[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

At least 'real' will cause them to ask, 'what does that mean?', and we can answer 'material and ideal'.

And then awkward buggers like me will ask what do you mean by 'material' and 'ideal' and what it is that seperates the two?

That's fine by me!But, don't forget, if they've read Dietzgen…Your questions will probably be meaningless to workers who want to understand the natural and the social. And like Marx, demand a unified method for doing so.On the other hand, if workers want to remain in thrall to 'materialism', they'll turn to the elite, who, they are told, have a special consciousness, which means that the workers need not trouble themselves about these complex issues of science, epistemology, ontology… errr… production, distribution, consumption…

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

This description and defence of a realistic materialist monism is pretty good, though I'm not sure I would take a panpsychist position as Strawson (and Deitzgen) do. Though perhaps that is me being inconsistent. As far as philosophy of mind is concerned this is my "ideology" LBird…http://cognet.mit.edu/posters/TUCSON3/Strawson.html

Thanks for that, DJP.

Galen Strawson wrote:

Materialists hold that every thing and event in the universe is physical in every respect. They hold that "physical phenomenon" is coextensive with "real phenomenon," or at least with "real, concrete phenomenon," and for the purposes of this chapter I am going to assume that they are right.

As I been saying for months (and threads), you follow Strawson, whose ideology is 'real=physical=material=concrete'.This is different to Marx and Dietzgen's ideology, which is 'real=(material/physical/concrete) or ideal'.So, DJP, mate, comrade, you won't agree with Critical Realism.It seems pointless me continuing, to the echo of "That's not true!" and "That's idealism!".We obviously don't share the same scientific ideology. We'd have to prefix every comment by "According to x ideology…", where 'x' would represent either 'Critical Realism' or 'Materialism', depending upon who's posting the comment. It would be very tiresome, when the better option is to keep this thread for those who want to get to grips with CR, and let you and the other physicalists/materialists start their own thread.What more can I say? You could call it "Science for proper, concrete, hard-as-nails Marxists, and non of those idealist counter-revolutionaries, like LBird", and I won't post on it.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I still think that "materialism", even "physicalism", is not incompatible with a "monist" view which gives equal status to physical and non-physical stuff as long as it is considered one theory of the relationship between the physical and the non-physical parts of this "monist" world.

I don't agree, ALB.To me, the simple test is to ask any random physicalist if the material can supervene on the ideal.For us, given the ontological identity of 'material' and 'ideal', we would answer 'yes'.For physicalists, the relationship, with 'base' at bottom, is:IdealMaterial; orMaterialMaterial.Whereas for us, the relationship can be:IdealMaterial; orMaterialMaterial; orMaterialIdeal; orIdealIdeal.And so on, with ideal appearing at any point in a hierarchy.This is clearly opposed to Engels' nonsense about 'in the final analysis'.

ALB wrote:

I'm prepared (like Dietzgen and Pannekoek) to call myself a "materialist" in the monist sense (of "stuff", i.e. "matter", being both the physical and the non-physical). I must confess, though, that I'm not too keen on the term "physicalism".

This is mostly my position, too.As long as 'materialist' is amended to 'realist', to keep things clear. Why cause difficulties for workers who will necessarily come to these issues in the future?If we continue to use the term 'material', they'll think we mean 'material'. And we don't, do we?At least 'real' will cause them to ask, 'what does that mean?', and we can answer 'material and ideal'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

3. Knowledge=product of interaction between Subject (NB. a society, not an individual) and Object (Social Objectivism, Critical Realism, 'the practice of idealism-materialism', Marxism)=Truth as a social and historical Product.

I don't have any problems with this as a description of knowledge that produces small t "truth". But this is not incompatible with materialism.But if you reject materialism, what is the "object"?

[my bold]Yes, it is incompatible with materialism.It's 'idealism-materialism'. Why won't you read what I'm writing?The 'Object' is the 'Real'. We've done this dozens of times, and even ALB has provide you with Dietzgen's quote.You're not a Critical Realist, you're a 'physicalist/materialist'.If you're wanting to use 'materialism', that's fine by me, but why continue to post on a thread about 'idealism-materialism'?Why not start your own thread, named 'Science for materialists?'I can't take a discussion about Critical Realism forward, if you can't accept the tenets of it as the basis for a discussion about 'Science and Communists'.You're thinking and discussing at cross-purposes, and you won't get any joy out of it.Put simply, unless you think that the material and ideal have the same ontological status, as do Marx, me, Dietzgen and (apparently now) ALB, you won't understand the discussion.You'll just keep saying 'That's not true!' – and it won't be, from your ideological perspective.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I note that Lbird declines to explain the consequence of voting in any practical manner.

Spoken like a true 'practical man', the bourgeois who distains to philosophise, and wants to move immediately to 'practical matters'.Your method involves jumping in, feet first, to 'the real world' (copyright, Conservative Philosophy, Ltd.).No matter how many times I say it, you ignore Marx's method of 'theory and practice', which requires 'theory' to be addressed first.As all theory is ideological, I'm trying to expose both my ideology and yours (and DJP's, Vin's, ALB's, etc.), precisely so we can move on to employing our Communist theory in the world, both social and natural.Now, I've done this 'exposing' of myself from the very start (in fact, the thread title says it all), but you (et al) have consistently refused to expose your ideology to the gaze of other posters.You apparently don't even recognise the word, tossing it around like dog with an unfamiliar animal bone: "Ideology? What does that mean? Let's discuss 'ideology' and its manifold meanings… Why, once, as Wittgenstein said to me, or was it Kant…  no, no, it was Schopenhauer…".I'm a Marxist and a Communist, YMS, stop prevaricating and playing silly. If you're not, I'm not interested on this thread in discussing these thinkers with you. Start a new thread called 'Science for bourgeois liberals', or some such.And indeed, take your hatred of democracy somewhere else.I'm not interested in talking to elitist liberals, but democratic Communists.Why do you keep pestering me, with your meaningless, non-Communist, non-democratic, ideological musings?

[LBird]

No, I didn't think that you'd answer, DJP.And I'm not surprised that you're not even reading what I've written, this morning, in answer to ALB, on post #653.So, although the answer is on this page, you can't 'read' it, and have to continue to ask the same questions, which have already been answered, numerous times.PoMo is number 2.Critical Realism is number 3.And you're using number 1.Why won't you tell us your ideology, DJP?Or are you really just a troll, not interested in discussion and learning, but just wanting to be childish, and spoiling everything for others who are interested in these vital questions for Communists?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, I can say both that "in the 21st century, the earth goes round the sun" and that "in the 15th century, the sun went round the earth".

OK you can say what you like.But to be consistence you are going to have to say that in the 21st century it is true that a God exists, and the non-religious are wrong. Since apparently 84% of the world population are still reliogious.Are you happy to do that?

[my bold]Yes, of course. But then I know my ideology, tell others what it is, and consistently use it, unlike you, on all three counts.Since I know that any 'truth' is a 'social truth', I'm happy to say that in the 21st century, for the non-Communist majority, especially the 84% of religious, that a God exists.As a Communist, I can also say that the 84% created a God, and for them it/he/she really exists.I do not discriminate between 'material' and 'ideal'. Humans create structures which have causal power over them.To 'God', for example, I can add 'Value'.Neither god nor value have substance (or as Marx says, 'not an atom of matter'), but are 'real', nevertheless.Since your ideology of physicalism defines 'real' as 'material', DJP, you can't agree with me.Tell us your ideology, DJP, now I've answered your question.Are you happy to do that?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

There is a third alternative: Socially-objective Truth.

LBird wrote:

The study of science since Copernicus shows us that science is often mistaken. Einstein showed that Newton was mistaken.

That's a turn-up for the books. What's all the fuss been about? But just as a matter of interest what is the current "Socially-objective Truth" (not need for a capital T if you don't want) about, say, the solar system or in astronomy generally?

[my bold]'The fuss has been all about' your refusal to acknowledge that, if the 'earth-sun relationship' is about 'knowledge', and not the 'object', then the relationship for humans can change, because 'truth' is related to 'knowledge' and not simply 'object'.So, I can say both that "in the 21st century, the earth goes round the sun" and that "in the 15th century, the sun went round the earth".One can only say this if one subscribes to the ideology of 'socially-objective truth' (no need for a capital T or S, if we don't want).This allows us to give a social and historical account of 'truth': what society produced its 'truth' and what period (start and finish dates) when this 'truth' was 'true'.This is a million miles away from 'discovery science' (as Pannekoek dismissively described it) and 'Truth' not related to humans.Of course, Leninists will dispute this, because they must (for their own ideological reasons) hang onto 'special knowledge' (party consciousness) which is denied to the masses.I don't. I follow Marx, and his ideology about workers taking control of their society by democratic means.But this is not 'objective truth' (with capitals or without). Communist society will be of its time and place, and we can't, like a ruling class must do, project ourselves both into the future and into the past as the eternal rulers.Put simply, we know we don't know. And what we do know, we know we've produced it. Nature doesn't talk to us whilst we passively listen, or to an elite.The elite lie to us. A suitably proletarian attitude.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't think it's me that's playing with words. I just used the word "bad" to mean "mistaken", actually in relation to ideology/false consciousness but it could be applied more widely. I know you'll come back and say that this implies the opposite — that there can be a non-mistaken understanding. But surely there's a sense in which this must be the case, without having to be committed to Knowledge as Absolute Truth?

You're asking the right questions anyway, ALB!But, in fact, I've given the answer to this several times, especially on our thread discussing Schaff's ideas, and the various "Object/Subject/Knowledge" relationships.To recap simply:1. Knowledge=Object (objectivism, naive realism, 'materialism/physicalism', Leninism)=Absolute Truth;2. Knowledge=Subject (subjectivism, anti-realism, 'idealism/individualism', PoMo)=Truth is all in One's Mind;3. Knowledge=product of interaction between Subject (NB. a society, not an individual) and Object (Social Objectivism, Critical Realism, 'the practice of idealism-materialism', Marxism)=Truth as a social and historical Product.The denial of 'Absolute Truth' does not compel one to believe in 'Anything Goes'.There is a third alternative: Socially-objective Truth.If one adopts the third position, however, and one is also a Communist/Socialist, then I don't know how the issue of 'democracy' can be ignored.'Socially-objective Truth' can also be said to be derived from an elitist practice (that is, rejection of Absolute Truth but retention of 'priests' to interpret), but I don't accept elitism, due to my ideology.

ALB wrote:

So, tell us, can anyone ever be mistaken?

Humanity can always be 'mistaken'. The study of science since Copernicus shows us that science is often mistaken. Einstein showed that Newton was mistaken.Democracy, however, demands 'Plan B' (and C, D…), an oppositional position, in both politics and science, so a 'mistaken' position defeated can provide a 'true' position for a future vote. We must have a pluralistic view (ie. similar to Lakatos' competing 'research programmes', rather than Kuhn's single dominant 'paradigm').We must teach critical thinking, not respect for authority, especially not unelected authority, like 'elite scientists' and academics. Critical thinking helps to identify the 'mistakes' which we now know that any 'scientific method' must produce. We're human.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

I still think you're trying to preserve big T 'true knowledge from science'.

No I'm not. Why on Earth would I want to do that.

I don't know, ALB, why on earth you'd want to do that. But using the human judgement 'bad', for its opposite, does just 'that'.

ALB, post #643, wrote:

I don't like the word "distorted" either as it gives the impression of something bad rather than natural and normal.

Selection means distortion, which you define as 'bad'.So, that implies there is a 'good'.If 'selection/distortion' is 'bad', it implies the 'good' is 'clarity/truth'.If that is your 'good', we're back to naive realism, positivism, materialism, physicalism… and big 'T' 'true knowledge'.You have to stop playing with words, ALB, in a forlorn attempt to protect an outdated viewpoint, and accept the implications of both 'selection' and your quote from Dietzgen about 'material and ideal having the same status'.Both of these assumptions imply 'distortion by humans', not 'mirror image of reality'. 'Distortion' is entirely 'natural and normal'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

To be fair, since his definition and use of the word "ideology" differs so much from that of Marx and the Marxist tradition, LBird has given us permission to use another term to express his idea. I opt for "selective" and "selection". In which case what he is saying on this point that all science (all knowledge of anything, in fact) is necessarily "selected". So a non-selective science is not possible. But whoever said it was? I don't like the word "distorted" either as it gives the impression of something bad rather than natural and normal.

You're right, ALB, I have said that, for the purposes of progressing the thread, if someone wants to use 'selection' instead of 'ideology', then go right ahead.But this is just playing with words, as the same problem results.You might not like 'distorted', but that is your problem about 'bad'. Distortion is entirely 'natural and normal'.To believe otherwise, is to revert to 'naive realism'. What is 'natural and normal'? 'The Truth' or 'social truth with a history'?I still think you're trying to preserve big T 'true knowledge from science'.If you 'select' a 'blue smartie' from a bag of smarties, and draw the conclusion that 'bags of smarties' are 'blue', you're holding a 'distorted' view. This isn't 'bad', but 'natural and normal'.If your answer is to 'empty the entire bag', then you're a naive realist. 'Bags' can't be 'emptied', because that wouldn't be 'selection', would it?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

The faux pas you made in discussing science in a socialist/communist society with YMS  was mportant and maybe revealing because it raised the question of the possibility of a class=free (if not selection-free) science. Obviously in a classless society there cannot be any "proletarian" or "bourgeois" science, only human (or, if you like, "democratic") science.So do you accept that, at least in classless socialist/communist society, science can be class-free?

How many times can you ask the same question, ALB, be given an answer, ignore it, and ask the same questions again?For example (and there are others):

LBird, post #372, wrote:

ALB wrote:

It is not as if you completely rule out a "class-free" physics, etc since you take the view that this will be the case in socialism/communism.

But I do rule out 'ideology-free' physics, as I keep saying, because, according to bourgeois science, it's part of the human condition. All societies employ ideas to understand the world. Science employs ideas to understand the world. Humans employ ideas to understand the world. THERE IS NO IDEOLOGY-FREE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.

So, I "completely rule out a 'class-free' physics", because, as I've said before on this very thread, if there are no classes there can't be any 'class physics'.But humanity can't get away from 'ideology'. All human knowledge is distorted. To seek is to hide.And comrades wonder why I get fed up.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

…when we apply critical thinking and requests for explanations to your posts your frustration seems to get the better of you and your style of response is off putting and conflict ridden.

Naturally, I see this differently!For example, I made a relatively long post about some outlines of Critical Realism. I thought that this would generate some 'critical thinking and requests for explanations' about what I had written, because there is a long way to go with that explanation.But no, DJP posted a link to Bhaskar (someone who's recently turned to mysticism) whose video much of it I don't understand! Plus, Bhaskar's books make Marx look like 'Janet and John'. DJP did this because he dosn't want to discuss, but to sneer, at the 'long-haired hippy' who is the 'real brains behind LBird's thinking'.This happens constantly: DJP wants to understand Critical Realism through the lens of Physicalism, rather than in its own terms; (just as YMS wants to understand 'proletarian democracy' through the lens of 'individualism'). If DJP wants to do this, that's fine, but then we must divert away for the moment from CR and its explanations, to a discussion of the relevent ideologies behind CR and Physicalism, to help comrades understand the deeper political issues. DJP, of course, won't do this, because he thinks science (or his version of it, physicalism) is not ideological. So, we hit an impasse. CR can't be understood through the lens of Physicalism. Just like Capital can't be understood through the lens of Liberalism.So, when I ask DJP to tell me his 'science' ideology, or YMS his 'democracy' ideology, they both refuse, because they don't think that their views are ideological. On the contrary, I constantly detail my ideology, and gives quotes from the ideologists that have influenced me, in both science and politics: Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, Schaff, Einstein, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Bhaskar, Archer, etc. That doesn't mean I agree with everything all of these said (indeed, they often conflict with each other on some issues), but that I wish to expose my sources. DJP, YMS and others, like ALB, won't tell me who the ideologists are who they are influenced by. DJP seems to think posting links to heavily ideological sites without critical comment is acceptable. As if he's 'giving the Truth', rather than engaging in politics (which is what science is).

Brian wrote:

In this battle for ideas its essential we tackle this particular issue of selection, classification, terms and meanings by seemingly posing the negative when in actual fact we are reaching out in a comradely fashion for a positive response and further clarification so that any ambiguity or misunderstanding can be explained and put in a language which the majority of us can understand.

[my bold]This is completely untrue. I've had almost nothing but sneering and ignorance, and a complete refusal to engage in discussion. I suspect there are posters here who haven't read even one book by all of those writers I've listed above, and yet think that they have a more profound understanding than me about these issues. In fact, one of the reasons I've posted here is to learn, because I'm aware of how little I know, and I have read many of those authors' books from end to end!

Brian wrote:

The truth of the matter is if you are unable to convince socialists you are unlikely to convince other members of the working class that your theory merits consideration for the present and the future.

And if other 'socialists' are unable to think critically about unusual ideas, new to them, they can't expect to be regarded as having anything to say to other members of the working class.And it's not 'my' theory. It's the theories of Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, Schafff…I'm not afraid to declare my ideological influences.I regard that as part of the 'scientific method'. Clearly, most here don't, and wish to continue with bourgeois science's elitism and mystification by mathematics.Unless science is under our democratic control, and that means that its products are understandable to the majority, then we will remain under the power of an unelected elite.Of course, if one regards science as non-ideological, then I'm talking bollocks, should be ignored, and something so powerful should be left to our betters.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

What's worse, you two seem to be the best minds on offer, from the SPGB.

It depends on how you personally select and classify "the best minds on offer".  Not that it matters in this discussion for its not about individualism or personality, but the selection and classification of terms and their meaning so that a theory of Science for Communists becomes the accepted democratic tool for the workers of today and the citizens of tomorrow.

[my bold]I couldn't put it better myself, Brian.I might be missing something out, or I might be able to express myself better, and I'm sure what I'm saying is only food-for-thought to stimulate a debate between workers who say they aim to build for Communism, but at least I'm trying to contribute to what you've said, above. You'd think that more comrades would be at least intrigued by a suggestion for democracy in science, and that they'd think that there might be something to Marx's aim to 'unify science', that's worth discussing.As to 'the best minds on offer', I can only judge by those who post on this thread, and, quite frankly, DJP and ALB have been, at least recently, the only ones who are contributing, and even that has been mostly negative in tone. Some others have asked some relevent questions, but then not returned to the discussion when I've given answers.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

No there wont be workers control in communism because there will be no workers."Workers control" is not a description of communism.

Oh no, not that old chestnut! Time and time again.The children come out to play, at every opportunity.If I happen to mention 'humanity', the kids shout "You're ignoring 'classes', LBird! Call yourself a Communist?!".If I happen to mention 'workers', the kids howl "You're perpetuating 'classes', LBird! Call yourself a Communist?!".I'm surprised you're still playing this old game, ALB, I thought you more advanced in your criticisms than DJP, but I've been sadly proved wrong.Why can't you two make some valuable addition to the discussion?This is getting tiring.What's worse, you two seem to be the best minds on offer, from the SPGB.

[Author]

Posts