Re: The 'formalising' of dialectics.

On Jul 2, 2:23=A0am, rab <rogeralanblackw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 1 Jul, 16:28, dusty <trackdu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 8:26 am, 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
th=
is
> > > > work doesn't easily fit into the everyday consciousness because in
t=
he
> > > > 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
though=
t
> > > > 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 im****tant to keep in mind that dialectics are not a human
> > construct but actually inhere in matter and in higher forms of its
> > organisation including society and its development. Hence a true
> > understanding of these requires a mastery of the former.
>
> > Healy=92s Studies p. 39:
> > The source of dialectics is in dialectical nature, of which human
> > beings are a dialectical part. "...for every materialist,=94 wrote
> > Lenin, =93sensation is indeed the direct connection between
> > consciousness and the external world; it is the transformation of the
> > energy of external excitation into the fact of consciousness.=94
(Lenin:=

> > Collected Works, Volume 14, p.51).
> > The energy of excitation=94 is provided by the external world of
nature
> > which is primary with consciousness, thought, sensation as
secondary=85
> > (Volume 14, p.46).
> > (Has any move been made to have the Studies placed on the Archive?)
>
> I have a text or HTML version of the main article 'Studies in
> Dialectical Materialism' and anybody is welcome to it.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> > I think rab is saying that it is incorrect to simply impose a
> > =93codified=94 dialectical law to understand the unfolding of social
> > development which has a unique complexity which must be understood
> > through a process involving the attempt by man to change that reality
> > through revolutionary practice. This is why Trotsky said that
> > dialectics for the revolutionary socialist were like finger exercises
> > to a concert pianist (In Defence of Marxism).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Would appreciate "a copy".