[LBird]

For information. Bold mine.Dietzgen on the unity of natural and social in one science:

Dietzgen wrote:

Modern science is even to-day still animated by the bias of the materialists of the 18th century. These materialists were the general theoreticians, the philosophers of natural science, so to speak, in so far as the latter confines its study to the mechanical, that is the palpable, the ponderable and tangible. Natural science, of course, has begun long since to overstep these limits. Already Chemistry has led beyond the narrow boundaries of the mechanical, and the same is now being done in Physics by the theory of the conservation and transformation of energy. With all that, however, science is narrow and wanting in penetration, it still lacks a systematic theory of the Universe as an infinite monistic evolutionary process. The study of the human mind and of all those relations which cognition has effected in human history, that is, the things political, judicial, economical, etc., all this natural science excludes from its province, still laboring under the delusion that mind is something metaphysical, is a child of another world and not subject to the laws governing the Universe.Science deserves that reproach not because it separates the mechanical, chemical, electro-technical and other knowledge from one another and constitutes them special branches; this is quite legitimate; our reproach is only directed against the metaphysical mode of thinking in which science is caught, as it were, in a straightjacket, as is evidenced by its hard and fast distinctions and by its absolute separation of matter from mind. It is only in so far as it does not perceive that Politics, Logic, History, Law, and Economics – in short, all mental relations are natural and scientific relations, that it together with the mechanical materialists and the German idealists still remains in the metaphysical, that is in the transcendental stage.

Dietzgen on the unity of matter and mind as one reality:

Dietzgen wrote:

The Socialist materialism understands by matter not only the ponderable and tangible, but the whole real existence. Everything that is contained in the Universe – and in it is contained everything, the All and the Universe being but two names for one thing – everything this Socialist materialism embraces in one conception, one name, one category, whether that category be called the actuality, reality, Nature or matter.We, modern Socialists, are not of the narrow opinion that the ponderable and tangible matter is matter par excellence. We hold that the scent of flowers, sounds and smells are also material. We do not conceive the forces as mere appendices, mere predicates of matter, and matter, the tangible one as “the thing” which dominates over all properties. Our conception of matter and force is, so to speak, democratic….Because we Socialist materialists have only one inter-related conception of matter and mind, the so-called mental relations such as those of politics, religion, morals, etc., are to us also material conditions…

http://www.marxists.org/archive/dietzgen/1887/epistemology.htmJoseph Dietzgen (1887) Excursions of a Socialist into the Domain of Epistemology

[LBird]

Quote:

He refused propositions of militants of KAPD about cooperation, despite some similarity in theoretical analysis, because didn’t have faith in victory of world proletarian revolution in near future. He consider necessary to do long preparatory work.

http://revsoc.org/archives/2201Well, if this is a true reflection of Bogdanov’s thought, I think I do share this position with him, ALB!

Quote:

As slogan of all his life is possible to remember excellent words of Lassale: “In our rotten and decaying bourgeois world exists only two new, healthy and fresh forces – science and workers. When science and workers will unite, they in common will crush cursed old world”.

Let’s hope we can play our part in this process! Marx’s unification of science, so that ‘science’ stops being an activity of ‘experts’, and becomes a mass activity under our democratic control.Unfortunately, the rest of the article seems to move to being an apology for ‘real’ Bolshevism, which was hi-jacked by Lenin and the other leaders. I disagree with Bolshevism in its entirety.I’ll try to look at the other links later, too, ALB.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

ALB, I know nothing of Bogdanov. Would you care to provide a short summary of what you consider to be his ideas? Especially those relevant to this discussion, about cognition, or wider scientific method.

I don't know much about him either I'm afraid because most of what he wrote has not been translated from Russian. I'm just going by what others (eg Lenin) say he said. In this 1907 article criticising Dietzgen, Plekhanov groups together as having the same sort of ideas Dietzgen, Bogdanov, Pannekoek and Unterman on "cognition":http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/dietzgen.htmPlekhanov was taking the position of 18th century French materialism that Pannekoek criticised him for. Plekhanov didn't think much of Panneloek either. See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/pannekoek.htm#n1Here's an article by modern Russian group which also links Bogdanov and Pannekoek and provides more on what he meant by "tectology":http://revsoc.org/archives/2201Bogdanov's socialist/communist credentials are confirmed in this extract from his book A Short Course of Economic Science which the party used to recommend:http://revsoc.org/archives/7467I'd like to know more about Bogdanov's ideas myself if anybody who reads Russian can help.

Thanks for the links, ALB.I'll try to follow them up, and try to see if I can understand the similarities/differences between Pannekoek/Dietzgen and Bogdanov. On Untermann, a comrade here provided a suggestion for the book Science and Revolution, which I've bought and had a glance at. Untermann seems to be more influenced by Engels than I like, but I might be wrong about Untermann's views. At present, though, I'd separate his ideas from Pannekoek/Dietzgen.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I would urge you again to look more into the ideas of Alexander Bogdanov who had similar ideas to you on cognition, truth and the unification of science. See for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TectologyHe also meets your test of being a Communist (or socialist, same thing):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_BogdanovYou may be trying to re-invent the wheel!

ALB, I know nothing of Bogdanov. Would you care to provide a short summary of what you consider to be his ideas? Especially those relevant to this discussion, about cognition, or wider scientific method.I've looked to the links, and I certainly disagree with Proletkultism, and his lack of democratic content, given his focus on technology.[later edit]

wikipedia wrote:

The starting point in Bogdanov's Universal Science of Organization – Tectology (1913-1922) was that nature has a general, organized character, with one set of laws of organization for all objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TectologyIs this a fair statement of Bogdanov's views, ALB?How does this compare with Pannekoek's position that 'laws' are humanly-created laws, rather than 'laws of nature'? I.e. that 'laws' sit in 'knowledge', rather than in 'object'.

Pannekoek wrote:

Hence Historical Materialism looks upon the works of science, the concepts, substances, natural Laws, and forces, although formed out of the stuff of nature, primarily as the creations of the mental Labour of man. Middle-class materialism, on the other hand, from the point of view of the scientific investigator, sees all this as an element of nature itself which has been discovered and brought to light by science.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch02.htm

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Brian wrote:

Again its so obvious that your attraction towards Schaff is bordering on idolatry and therefore you are not applying critical thinking in a robustic manner towards him.  

I don't think this is fair. Complex issues like this do require a more extensive background reading than can be gleamed from reading a few forum posts. LBird says he is impressed by Schaffs theory of cognition and agrees with it, that is fair enough. The trouble is Schaff's work is hard to find and not available online. So most of us can't discuss Schaff, hence the references to Deitzgen and Pannekoek. You don't think we are Deitzgen or Pannekoek idolizers do you?

Yeah, I've already said that I disagree with Schaff over a number of issues. I've tried to expose his ideas to collective criticism, the better to advance both my own thoughts and other comrades'.As you also say, discussions 'require a more extensive background reading', which few posters seem to be prepared to do. At the very least, they could ask for clarifications and analogous explanations, which I've tried to give, with my outlines of Schaff's ideas and a description of a theory of cognition in the form of the production of an 'NHS Computer System'. These seem to have been, for the most part, ignored. Those who oppose Schaff's theory certainly haven't tried to either openly state their own theory (which they have, but probably don't recognise) or to give an analogy to help other comrades come to terms with their ideas, and to help them to contrast them with Schaff's cognitive theory, the better to illustrate both.But some posters prefer the 'individualist' approach, of using 'common sense', and make no attempt to outline their own preconceptions – no doubt, because their 'method' tells them that such exposure is not required. Essentially, it comes down to 'it's my opinion, and that's that'.Whatever it is, it's not any sort of 'scientific method', but ruling class ideas masquerading as 'personal opinion'. In fact, it's ignorance, both of 'scientific method' and the basics of Marx's ideas about 'ruling class ideas' permeating all of our thinking.However, I'm prepared to carry on discussions with comrades who want to ask questions, both of me and themselves. But comrades must tell us what the basis of their ideas are, so that we can compare and contrast, and take the discussion forward.

[LBird]

It’s my opinion that the longer-term purpose of these discussions between Communists (cognition, nature versus humanity, matter versus mind, methodology, etc.) is to produce a ‘scientific method’ that can be applied to all aspects of ‘natural humanity’. Thus, there can’t be a separation, which some comrades seem to think is necessary, between the ‘physical’ or ‘material’ world and the ‘social’ or ‘philosophical’ world. As I have shown, Marx thought that the unification of nature and humanity into one science was possible, and I think that we Communists should be attempting to do this. I see my current discussion about ‘theories of cognition’ as a very small step on the winding road to that distant goal.Any method, that we can come up with, has to be applicable to the full range of ‘science’, from physics to sociology, and taking in astronomy, chemistry, biology and psychology (and all the other disciplines), along the way.To do this, we have to take on board the best of both Marxist and bourgeois thought on the subject, and, given any suitable recent advances originating from either source, to also ditch any baggage produced by earlier Marxists, which we now consider to have been mistaken. And baggage does exist, not least starting with Engels, in my opinion.These tasks cannot be approached from the perspective of ‘individual common sense’, which is always anything but! To do so, would be similar to approaching Marx’s works on political economy from the viewpoint of today’s ‘individual consumer’ and their ‘personal free choice’. Since I assume most readers on this site will have seen through the bourgeois mystification of the so-called ‘free market’ and its ‘free choice’, and will have come to realise that we are all brainwashed within our society into its ways of thinking from birth, then I think that it should be easier for comrades to come to appreciate the similar problems facing us Communists when it comes to ‘science’. We have to actively question ‘common sense’, as much in ‘science’ as in ‘the market’.Once more, it’s my opinion that ‘science’ and ‘the market’ are the central bastions of bourgeois authority, and that production, both scientific and economic, must be put under our democratic control.One of the things that I find attractive about the SPGB is its insistence on ‘democracy’, and that the class, not a party or sect, should be the final arbiters of all decisions that affect our world society. Within this scope, I include ‘science’, and I’m hoping that comrades, perhaps given some further explanations, discussions and study, will also come to take this position.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

According to LBird I'm both right and wrong.

Yes, you're 'right' that there is an external reality. But we all agree on that, I think.More seriously, what you're 'wrong' about is how we 'understand' that external reality.

Brian wrote:

On the question of what theory of cognition do I use is for my way of thinking or particular mindset, its a hard one to grasp but also a very difficult one to answer in a definitive sense. Because firstly, with all due (self)respect my actual method of cognition in use at a particular moment in time depends on a whole host of factors like: mood; interest; enjoyment; awareness; knowledge; understanding; skills; experience; etc, etc. Obviously, these factors filter or if you prefer select which food of thought tickles my fancy at a given moment in time.

This is just good old bourgeois individualism. No scientific method, of any sort. If that suits you, then fine, but it's not 'science'.

Brian wrote:

Secondly, I prefer this situation because it allows me not to participate in the silly business of self-labelling.

I think some would call it 'self-awareness'!

Brian wrote:

Last but not least it provides a certain amount of autonomy and flexibiity through induction and deduction what particular sensation fits in with my experience of being a member of the working class.

And 'bollocks to method', eh?

Brian wrote:

Having said that and in all honesty, I'm very comfortable with the present situation…

I must admit, since other posters must feel the same way as you do, that I'm not sure why those who feel this way are participating in a thread which requires some (or much!) critical reading and thinking about present, 'comfortable', common sense ways of understanding the world, especially scientifically.All I can say, Brian, is if you're happy, that's fine by me, comrade.

[LBird]

We initiate the conversation with external reality.Reality exists, before we ask questions.But reality doesn't initiate the conversation.The conversation begins with a question.The question is a human construct.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

So it appears that LBird has dug himself into a corner where conciousness has no material base. Which from whatever angle means its a logical fallacy.

I can't believe that this nonsense still has legs!If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times! The object exists outside of, and prior to, the subject. How many more times can I say this?The question we're trying to discuss, is 'how does the subject understand the object?'.

Brian wrote:

That's me thinking for myself.

No, it isn't! You're just repeating what society has told you, all your life! It's the myth of modern science, that the object presents itself unbidden to the subject.

Brian wrote:

And means that logically our brain is not set in a vacuum for it requires something to think about which ultimately comes from our experience and practice of reproducing the species in a given environment.

Yes, the 'object' for us comes from our experience and practice! You are right!

Brian wrote:

This interaction between stimilus and response provokes thoughts and theories on what action and reaction is possible and also probable.

No, no, no!We choose what 'stimuli' (from an infinite stream) to 'respond' to, by 'selection'.The notion that 'practice' produces 'theories' is induction. If you are an inductivist, say so, and we can progress the discussion.

Brian wrote:

And when a scientific mindset of a historical period develops the knowledge and understanding that a theory is found to be tainted by the political ideology of the ruling class they decide its time to put our collective thinking caps on.

All 'science' is 'tainted' by humans. It's a human activity. There is no 'passive' route to the 'object'. Science means thinking. Thinking is human.We won't get to the root of this, comrades, until those who disagree with Schaff,OUTLINE THE THEORY OF COGNITION WHICH THEY THEMSELVES ARE EMPLOYING.Brian, which theory of cognition do you use? If you are not selecting, how do you cope with innumerable sense impressions? Why are you not overwhelmed by sensation?

[LBird]

Since we’re trading ‘Marx quotes’:

Karl Marx, The German Ideology, wrote:

This method of approach is not devoid of premises. It starts out from the real premises and does not abandon them for a moment.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

Karl Marx, EPM, wrote:

But also when I am active scientifically, etc… then my activity is social, because I perform it as a man. Not only is the material of my activity given to me as a social product (as is even the language in which the thinker is active): my own existence is social activity, and therefore that which I make of myself, I make of myself for society and with the consciousness of myself as a social being.My general consciousness is only the theoretical shape of that of which the living shape is the real community, the social fabric, although at the present day general consciousness is an abstraction from real life and as such confronts it with hostility. The activity of my general consciousness, as an activity, is therefore also my theoretical existence as a social being.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm'Not devoid of premises'.'the material of my activity [is] given to me as a social product', 'as is even language'.For Marx, something precedes practice. 'Premises' are 'given'.But, really, trading quotes is no substitute for comrades thinking for themselves, now, in this century, using the advances of the last 150 years since Marx wrote, made by both Communists and bourgeois philosophers

[LBird]

Well, I'll take that as one vote for 'ignorance and stupidity'.Or should that be 'stupidity and ignorance'?

[LBird]

The issue of whether 'theory precedes practice' or 'practice precedes theory' surely has already been settled to most comrades minds, given the quotes which support the 'theory' position, and the absence of any justification for the 'practice precedes theory' argument?It's a no-brainer, comrades. Theory precedes practice. Even the bourgeois thinkers, catching up with Communists, have got that far!To argue otherwise, is to return to the pre-Popperian position of 'induction'.Remember Popper's 'searchlight theory of mind', which he counterposed to the earlier inductive and positivist 'bucket theory of mind'? The 'mind as a passive bucket' into which 'sensual experience' just pours itself?And what was Carr arguing, in his 'What is History?', which the SPGB actually used as a title for a meeting, if not the necessity of recognising our preconceptions which determine selection?And we Communists always say 'theory and practice'.The 'practice first' position is a fundamentally conservative stance, because it ignores the conditions that exist prior to practice, and takes the line that 'we must deal with reality, as things exists'. On the contrary, revolutionaries critically question 'what exists' and have a plan for action, to change reality. Don't we?We really should have a vote on this issue, before we proceed any further.I vote for 'theory precedes practice'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What new has been learned by anyone?

You asked for some 'explanation' of the issues, ajj.I've given an analogy of an 'NHS computer system' – did this help you, at all? I've not had much feedback, except for a comment by Brian.It's hard to judge whether the thread has been of any use, unless some other posters (not the main contributors) make an assessment.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

theory' must precede 'practice', otherwise how do we account for the moment of 'selection'?

Don't ask me, ask Pannekoek. He said it when discussing the origin (as opposed to the practice and methods) of science.

But surely we are discussing the 'practice and methods of science'?Y'know, 'cognition'.How can a 'selection' be made from a infinite stream of potential sense-impressions, originating from the object, without a 'theory'?Isn't that what the SPGB's meeting was about, which I wish I'd been able to attend?Otherwise, 'selection' (which must take place) becomes a random event – 'science as lottery' method?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Why don't you just f**k off, you dim b*st*rd.

Come on, this isn't debating. Let's all play nicely 

I've been as patient as I can with twc, over two threads, in which they've been gratuitously offensive to me. We're not talking about criticising my ideas, that's fine. It's about attacking me.In fact, I'm surprised a moderator hasn't at least had a 'quiet word' with twc, about their posts. Really, twc needs a public warning. It's not an isolated event, but in almost every post they've made.Still, my apologies to the other posters.

[Author]

Posts