[Marxism] O, Dialectics!

Paul H. Dillon illonph at pacbell.net
Fri May 13 06:51:50 MDT 2005


What a laugh!  You appropriate "materialism" to yourself?  That's ridiculous 
and simply laughable.  You eliminate what you don't understand.  It's a good 
thing for us that Marx didn't follow your example.  You are quite simply a 
philosophical nominalist which is fine but absolutely inadequate for a 
revolutionary philosophy.  Furthermore, in your opinion, what exactly is 
matter??  For Marx, the point is that history itself is the matter.  That's 
why it's called historical materialism.  But history, as matter, has a 
different ontological status than other forms of matter (organic, inorganic) 
and follows laws distinct from those of those forms of matter.  Ontology, 
BTW, is not a Hegelian term.   But what really gets me is the fact that you 
have the audacity to use "leninology" as your blog name when Lenin extolled 
Hegel's virtues far more than I have and have every use for Hegel as he 
repeatedly states in V 38 of the collected works.   Quite simply, for Lenin, 
if you don't understand Hegel's Logic, you don't understand Capital.  Maybe 
in a spirit of revolutionary honesty, you'll change your blog name.

Finally, all forms of subjectivity are characterized as both being and 
not-being at the same time.  Say the word "now".  No, say it again,  again, 
maybe one of these moments, maybe your word will catch up with time.  What 
d'ya think?  It will won't it?

Paul Dillon


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "www.leninology. blogspot.com" <leninology at hotmail.com>
To: <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 12:30 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] O, Dialectics!


>
>>To my understanding, the central category of dialectics isn't change but 
>>becoming.  There is a difference. Cars change speeds.  Seeds become plant. 
>>Both can be represented as objects to a knowing subject.  But historical 
>>experience implies a subject that is also its own object.   Formal logic 
>>handles the first kind of situation just fine but can't account for the 
>>situation where A both is and is not as when a subject is its own 
>>object -- 
>>  the ontological primacy of history for any subject, the dimension of 
>> becoming is what allows this to happen -- the temporal dimension cannot 
>> be accounted for in formal logic although the universe as a fixed set of 
>> units of some kind or other, whose relative positions can be vary, this 
>> can be accounted for just fine but doesn't really resemble historical 
>> xperience  -- in which a projected future calls forth the elements in the 
>> present, rearranges their meanings as the apparent historical process of 
>> its own realization, as a social subject far beyond the province of a 
>> logic that fits in one brain alone.
>>
>>Paul Dillon
>
> I see.  Unfortunately, many of Hegel's terms are useless for materialists, 
> and what I've just read is a series of assertions that don't bear up to 
> critical scrutiny.  If the term 'Becoming' has any meaning, then we ought 
> to be able to say what it is, and at any rate I fail to see how it differs 
> from change.  Saying seeds 'become' plants is no different in effect to 
> saying seeds go through a process of *change* in interaction with soil, 
> moisture and light to become plants.  Notice that the word 'become' is 
> perfectly adequate here in its normal usage, whereas for Hegel the verb 
> must be frozen into an abstract noun - a strenuously capitalised one at 
> that.
>
> Further, do you know of any situation where a thing both is and is not? 
> True, if your 'is' refers to a time period of about five minutes, then I 
> both am and am not at home.  Similarly, if your assessment spans a few 
> months, then it both is and is not Summer.  On a long enough time-span, I 
> both and am not alive.  If this is what is meant by 'becoming', then I'm 
> fairly certain it can be accounted for with the use of ordinary language 
> and that we can dispense with Hegel's cumbersome jargon.  If it isn't, or 
> if you are hinting at some transcendental supposition, or if you are in 
> fact reiterating Hegel's idealism, then I'm going to need some help.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now! 
> http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism 





More information about the Marxism mailing list