!I think you're confusing 'inorganic' with 'organic', and I'll try to explain what I mean.Marx, me, you (and most socialists, I think) agree that 'inorganic nature' exists external to 'consciousness'.But, your second statement makes the mistake of saying 'assuming this 'inorganic nature'. Now, if Marx is correct, 'assumptions' sit in 'consciousness', not in 'inorganic nature', and so any 'assumption' applied to 'inorganic nature' produces 'organic nature'. That is, the 'qualities' of 'inorganic nature' are a product of the relationship between 'consciousness and inorganic nature'. So, 'qualities' are 'relational', not 'fixed out there in inorganic nature'. That's why science produces a variable 'truth' which has socio-historical bases, and so we can have a historical and social class based method of science, whilst classes continue to exist, and show when 'truths' appeared in time (and where some 'scientific truths' have since disappeared, again).We can discuss this with some examples, if comrades wish to explore this further.On your jokey aside that 'we can't turn a pig's ear into a silk purse', the truth seems to be, that with the better understanding that we create through our social theory and practice through time, that we soon will be able to!We know how to turn base metal into gold, after all, so, with theory and practice, the "pig's ear to silk purse transformation" seems to be coming into our reach! Isn't the ultimate "pig's ear into silk purse" process, the active transformation by us of capitalism into socialism?
rodshaw wrote:There is no way that more than a handful of people, with specialised training, a certain aptitude, and the time, could do the maths and go through all the experiments needed to arrive at conclusions like the ones above. The rest of us can either accept it or look on sceptically when we’re told about it. Or not give a shit, as may be. That is, if we know about it at all. There are people in all four camps. I can’t imagine it being different in a socialist society.[my bold]What you've said here, rodshaw, is an ideological viewpoint, and moreover one that I don't share.Indeed, given those assumptions, I don't think that a democratic socialist society is even possible.What version of 'socialism' do you base your views upon? To me, and I'm not accusing you, the above quote would fit just as well with a Leninist society. That is, a few active, whilst the majority are passive.
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote: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…?My ideology? Im a democratic communist – which explains why I dont take too kindly to your viewsNow can we finally "examine physics from class perspectives" as you keep on promising to do but never do. So to kick off the conversation – can you please explain what is the connection between string theory and the class structure of capitalism, Ive been dying to know what it is ever since you raised the tantalising prospect that such a connection exists…
Well, I'm glad we got there, robbo!So, we're talking about 'proletarian physics', that is, your 'democratic communist' perspective upon the social production of the 'ideal-material' by different classes.As we are now in 'class aware' mode for understanding production, we can compare 'the current production of widgets in a bourgeois factory' with 'the current production of knowledge in a bourgeois academy'.As in any bourgeois production, the theories, ideas, concepts, assumptions, methods, structures, ethics, morals, purposes, etc. will be those of the ruling class. That is, the 'production' is not just asocial, ahistorical 'production', but a 'production' in which all the things that I've just listed have an historical origin, and a social class basis.As a constrast to our 'class aware' mode, the bourgeoisie pretend that their 'production' is simply an eternal yearning by humans for 'Truth', which, since most workers are stupid, ignorant, uneducated, lazy, uncaring (and indeed busy working in employment for their betters), must be carried out by the minority who are clever, knowledgeable, erudite, active, enthusiastic (and indeed have the time since they live off others' labour). So, for the bourgeoisie, 'production' is by an elite, who carry out 'production' for bourgeois purposes using bourgeois assumptions. And as it is for the factory, so it is for the academy.Shall we now examine the origins, concepts, purposes, etc., etc., of bourgeois production, robbo, to provide a socio-historical basis for our building of a picture of current physics?Since you no longer subscribe to the ideology that bourgeois physicists are simply engaged in an unbiased search for 'The Truth' of 'inorganic nature', and you know that their ideology, like every human's, comes from their society, we could situate 'modern physics' in its rightful context.Are you up for a discussion about the emergence, social basis and historical development of bourgeois physics? I find it a fascinating subject.It's funny, y'know, those infected with bourgeois ideology always pretend to be 'practical men', just interested in the 'practice' of any activity, and always keen to get down to 'the nitty gritty' of the subject, of what an isolated genius individual can do. But that is not our proletarian method, is it? We are keenly aware of the socio-historical nature of the production of any 'concept', including 'string theory'.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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'.
