proyect and malecki, over and out - reprise

Hinrich Kuhls kls at unidui.uni-duisburg.de
Tue Oct 15 15:30:02 MDT 1996


At 14:05 15.10.96 -0400,  "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <rosserjb at jmu.edu> wrote:

>our less-than-overly-intelligent malecki

>Barkley Rosser
>Professor of Economics
>James Madison University
>Harrisonburg, VA 22807 USA

Bob Malecki correctly numbers each issue of his e-zine. However, Prof.
Smart-Aleck does not know the numbers. It's the number "two" where he
already stumbles.

Hinrich Kuhls

PS: The appropriate piece of homework [until joining any new list] for Prof.
Smart-Aleck, "who has participated in past years' discussions of the
Economics Prize in Memory of Alfred Nobel, and who has had words to say
about this year's prize on both pkt and ecol-econ":

1000 copies of the following sentences - in his own handwriting, and not by
copying and pasting:

1. I must not count uno, *dia*, tres, quattro.
2. I must not interfere in threads where I don't know anything about nothing.
3. I must not spell dialectics as di-alectics.
4. I should spell dialectics as dia-lectics.
5. I should have known that dialectics is derived from dia-legein, which in
English is not only to dispute, but also to emit something, f.i. royal sputa
like those which I usually produced myself in my postings to the marxism
lists and from which another example is reproduced here:

At 11:56 15.07.96 -0500, ROSSERJB at jmu.edu wrote:

>To Adam R.:
>     So, you do not think that dialectics constitutes
>a  "two-state logic"?  Well, just what does the "di"
>in "dialectic" stand for then?  Something tells me
>that it is not the Princess of Wales, soon to be no
>longer "Her Royal Highness."  Or maybe you think that
>the synthesis makes it a three or more state logic?
>Barkley Rosser

At 10:58 16.07.96 -0500, ROSSERJB at jmu.edu wrote:

>     I "second" Jukka Laari's remarks with one further
>addendum.  The "dia" most definitely refers to "two."
>A "dialogue" is between exactly two parties (in Plato's
>dialectical dialogues presenting opposing positions).
>When one party is speaking it is a "monologue."
>     If dialectics is not a "two-valued logic" then what
>is it?  A many valued logic?  A fuzzy valued logic?  A
>no value logic?  Not a logic?
>Barkley Rosser, (elementary school, my dear Watson, :-))

At 15:59 16.07.96 -0500, ROSSERJB at jmu.edu wrote:

>     My questions were not directed at Jukka, although
>he has supplied some very informed commentary.
>     Let me clarify one point.  There are really two
>competing "two valued systems" involved in dialectics.
>One is the "unity of opposites."  The other has to do
>with truth values.  Now, I suspect that modern dialectical
>philosophers might question this, but as near as I can
>tell the Greek dialecticians (who included Aristotle)
>along with Hegel, Marx, and Engels  accepted two-valued
>logics in terms of truth versus falsity.  Some things are
>true and some are not, even if categories interpenetrate.
>Barkley Rosser






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




More information about the Marxism mailing list