At 08:17 22/06/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Ajit writes: >If it [the RP, realist postulate] is not true, then why are
>you holding it? And if it is not self evidently true, then on what other
>criterion of truth do you justify holding it? <
>
>JD: I've answered this before (and I hope that I don't have to answer it
>again): the RP seems necessary to rational thought and discussion and
>practice. I assume that rational thought and discussion and practice are
>good. If you don't, please call off the discussion.
________
AS: Well, this is something! It *seems* to jim (he is not sure about it
though) that RP is *necessary* for *rational thought*. We, of course, don't
know what rational thought means and how much of havoc it has coused to the
modern world--"rational though" is beyond criticism. He *assumes* that
rational thought is *good*--a normative claim. So the argument is complete:
RP is *good*, and if you don't believe it, "please call off the discussion"
(and if you believe it, then what is the point of discussing it?). The
premis of discussion is based on what "seems" to him, and what he "assumes"
has to be accepted. We must accept what Jim *assumes* to have a discussion
with him. And this is what I have been arguing against all through. This is
the position of arogance, this is the position of monoculture and
imperialism. Our debate is purely about multiculturalism--the right of
other cultures to speak!
____________
>
>AS now says: >You got it "wrong" not on the basis of some objective reality
>criteria but rather on the ground of your *interpretation* of a theory. For
>example, if one says that Marx was a general equilibrium theorist ... I
>could say that you got it wrong and make arguments to that effect. But this
>has nothing to do with an objective reality. There is no objective reality
>about a theory.<
>
>JD: But isn't there an objective reality about what Marx wrote?
______________
AS: I think reading of a text is either a hermeneutic interprise or a
deconstructive interprise. My own reading of Marx may be characterized as
hermeneutic (which is not postmodernism) rather than deconstructive. But
neither of the two traditions have any space for the "objective reality" of
the text.
________
JD: That is, if you
>accept the RP, then there are some objective objects out there called
>"books" rather than figments of your imagination.
___________
AS: I thought you had admitted that you didn't know what was out there. You
only knew that there was something "out there". Now you seem to know
exactly what is out there. How did you get there so quickly?
_______
>JD: Also, why in hell are we interested in Marx? why not put him in the same
>dustbin as Martin Tupper? because Marx had a theory (and a lot of empirical
>observations) about the _reality_ of capitalism, something that is
>presumably not simply Maya. Even better, Marx's view is an alternative
>theory, much better than the sterility of general equilibrium theory. But
>better in what sense? without a RP, what criteria do we use?
____________
AS: These are what you are saying about Marx's theory even though it is put
in such rhetorical fashion that I presumably hold these opinions as well. I
don't. My fundamental interest is in critique, and Marx was a good person
to learn something about it. As i understand it, his theory is not only a
critique of capitalism but more importantly a critique of humanism and
naturalism. Though I'm not interested in whether Marx's theory is "better"
than GE etc., I don't see any reason why the category of "better" cannot be
applied if you don't believe in RP? I read a lot of writings, see movies,
tv shows etc. which i find third class. What's the problem with that? I can
always have my standards. What's it got to do with your RP?
_________
>AS: >I'm definitely not assuming that H's uncertainty principle is a "known
>truth". I'm simply using it to show the weakness of your argument. My point
>was that the champion descipline of "objective reality" has come up with
>results which contradicts its basic postulate quite seriously and it hasn't
>been able to overcome it yet. That in itself should make you a bit humble
>about your "realist postulate". My position is that there are many
>sophisticated theories and sophisticated ways of making sense. One can use
>one against the other to bring out the limitations of one another. That
>prevents the hegemony of one way of thinking as the correct or only way of
>thinking, which is what you are advocating. As an antihegemonist, that is a
>critic of hegemonic thinking, I don't need to "believe" in any theory being
>true.<
>
>JD: Of course I am "humble," about the RP. It's a _postulate_, after all.
>Postulates are _by definition_ humble. According to my handy-dandy
>dictionary, a postulate is "a hypothesis advanced as an essential
>presupposition, or premise of a train of reasoning." It is not the kind of
>"self-evident truth" that you falsely assume I hold. Rather, I see it as an
>"essential" presupposition to rational thought and discourse (though I must
>say I distrust the word "essential"). In Euclidean geometry, where the
>whole idea of postulates was developed, it is postulated that parallel
>lines never intersect. This is not necessarily true, nor self-evidently
>true. In fact, there's an entire field of geometry that rejects that
>postulate. The use of postulates is a sign of intellectual humility, a sign
>that one rejects blind faith.
________________
AS: You are humble as long as I accept your Primary postulate, which is
basically beeing debated. What kind of humility is that? Your position is
that 'if you don't believe that parallel lines don't intersect, then please
call off the discussion'. Now, there is a problem with that position, isn't
it?
_______
>
>JD: NOTE: I also reject the hegemonic thinking, including the
>currently-fashionable postmodernism. But I don't see anti-hegemonic
>thinking as an excuse for fuzzy thinking.
____________
AS: If you read more carefully what I write, you may find that there is
more fuzzyness in your thinking than mine, even though I don't think
fuzzyness is bad per se.
______
>On H's Principle, I am not going to reproduce my argument of previous
>missives. The point I made was that the Copenhagen interpretation (which
>rejects the RP) isn't the _only_ reasonable interpretation of H's
>uncertainty principle. It is quite easy to find alternative interpretations
>that do not contradict the RP -- and physicists have embrace these
>alternatives, including the one about the multiverse, "overcoming" the
>problem. In any event, as I suggested above, accepting H's principle as a
>real phenomenon (until better data and theories come out) fits perfectly
>well with the RP: H's principle reflects a real phenomenon, which we then
>interpret.
___________
AS: And what is that "real phenomenon"? Now, since i have pushed you into
accepting 'multiverse', you should know that if I tell you that you don't
exist, it is an objective reality, and you should not protest against it.
_______
>AS:>>> This is fundamentally a different idea than the problem of
>measurement which you are talking about above. The problem of measurement
>is well known for centuries. <<<
>
>JD: >>And was well known to me. All I was saying was that there was an
>_alternative_ to the Copenhagen interpretation of H's principle, which
>included the well-known measurement problem...<<
>
>AS: >Ya, but this interpretation is pretty lame and it should be rejected
>on the sole criterion of being uninteresting.<
>
>JD: gosh, what deep thinking! I can imagine that philosophers of science have
>been waiting for decades to be told that the criteria of lameness and
>blandness (or rather, being differently abled and excitement-challenged)
>are so crucial to their craft. Marx's books are pretty boring, so let's
>ignore them. They are also pretty "lame," with all those ethnic slurs and
>Eurocentric conceptions in them. So junk them, right?
_________
AS: Wow! Or shall I say, Oh Wow! I think fight against boredom is an
important aspect of creativity. Lame and uninteresting theories don't have
much chance of survival.
_____
>AS: >I never said that fight against opression and injustice is a 'game'.<
>
>But you said that the "Theoretical world is more like chess games to me."
>How can one even talk about "oppression," not to mention fight against it,
>without theory? Without some sort of serious and rational thinking,
>"oppression" is simply a emotive and moralistic term.
_________
AS: And what is wrong with being an "emotive and moralistic term". Why do
you discard emotions and morality as something unworthy of being talked
about on its own terms?
________
JD: (BTW, if you see
>theory as just a game, I begin to suspect that you aren't telling me the
>truth about your opinions and are just playing with me.)
_______
AS: What's wrong with play? One learns more while playing than beeing
boreingly deadly serious all the time.
________
>AS: >I think I have suffered and fought against injustice more than you
>have. But again, I think it is probably a good idea to look at fight
>against opression and injustice as a game--sometimes a deadly serious
>game--it keeps your sense of humor alive, which you definitely need in a
>struggle, as well as keeps you sharp about your stategies and tactics. I'm
>sure you know that both Walras and Marshall had socialist sympathies; and
>of course, Stalin thought he was following Marx in building a world free
>from exploitation!<
>
>JD: I'm sure that you've suffered from more oppression than I have (most
people
>have). But since when are such pissing matches ("I'm more oppressed than
>you are") relevant to serious discussion?
_________
AS: It's because you indirectly brought it up by bringing the Indonesians'
suffering against my game theory. It was your attempt to hit me with your
moral stick that I don't take people's suffering as seriously as you do. So
i came up with my rhetoric.
______
JD: Maybe it is in a world where any
>rhetorical trick is permissable -- since it's all a game. (As for fighting
>against injustice, let's get a justicometer and see. If, that is, it is a
>real phenomenon rather than Maya.)
_________
AS: This is interesting. The whole thesis of "Maya" was propounded by the
character of Lord Krishina in *Mahabharata* just before the beginning of
the great war. The interesting thing about it is that Krishna sided with
the Pandavas in the war because their cause was the *just* cause.
_______
>
JD: I do think that a sense of humor is important. (When I send prisoners
to be
>shot, I make sure to always tell them a joke first.) But that is not what
>this whole discussion is about. The RP doesn't say anything about jokes.
>(Maybe it's the eleventh commandment of the Torah: thou shalt not make
jokes.)
___________
AS: This again brings out something which i have been saying for a long
time. You always see things from the position of power. I could never ever
say, let alone write, that "when *I* send prisoners to be shot, I make sure
to always tell them a joke first." I would have said: Before I'm hanged,
I'll tell a joke to the hangman. You see you never identify with the
oppressed in your deep consciousness. You maintain your position of power
and previledge. Your position is that you would like to do good for the
poor oppressed people, but you don't identify with them--and that reflects
in the positions you take. As far as sense of humor is concerned, we simply
understand the meaning of the phrase quite differently. For me sense of
humor means generousity of spirit. It has very little to do with cracking
jokes or laughing at them. Most of the people who are good at cracking
jokes don't have good sense of humor since most of the time jokes are on
somebody else and not themselves.
__________
>JD: >>While we're on the subject of our own personal feelings, I guess I
>should clarify what mine are... I am trying to understand the world because
>it's often confusing and I would like it to be a better place. ... But I
>have deep-seated feelings of skepticism about all theories and "facts." I'm
>not one to quote authorities as a way to end this skepticism, since how do
>we know that _they_ are accurate? Empirical research, logical analysis, and
>dialectical philosophy seem necessary. All of these do not produce
>"truths," especially ones that I hold self-evident... This process produce
>"working hypotheses" that are subject to further test... This allows the
>development of new working hypotheses, so that knowledge is not a _state_
>but a never-ending _process_ of coming to know the world. <<
>
>AS: >That's why we like to argue with you Jim!<
>
>It's about time I get some praise -- rather than misrepresentations of my
>opinions. Too bad that you ignored the summary of my method in the rest of
>your missive, Ajit.
____________
Summary of your method is not much of a method in my opinion. I wonder why
you have left out phenomenology, hermeneutics, deconstruction, etc from
your list? Since you like praise, let me give you some more praise: I think
you are most open to discussion and debate on pen-l, and you maintain a
good sense of humor. Anybody who has tried it would know this is not easy.
And breadth of your knowledge is commendable indeed.
______
>JD: As noted above, one does not _need_ the RP for everyday life (and I never
>said one did). On the other hand, if one wants to do political economy, it
>seems necessary. (BTW, how do you _know_ tht the Hindus had this belief?
>how do you _know_ that they reproduced, etc.? It could all be Maya.)
______________
AS: It could be all Maya. That possibility is there--but Maya makes sense
only if you believe that the sole is 'real' and immortal.
_____
JD: It's important to remember the distinction between religion and more
>rational and scientific frames of mind. Religion _glories_ in faith, while
>science sees faith as a necessary evil to be made explicit in the form of
>postulates or axioms. Both have served humanity as guides to action, etc. I
>for one prefer the scientific attitude.
_________
Let's get back to where we had started from: the distinction between "out
there" and "in here". We have critiqued "out there". Now, let's look at "in
here". What is "in here"? Can we call our body, our brain, our tissues "in
here"? No. They are all objectified and part of "out there" in Jim's RP. So
what or who is "in here" who is making this distiction between "in here"
and "out there" and constructing the knowledges of out there? It is
Descartes's *cogito*. And cogito occupies exactly the same place as sole in
religion. Cheers, ajit sinha
