>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23 6:26 AM >>>


I am with Charles Brown 100% (almost) in this dispute. 
__________

Charles: Thanks for that, comrade.
_____

Charles: I think you are making fundamentally
helpful points in emphasizing the usual
aspects of materialism. It's funny but we
have been discussing mainly dialectics
and comes the charge from Andy that
Engels and Lenin are idealists in
their position. I have been arguing
against this without going into the usual
fundamentals of materialism to combat
Andy's charge of idealism. As you point out,
it usually means that oneself is the
real idealist when one tries to say
Engels is an idealist. 
________
The turning point in this argument was the Giraffe debate where the evolution
of the long neck was accepted as (partially) dialectical. None could say what
_______

Charles: Oops I cut off some. I think
the giraffe example, which I only
skimmed is dialectics in a natural
example. It seems like the discussion
of Lewontin and Levins in _The
Dialectical Biologist_ ; animals
have some subjectivity vis-a-vis
their environments. The whole is
prior to the parts. These are dialectical
principles. But Darwinism is
dialectical too. Did you see the
letter in which Marx called
Darwin's work "our (Marx 
AND Engels'_ method in
natural history ?


1.  There are no universal, absolute  laws we are told. Then comes the
current, very good debate, on  Marx and the particular and the general. But
Charles Brawn must be aware the there is an even more *general* statement of
the general. 
_______

Charles: Yes ! That quote was rattling
around in the back of my mind and
I was going to find it and post it.
This is the fullest statement of the
principle I am getting at. Thanks. This
will help to  concentrate the argument.

I refer to Engels famous passage an Anti-Duhring (Gerry Healy*s
favourite to enrage the anti-diamets): " When  we consider and reflect on
nature at large or the history of mankind or our own intellectual activity, at
first we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and
reactions, permutations and combinations, in which nothing remains what where
and as it was, but everything moves, changes,  comes into being and passes
away. [We see therefore at first the picture as a whole, with its individual
parts still kept more or less in the background.; we observe the movement,
transition, connections, rather than the things that move, combine and are
connected.] This primitive, na´ve,  but intrinsically correct conception of
the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly
formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid,
is constantly coming into being and passing away.
2.  But this conception, correct as it expresses the General character of the
picture of appearances as a whole, does not suffice to explain the details of
which this picture is made up, and as long as we do not understand these we
cannot have a clear ideal of the whole picture. In order to understand these
details we  must detach them from their natural or historical connection and
examine each one separately, its nature, specific causes, etc.  * The analysis
of nature into its individual parts, the groupi8ng of the different natural
processes and objectives in definite classes, the study of the internal
anatomy of organic bodies in their manifold forms - these were the fundamental
conditions for the gigantic strides in our knowledge during the last four
hundred years. But this method of work also left us as legacy the habit of
observing natural objects and processes in  isolation, apart from their
connection with the vast  whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion;
as constants not as essentially variables; in their death,  not in their life.
And when this way of looking at  things was transferred by Bacon and Locke
from natural science to philosophy, it begot the narrow, metaphysical mode of
thought peculiar to the last century."

AND THATS DIALECTICAL

________

Charles: Yes indeedy !
  

 
Gerry Downing

Charles Brown




>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/23 6:26 AM >>>


I am with Charles Brown 100% (almost) in this dispute. 
__________

Charles: Thanks for that, comrade.
_____

Charles: I think you are making fundamentally
helpful points in emphasizing the usual
aspects of materialism. It's funny but we
have been discussing mainly dialectics
and comes the charge from Andy that
Engels and Lenin are idealists in
their position. I have been arguing
against this without going into the usual
fundamentals of materialism to combat
Andy's charge of idealism. As you point out,
it usually means that oneself is the
real idealist when one tries to say
Engels is an idealist. 
________
The turning point in this argument was the Giraffe debate where the evolution
of the long neck was accepted as (partially) dialectical. None could say what
_______

Charles: Oops I cut off some. I think
the giraffe example, which I only
skimmed is dialectics in a natural
example. It seems like the discussion
of Lewontin and Levins in _The
Dialectical Biologist_ ; animals
have some subjectivity vis-a-vis
their environments. The whole is
prior to the parts. These are dialectical
principles. But Darwinism is
dialectical too. Did you see the
letter in which Marx called
Darwin's work "our (Marx 
AND Engels'_ method in
natural history ?


1.  There are no universal, absolute  laws we are told. Then comes the
current, very good debate, on  Marx and the particular and the general. But
Charles Brawn must be aware the there is an even more *general* statement of
the general. 
_______

Charles: Yes ! That quote was rattling
around in the back of my mind and
I was going to find it and post it.
This is the fullest statement of the
principle I am getting at. Thanks. This
will help to  concentrate the argument.

I refer to Engels famous passage an Anti-Duhring (Gerry Healy*s
favourite to enrage the anti-diamets): " When  we consider and reflect on
nature at large or the history of mankind or our own intellectual activity, at
first we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and
reactions, permutations and combinations, in which nothing remains what where
and as it was, but everything moves, changes,  comes into being and passes
away. [We see therefore at first the picture as a whole, with its individual
parts still kept more or less in the background.; we observe the movement,
transition, connections, rather than the things that move, combine and are
connected.] This primitive, na´ve,  but intrinsically correct conception of
the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly
formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid,
is constantly coming into being and passing away.
2.  But this conception, correct as it expresses the General character of the
picture of appearances as a whole, does not suffice to explain the details of
which this picture is made up, and as long as we do not understand these we
cannot have a clear ideal of the whole picture. In order to understand these
details we  must detach them from their natural or historical connection and
examine each one separately, its nature, specific causes, etc.  * The analysis
of nature into its individual parts, the groupi8ng of the different natural
processes and objectives in definite classes, the study of the internal
anatomy of organic bodies in their manifold forms - these were the fundamental
conditions for the gigantic strides in our knowledge during the last four
hundred years. But this method of work also left us as legacy the habit of
observing natural objects and processes in  isolation, apart from their
connection with the vast  whole; of observing them in repose, not in motion;
as constants not as essentially variables; in their death,  not in their life.
And when this way of looking at  things was transferred by Bacon and Locke
from natural science to philosophy, it begot the narrow, metaphysical mode of
thought peculiar to the last century."

AND THATS DIALECTICAL

________

Charles: Yes indeedy !
  

 
Gerry Downing

Charles Brown



     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---


     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---


Reply via email to