Re: The 'formalising' of dialectics.

I would certainly flatter myself if I were to compare myself to
a critic of Lenin's view of some obscure topic.  To me the gravamen
of Lenin as an historical figure were his views on war and revolution,
not
those on party organization-harped on by bureacratic rightists
constantly-
and certainly not whatever philosphical musings or crypto-religious
views
he may have had.  In fact, Lenin in "Socialism and Religion"
specifically
cautioned on not taking a dogmatic view on issues of this kind.

Thus Lenin focused not on Kant, Hegel or other obscure religico-
philosophical
figures as role models, but individuals like Luxemburg, Liebknecht and
Debs
(the latter whom he cited against Kautsky on the imperialist "Great
War").
Scientists are still steeped in the middle ages? no the cretinist
critics of science
are, a classic example of how the capitalist class had advanced
humanity
in battling feudal ideas, but now in its period of decadence must seek
to
shore them up as an ideological corollory of maintaining its rule by
seeking
to keep the m***** as dupe like as possible, but with the means of
production
becoming ever more technically complex that is a daunting task, a
contradiction
the liberal capitalists see as the US sinks into imperial decadence
and illiteracy while its
rivals crank out techinically savvy workers and specialists.

Yes, educated lay critics don't need to know science in order to
postulate certain
conclusions, but only up to the point of the extent of our knowledge
of this material,
otherwise we come across like pretentious ignoramuses, not to the
same
extent as the creationists obviously.  The error I see, that is basic
to the creationists
is a form of logic-"starting from the universal" which basically
argues back from a conclusion
which is completely backward and Ptolemaic.  We first look at the
facts and then
see where they lead etc and of course intuition can play a role.

I know its politically incorrect around here, but as someone who has
no particular interest
in philosophy (and why should I v. myriad other topics?), the
empiricism and pragmatism of James ("a new word for an old way of
thinking") and Bergson (whom I stumbled onto on Wikipedia) is what I
feel an affinity with, the ranting of political ideologues against
them for years, only having reinforced that view.  It also seems
congruent with the methodology of the scientific method which doesn't
start from preconcieved conclusions.  The hazards of these type of
"marxist" incursions into philosophy by semi-scientifically literate
ideologues was most dramatically illustrated by the career of TD
Lysenko and "marxist" botany. Obviously the emperor with no clothes is
going to feel threatened by empiricism.