Re: The 'formalising' of dialectics.

On Jul 1, 4:31=A0am, rab <rogeralanblackw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 30 Jun, 23:26, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 9:31 am, rab <rogeralanblackw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > It is only by taking a critical attitude to this 'formalising of
> > > dialectics' that we can develop dialectical materialism today but
thi=
s
> > > work doesn't easily fit into the everyday consciousness because in
th=
e
> > > struggle to grasp even works by Hegel the mind tends to 'formalise'
> > > the content in order to understand the logic espoused. =A0It is
> > > necessary to suspend 'judgement' for a time and just follow the
> > > 'argument' in the order that this 'content' may stimulate new
thought
> > > through contradiction. =A0Whilst the work of some of those soviet
> > > philosophers may be useful in presenting the 'bare bones' of
> > > dialectical categories and their interconnections it is necessary to
> > > understand the 'active' side of dialectics and the fact that it
> > > develops through struggle.
>
> > There's a reason 9 out of ten times an apst poster invokes a
> > dialectical law, it is the law of the transformation of quantity into
> > quality. It is the only law anyone understands.
>
> > We have a dialectical law described as the "law of the
> > interpenetration of opposites." Neither of the two substantive terms
> > mean much of anything relevant to most people, myself included. Does
> > anyone have a *straightforward* idea of what interpenetration of
> > opposites is, like we all do for quantity/quality?
>
> > Forget formalization. What is needed is explication, built up from our
> > current vernacular, rather than continuing to express these concepts
> > in an archaic Hegelian ideolect. It seems to me that the subjective
> > experience you describe when you suspend judgment resembles the
> > mystical more than the scientific.
>
> > srd
>
> It is fine to use the everyday language of the 21st century but the
> formal logic learned at school and university does not suffice to
> 'understand' dialectics and that is why I wrote about suspending
> judgement not as a thing of faith but keeping the mind open enough to
> learn a new approach to thinking itself. =A0And I do think that many
> people understand the transformation of something into its opposite,
> the new into the old, the revolutionary party into a counter-
> revolutionary one as with Stalinism etc.

Do you think "transformation" exhausts "interpenetration"? I don't
think so. And what is an "opposite"? It is NOT mere formal negation.
These concepts must be explained so they connect with contem****ary
intellectual life, not just with 19th century philosophy.

srd
>
> Not all Hegelian concepts and categories are archaic, many remain
> useful in developing critical thought. =A0I would agree that sometimes
> Healy for instance presented dialectics perhaps too heavily loaded
> with Hegelian concepts and categories for many to understand but it
> will always be a struggle to teach dialectics because it is very much
> an active method of thought rather than a more passive and structured
> one. =A0Dialectical thought and revolutionary practice go hand in hand
> and will always antagonise the formal scholar.
>
> Roger