[Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Jim Farmelant farmelantj at juno.com
Thu Mar 3 11:52:44 MST 2005
Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Power to the People !
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Hans G. Ehrbar ehrbar at lists.econ.utah.edu
Thu Mar 3 12:21:52 MST 2005
Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
Messages so
- Original Message -
From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
> Wow! Thanks for the synopsis. I don't understan
Wow! Thanks for the synopsis. I don't understand how biosemiotics is
Neo-Kantian, though. If you are referring to Soviet philosopher David
Dubrovsky, I'd appreciate some expansion on this topic as well.
Do you know whether Whitehead had a social theory? The lack of social
theory in the bios
iotics
The S.E.E.D. Journal (Semiotics, Evolution, Energy, and Development)
Jakob von Uexküll Centre
Zoosemiotics Home Page
Biosemiotics Home Page
.
- Original Message -
From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 05
Waistline2 wrote:
>I don't recall Lenin stating that the Russian October Socialist Revolution
>constituted a leap or change in the mode of production - however one defines
>it.
For your information:
By the end of this year (I hope), all 45 volumes will be digitized in
two formats:
- HTML (
Oudeyis
For Hegel and for Marx and Engels, regular incremental changes
(magnitude) do not turn into quality,
CB: When you say "do not turn into quality" , do you mean " do not turn into
qualitative change " ?
___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Oudeyis :
For Hegel, and I assume for Marx and Engels, regular incremental changes
(magnitude) does not turn into quality, but rather at some critical point, a
new quality emerges out of and negates regular incremental change.
^
CB: I said quantitative change turns into qualitative _chan
Waistline2
* My question is how does heating water to a boiling point change the
quality
of water rather than its form?
I agree that the form of a thing can change in front of its constituent
parts. What quality of H2O has changed?
^
CB: I think there is a problem with
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx
andthe thinkers he inspired'"
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 8:44 PM
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort
Gould's statement that punctuated equilibrium is a form of dialectic is
"good".
I think Gould's emphatically rejects something that is not dialectics.
Dialectics is _not_ that all change is punctuated. It is that change is both
"equilibriated" or gradual _and_ punctuated. Dialectics does not fa
I'm still waiting for your account of biosemiotics. From what I've found
on the web, it looks like crackpot mystical pseudoscience to me.
Once again, my EMERGENCE BLOG:
http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/emergence-blog.html
As for current objectives, one ought to consider refining one's tools
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx
andthe thinkers he inspired'"
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 8:44 PM
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort
It depresses me that we still have to have these discussions in 2005. But
once more into the breach . . .
First, I'd suggest looking at Engels' motives for doing what he did, which
was not to present a finished ontology for all time but to combat the
half-assed philosophical vulgarities of his
>>Evolution punctuated by revolution is another way of saying quantitative
change turns into qualitative change.
Socially, the ebb and flow of reform is evolutionary. It is change without
changing the mode of production out of capitalism. Socialist revolution is a
leap in which the mode of product
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:51:13 -0800 (PST) andie nachgeborenen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>
> In fact all the standard examples of scientific
> revolutions come from science done by
> non-dialectically trained thinkers -- Lavoisier's
> discovery of oxygen, Einstein's theory of relativity,
> H
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:51:13 -0800 (PST) andie nachgeborenen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I have always wondered about the fruitfulness of
> abstract consideration of "dialectics," particularly
> where they are (it is?) discussed as a "method." Here
> Jim F seems to suggest the SJG thought th
I have always wondered about the fruitfulness of
abstract consideration of "dialectics," particularly
where they are (it is?) discussed as a "method." Here
Jim F seems to suggest the SJG thought that dialectics
was a "method" or at least a heuristic for producing
hypotheses. I have never seen any
Here is what Stephen Jay Gould had to say about punctuationism
and dialectics in his book, *The Panda's Thumb.
There, in the essay "Episodic Evolutionary Change," he wrote:
--
If gradualism is more a product of Western thought than a fact of nature,
then we should conside
Marxism-Thaxis] OudeyisHegel,
Marx, and, for that matter, Jay Gould (he and Dan Dennett - the
American reductionist philosopher - fought over this issue) did not regard
development to be incremental or continuous. The dialectic, the successive
emergence of negations of previous conditions sugges
ical issues raised by Karl Marx
andthe thinkers he inspired'"
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 3:47 PM
Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
>
> We might also speak of demergent functions. Engels , in his crude and
> snobbish approach, mentions the
We might also speak of demergent functions. Engels , in his crude and
snobbish approach, mentions the tranformation of quantity into quality _and_
the transformation of quality into quantity. The latter is like permanent
revolution, when quantitative shift is so continuous, it takes on the nature
: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
> This is very interesting, but I still do not understand biosemiology.
>
> To me the following is complete nonsense:
>
> > the suggestion that symbolic
> >representation is at very least coterminous with the emergen
This is very interesting, but I still do not understand biosemiology.
To me the following is complete nonsense:
the suggestion that symbolic
representation is at very least coterminous with the emergence of life forms
and that its initial functional relation to material conditions is
self-replicat
think?
Regards,
Victor
- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
> I'm substantially i
I'm substantially in agreement with you here. Now, if one wants to unify
the marxist and natural-scientific perspectives, in place of relegating
them to separate perspectives, then one has to rise to that level of
abstraction to construct a unified account of both. This ridiculous meme
theory
I wrote the following back in 1998 for Proyect's Marxmail list.
Jim F.
--
The Fall 1998 issue of SCIENCE & SOCIETY is a special issue devoted to
"dialectics: The New Frontier." It features noted Marxist scholars,
Bertell Ollman and Tony Smith, as the guest edi
silly foray of Pinker and Dawkins into Memics).
Wirh regards,
Victor
- Original Message -
From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
> You are correct about Lenin a
Of course, the SU's sciences and math was not without errors,etc. In fact ,
trial and error as a process of the development of anything, including
science, is what Marxism expects. This is some of that same rhetoric and
ideology, Marxist rhetoric and ideology , that you refer to below. It comes
fro
You are correct about Lenin as well as Marx and Engels. Lenin was careful
about communists' overstepping their bounds of competence. However, even
during the 1920s, when activity in all areas was quite creative before
Stalin's clampdown, certain bad habits got established.
I don't recall exac
I haven't been online since mid-afternoon, so I'm just now catching up.
I hope others paid more careful attention to my recent posts. There are
serious consequences when one allows oneself to get trapped in a narrow
corner. It is incumbent upon anyone attempting to speak for the whole to
attem
They were probably doing good physics and math all along. Don't think they
suddenly changed course and caught up and passed the rest of the world.
Crude scientists would not have been able to pick up on the atom bomb so
quickly. You know Sputnik and all that.
Afterall, Marx, Engels and Lenin put
At 2005-03-03 20.52, you wrote:
Perhaps this is one reason Van Heijenoort got so disgusted with Marxists
in the 1940s and decided to try his luck elsewhere. The notion that
Marxists have a right to be provincial, sectarian, and ignorant has got to
be stopped. Marxists should take as their pro
I've got to run now, so briefly: At some point, a modus vivendi was worked
out, which allowed the propaganda apparatus to do its thing while leaving
scientists and mathematicians alone to do theirs. This has roots towards
the end of the Stalin era, in the late 1940s, when formal logic was once
We should find out more about what the Chinese have done. It would also be
interesting to know if in some way, Marx's attempts to think through the
problem based on outdated math books anticipated future
developments. However, the account below looks silly to me.
The existence of multiple mod
I'm not sure that abstract mathematics was altogether "destroyed" in the
Soviet Union's academics, because of some anecdotal evidence I have.
When I was an undergraduate in 1968, the honors math majors ( the best math
students) _had_ to take Russian language courses, because so much of the
world's
It's really sickening to have to read this sort of material, though I am
interested in nonstandard analysis in China, about which I know
nothing. First of all, the ignorant and destructive Stalinist nonsense
against abstract mathematics shows up the obscene degradation of Marxism in
backward,
Abraham Robinson's nonstandard analysis adds more numbers,
infinite numbers and infinitesimal numbers, to the numbers
line. Just as Margaret Thatcher says that society does not
exist, modern mainstream mathematics is based on the dogma
that infinitesimals do not exist. Robinson showed, by
contr
Below is an interesting abstract I found concerning the
reactions of Chinese mathematicians, during the
period of the Cultural Revolution, to publication of
Marx's mathematical manuscripts.
-
DOCUMENTA
I've taken a look at some of Van Heijenoort's critique of Engels
mathematical career. As to specifically the career and "reading list" aspect
of the critique, the thought that occurs to me is that Van H. does not seem
to consider that Engels may have had very advanced uses of mathematics as a
capi
40 matches
Mail list logo