Comrade Dover,
I would like to make one point clear here: the scientific philosophical
concept of "simple" is not equatable to the different scientific concepts of
simple in various fields of scientific investigations. Thus, the discussion
of the scientific philosophical concept of "simple" is very much
philosophical as it is political.
Javad
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Dover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: [MLL] Engels' Dialectics of Nature!
> Comrades Javad and John,
>
> I hope to have my computer back on line this weekend.
>
> In reply to your posts and to make my position clear, I will just mention
> that the search that Engels initiated on the subject the basic or simplest
> form of motion is not, for me, a topic but a scientific study and not one
> to be raised and dropped on a political discussion forum. I have always
> placed the application of Marxism to politics above its application to
> natural science for that is where the task lies primarily, whilst we know
> of its relavence and interconnection to the applied sciences as Engels
> demonstrated.
>
> This then explains my reluctance to engage in such a discussion on the
list
> itself; I believe it would not have a wide appeal on such a list anyway
but
> certainly it can be used to solicit interested Marxists to join in such an
> investigation without detriment to political discussion as your current
> interest has shown; to which I must express my surprise and pleasure. My
> study has proceeded alongside the study and practice of Marxism-Leninism
> which has always taken precedence. I can assure you that the subject
matter
> is so absorbing that one can so easily forget ones political priorities.
> You will be aware that this discussion was a tangent to the topic 'Marxism
> and ecology' which has disappeared into the background, if you get my
> point. Politics became secondary on the list for a moment.
>
> I note your suggestion Javad but I still think that an off line approach
at
> least in the first instance is the better, while a forum if developed, be
> linked to the list. It would be quite easy for the moment to set up a
group
> in our address book and operate with that within the list to establish a
> working group.
>
> Thank you John for your comments too and note your enthusiasm, it would
> please me greatly to be able to discuss this critical aspect of the
> dialectics of nature with other Marxists, since to date, the results of my
> lonely continuation of Engels initiative have just been gathering dust
and
> for want of discussion I talk to the wall. My only reservation is that it
> be seen in proper relation to our political obligations. Of course we need
> in order to start, have a copy of Engel,s Dialectics of Nature to hand, to
> understand clearly the task that he identified as being one that only
> Marxism can resolve due to its dialectical perspectives as opposed to the
> mechanical perspective of the bourgeoisie; if the Marx2Mao site has one on
> line that would be of advantage to us.
>
> Shall we set up a group cc list of Alan, John and Javad or have you a
> better idea for starters ?
>
> Fraternally Alan.
>
>
>
> ---------
> > From: Javad Eskandarpour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [MLL] Engels' Dialectics of Nature!
> > Date: Thursday, 10 August 2000 12:54
> >
> > Comrade Dover,
> >
> > I would like to make a suggestion regarding Engels' Dialectics of
Nature:
> > let us keep the discussion of the topic, the concept of "simple", a
> public
> > discussion which might be valuable theoretically and practically for
some
> > participants who would like to do some "impractical" things among their
> > practical ones, unless the members of this list would like to prefer the
> > usual news-e-mails and not to participate in this kind of discussion,
> then
> > we will proceed according to your suggestion.
> >
> > Javad
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Alan Dover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 2:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MLL] Engels' Dialectics of Nature!
> >
> >
> > > Comrade Javad,
> > >
> > > I accept your most interesting comments on the subject and will gladly
> > > reply if you direct them to me off line as I requested. Unfortunately
I
> am
> > > trying to get my computer running again as it is down with a virus. I
> am
> > > using a borrowed computer for email meanwhile. I look forward to
> resuming
> > > discussions shortly,
> > >
> > > fraternally Alan.
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > > From: Javad Eskandarpour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: [MLL] Engels' Dialectics of Nature!
> > > > Date: Tuesday, 8 August 2000 07:58
> > > >
> > > > Comrade Dover,
> > > >
> > > > As I read your e-mail on Engels' Dialectics of Nature, I thought
that
> > you
> > > > would like to investigate the concept of "the simplest" according to
> > > > dialectical-materialism, but I think the first thing which is of
> > > > philosophical import is the concept of "simple" according to
> > > > dialectical-materialism. This concept has been the point of
> discussion
> > > among
> > > > the "philosophers" of bourgeoisie and also among the philosophers of
> the
> > > > working-class.
> > > > This concept of "simple" has many important practical applications
> for
> > > the
> > > > militant working-class movement. For example, Lenin was vehemently
> > > against
> > > > some "scientific" theoreticians with their "economy of thought".
> > > Recently,
> > > > many bourgeois "philosophers" and "scientists" would like to have a
> > > > criterion of "simplicity" for adoption of a theory among the
> "competing"
> > > > theories in any field of scientific investigation. And of course,
> their
> > > > definition of "simple" and "simplicity" is subjective par
excellence.
> > > Now,
> > > > the question is how is this concept of "simple" understood according
> to
> > > > dialectical-materialism?
> > > > By the way, let us say that somhow we come to a concrete understaing
> of
> > > "the
> > > > simplest", then how is this understaing specifically going to "be of
> > > great
> > > > advantage to all the sciences natural and applied and the basis of a
> > > better
> > > > understanding of the historical development of the universe"? I am
> > > > interested in some details regarding this "better understaing", but
> not
> > > some
> > > > "general" statements.
> > > >
> > > > Javad
> > > >
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
