Re: The 'formalising' of dialectics.

On Jul 6, 12:01 pm, stephen <srdiam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> She writes in an irritating tone, which I mention because in addition
> to her prolixity, it makes her difficult to read. Consider her ad
> hominem remark about Conrad's reply in my preceding post, which
> continued by lamenting Conrad's theoretical level. Her message is not
> 'Conrad transparently fails to answer my arguments' but 'I'm the
> superior philosopher."
> srd

Yes she's irritating alright. Remember her attack is on the dialectics
of nature not on Engels per se. Taking a cursory look (a tiny sample
without reading Conrad's reply - I would say it's pretty predictable)
of the Rosa Lichtenstein / Conrad (Weekly Worker) "entry level" debate
we have her say this:

"Engels asserted the following:

[Q]ualitative changes can only occur by the quantitative addition or
subtraction of matter or motion (so-called energy)=85. Hence it is
impossible to alter the quality of a body without addition or
subtraction of matter or motion, i.e. without quantitative alteration
of the body concerned.1

Such changes are neither smooth nor gradual:

=2E..[Q]uantitative changes, ac***ulating gradually, lead in the end to
changes of quality, and that these changes of quality represent leaps,
interruptions in gradualness=85. That is how all Nature acts=85.2

And yet, there are many things in nature that undergo smooth
qualitative change -- for example, melting metal, glass, plastic,
butter, toffee and chocolate. Sure, some things change "nodally", but
many do not. So, the "nodal" aspect of this Law is defective.

Unfortunately, this implies that it cannot be used to argue that the
transformation from capitalism to socialism must be nodal too, for we
have no idea whether this transformation is one of these exceptions.
Plainly, we could only use this Law if it had no exceptions
whatsoever.

This means that the whole point of adopting this Law in the first
place has now vanished."

=2E........................................................................=
............................................................................=
..

Her remarks are of such inaccuracy and triteness that they makes one
wonder how she musters up the hide to write hundreds of thousands of
words presumably in the same vein - as this is the simplest stuff
("entry point dialectics") to deal with (almost sub-Hegelian).

In spite of what she says, all these things "metal, glass, plastic,
butter, toffee and chocolate" do at some point undergo "nodal" changes
at a certain point. Metal (presumably an element) va****ises, glass (a
compound) no doubt vapourises and if it is cooled undergoes an
apparent solidification, butter (a mixture) caramelises, toffee (a
mixture) carbonizes, chocolate (a mixture) undergoes complex
degradation. And even if there were an exception - an infinite range
of melting without an qualitative change this would prove NOTHING at
all against Engels' point.


And further she says:

"What about 'quantity into quality'? Undeniably, many material things
change qualitatively as a result of the addition or subtraction of
matter or energy.

But this is not true of all qualitative difference. The order in which
events take place can affect quality, too. For example, try crossing a
busy main road first and looking second -- now, try it the other way
round! And anyone who tries pouring half a litre of water slowly into
a litre of concentrated sulphuric acid will face a long and painful
stay in hospital, whereas the reverse action is perfectly safe."

=2E........................................................................=
...............................................................

Who says that the order of events is of no im****tance? Does she think
Engels was a stupid as she is?