Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:If so, why do you deny that only a vote can tell us what a rock 'is'?
Well, you have accepted that inorganic nature (the material substrate) is differentiated, that is, A is not B, and that this occurs before (or outside/without) human relations and the transformation into organic nature. Now, that must mean that, at the very least, A ≠ B means that no matter how we vote, we cannot truthfully say that A = B. We can say what we want otherwise, but we cannot say that. Now, it follows that if there are limits on what we can say by voting, then voting does not, and cannot confer truth upon a scientific statement.This is the ineluctable conclusion from the premise that you yourself have accepted.
LBird wrote:So, anyone who looks to active, talking, matter will deny the democratic role of workers in creating our world (which includes the production of scientific knowledge).I am active talking matter, so are you.
LBird wrote:Nevertheless, I think that, upon re-reading, I've given a fairly clear account of Marx's 'idealism-materialism', and his views of 'inorganic nature' being consciously transformed into 'organic nature'.But, since you accept a differentiated inorganic nature/material substrate, you're also accepting that A is not B. No amount of voting can declare A to be B, so voting cannot be the method of creating truth. You've accepted that these differences exist exterior and prior to human interaction with inorganic nature, so you must accept that conclusion that there is truth other than through human consensus.
LBird wrote:I'm surprised at you calling Marx's concept of 'theory and practice' vapid. It's the centrepiece of his philosophy.But he didn't call it that, I said the term that you use is vapid and maeningless, which it is, as it only causes confusion.
LBird wrote:The ruling class can't talk idealism-material, even for one minute, never mind all day long.The ruling class of the Soviet Union talked historical materialism all day long, I'm sure they could talk Idealism Materialism too.
LBird wrote:Once the bourgeoisie allow 'consciouness and being' to be re-united in a society that claims to be democratic, they're heading for the exit. They can allow it as much as Dracula can allow the blood-doners to stop giving.Fraid not, so long as they keep the tanks and the guns, they can talk a lot of old moonshine.
LBird wrote:We're not talking about 'idealism', but 'idealism-materialism'.Let's not revert to ahistoric, asocial physics or sociology.That's where we came in, and, if Marx's great insight is into anything, it's into the socio-historic production of our world.'Recuperation' is just another term for 'ditch the specifics, ideas rule'. I'm surprised at you using this concept, since it's idealism, through and through.Indeed, I was simply saying that in different times and different places, the ideas expoused by the bourgeoisie have differed, recuperation, last I checked was more a case of ditch the ideas, rulers rule, á la "marxism, last refuge of the bourgeoisie" etc. The ruling class could talk idealism-materialism (in fact, they'd love the vapidity of the term) all day long, while robbing it of any meaning/effect.
Young Master Smeet wrote:The bourgeoisie also produced philsophical idealism, it depends on the time, place and the exigencies. They've also produced post-modernism, there is no timeless essential bourgeois ideology. Recuperation is always a possibility of any idea.In fact, I'd add the (rough) national philosophic schema:Britain: EmpiricismFrance: RationalismGermany: Idealism.UNited States: Pragmatism
The bourgeoisie also produced philsophical idealism, it depends on the time, place and the exigencies. They've also produced post-modernism, there is no timeless essential bourgeois ideology. Recuperation is always a possibility of any idea.
LBird wrote:Materialism is a philosophy for elites and ruling classes.That doesn't follow, as I have demonstrated.Idealism-Materialism would suite them just as well.
LBird wrote:YMS wrote:Anyway, we agree, even if you are loathe to admit it.We do? Brilliant!I knew you'd come round to arguing for the democratic control of our physics and maths.Well done, Young Master Smeet!
I've always argued for that. But with you accepting that the 'material substrate' of 'inorganic nature' exists and is non-uniform, I believe I can rest my case.
LBird wrote: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'.Shit me sideways with a shitting fork. You've just said exactly what I said.
LBird wrote: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.Equally, the limits of what we can do with labour also exist, so that is present on both sides, but I'd say that just lying there and being a hurdle is pretty passive, wouldn't you? Yes, we can change the way we approach the hurdle, and do different active things with it, but it stays in its form as hurdle, and there will be things we can't do to it. In a sense, it is merely a negation of our activity.Anyway, we agree, even if you are loathe to admit it.
LBird wrote: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').Your mean like
Chuck wrote:The use values, coat, linen, &c., i.e., the bodies of commodities, are combinations of two elements – matter and labour. If we take away the useful labour expended upon them, a material substratum is always left, which is furnished by Nature without the help of man. The latter can work only as Nature does, that is by changing the form of matter. Nay more, in this work of changing the form he is constantly helped by natural forces. We see, then, that labour is not the only source of material wealth, of use values produced by labour. As William Petty puts it, labour is its father and the earth its mother.The connected footnote is interesting:
Pietro Verri wrote:“All the phenomena of the universe, whether produced by the hand of man or through the universal laws of physics, are not actual new creations, but merely a modification of matter. Joining together and separating are the only elements which the human mind always finds on analysing the concept of reproduction.’ and it is just the same with the reproduction of value” (value in use, although Verri in this passage of his controversy with the Physiocrats is not himself quite certain of the kind of value he is speaking of) “and of wealth, when earth, air and water in the fields are transformed into corn, or when the hand of man transforms the secretions of an insect into silk, or some pieces of metal are arranged to make the mechanism of a watch.”I am being logical here. If the material substratum were undifferentiated, a kind of cosmic clay without variance anywhere, then it would be as if it did not exist (we could simply Ockham it away), and human labour would be the only substance (and be left with a world in which by will alone things happen).
LBird wrote: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.Again, you're misunderstanding. We don't have to 'iterpret', but, merely as the hurdle on a race track (which is entirely passive) your activity must relate, and change, in contact with nature. Yes, we could run straight into a hurdle, or we can jump it (in different ways), but it's character of hurdle would still limit they way in which we could traverse it.
LBird wrote:Marx, me, you (and most socialists, I think) agree that 'inorganic nature' exists external to 'consciousness'.Yay, yay, yay!
LBird wrote:But, your second statement makes the mistake of saying 'assuming this 'inorganic nature'.Then I shall correct my mistake. I will assert that 'inorganic nature' has varying qualities.
LBird wrote: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).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.
LBird wrote: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!Even if we could, it would require different processes and methods to making a silk purse out of silk.
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?
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'.
LBird wrote: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'.I used to know someone whose email signature read 'I have an exact map of the univgerse: unfortunately, it is life sized".
LBird wrote: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'.Actually, bourgeois philsophy, say in the shape of Kant, denies that the phenomenal world can ever be known fully, as a reflection of the infinite use value of money and accumulation, ever perfectable profitability. I've read enough post-modernist philsopher to see what a reactionary notion the idea of the impossiblility of truth, subjectivity, meaning etc. can be.e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/30/books/review/nothing-is-true-and-everything-is-possible-by-peter-pomerantsev.html?_r=0(A play on William S. Burroughs 'Nothing is true, everything is permitted').
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. Anyway
Lbird wrote: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.I didn't say that, altouh the immediate objects I thought of connected with the sun were ideational, I could equally have included solar farms, windows, even plants and zen gardens as part of our Sun objects.Anyway, it was nice to see you fundamentally disagree with Marx on "Nature is man's inorganic body — that is to say, nature insofar as it is not the human body".But, back to the more immediate point, ven if you did agree with Marx, the pont is that an objective world does not necessarily lead itself to elite rule, which is the central thrust of your contention of why this is eve remotely relevent to anything. Maybe it could assit elite rule, but it doesn't have to.Finally:
Lbird wrote:The ideological belief that humans only create ideas, whilst god creates the rest, is at root a religious one, that is, 'idealism'.No, that's dualism, idealism is the belief that there is nothing but ideas.
