Ron Press anclondon at gn.apc.org
Thu Feb 23 12:23:59 MST 1995

1> I have difficulty with the following, ( From: Ralph Dumain
<rdumain at igc2.igc.apc.org>)

"The real problem is that one can't really understand objective
dialectics until one has understood subjective dialectics.  Put
simply: how can one understand what a "contradiction" in nature
would be until one understands the nature of what such apparent
contradictions mean in thought?"

I can see that there is the objective and the subjective. However
I am sure there must be a close relationship between them. A
Subjective dialectic surely arises only from the existance of an
objective dialectic. The subjective pattern arises from the
objective reality creating patterns of thought in our minds. The
objective reality was there before we even came into existance as
a species. It is the old egg and chicken syndrome. Put simply how
can one understand what a "contradiction" means in thought until
one understands what it means in nature.

Can someone point me in the direction of an introduction to this
bloke Bhaskar. He seems interesting. Perhaps ,Hans G. Ehrbar , can
give me some references.

I am intrigued by the idea of

"Fourthly, Bhaskar pulls an amazing multitude of insights out of
his simple second-order question.  One of his main insights is
that the world is not "flat" but consists of many "layers".
Again, I tend to agree but I would like to see a careful
derivation of all these second-order conclusions somewhere.   In
my view, this particular insihgt already brings us very close to
dialectics as an appropriate scientific method, because the
movement between these layers involves discontiuities, and the
fact that these layers are not self-contained means that you will
get contradictions which cannot be resolved as long as you remain
within one layer."

This reminds me of Fractals and strange attractors. Each layer or
enlargement of a section of a fractal contains the same fractal
pattern. Are our minds fractal patterns of nature. Is society and
its structures in turn fractal patterns of our brains.

The idea of different layers with discontinuities reminds me of
the strange attractors which circulate around the same point in
space but never intersect.

I do find the idea of  things which are not, de-onts, werv
reasonable. There are a myriad of things we do not and will never
know about. Grand, but until we do what do we do about it ? It is
just as well that what we do not know does not keep us awake ar
night. Still the fact that we do not know about them is a fact.

Very interesting. Still I suppose it gets food into his fridge
even if is does not exist for the Indian peasant.

Sorry I must not be s cynic.

Ron Press

/not, he calls them de-onts if I remember right, are as important
or more so than things which are.  Things wh

Ps Is there ever a Free Market. This eeems an idealism. Free.

     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list