File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2003/bhaskar.0312, message 119


Subject: RE: BHA: Structures are not things that are true or false, even if Hegelian Marxists say so
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:27:12 -0500


Hi everyone,

But Mervyn, how do we distinguish a mirage that looks like something else
(water) from two entirely distinct things that resemble each other, water
and mirages? Both appear to be liquid, shiny, etc. Doesn't the decision that
water is somehow more "true" than the appearance of the mirage rest with the
observer? Clouds and cotton resemble each other, but would we say that
cotton is a false cloud, clouds are false cotton, or they're just two
entirely different things with some similarities?

I agree that the illusions of the wage form are not reducible to
consciousness. But here the truth of the wage form is that it is illusory.
Illusions are "false" only in a very special sense, and I'd prefer to label
them "illusory" rather than "false" just to avoid the possibility of
confusion, which is what seems to be happening with this thread.

	Marsh Feldman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> [mailto:owner-bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of Mervyn
> Hartwig
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 7:32 PM
> To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> Subject: Re: BHA: Structures are not things that are true or false, even
> if Hegelian Marxists say so
>
>
> Hi GŁnter (and Tobin et al.),
>
> A mirage really does have the appearance of water quite independently of
> the cognitive mistake of the particular observer--i.e. in our world-line
> would have that appearance, given the laws of optics etc, to any
> observer of the relevant kind. Even when you know that it's 'only a
> mirage' it persists, so the effect is not reducible to your mistake.
>
> Similarly, the wage-form really does appear to be a free and equal
> exchange when in fact it's nothing of the kind, and it's not reducible
> to the false consciousness -- the cognitive mistakes -- to which it
> necessarily tends to give rise.
>
> When a little fish gets gobbled up by a seaweed that turns out to be a
> camouflaged big fish, is it really just the mistake of the little fish
> that produces the result? A dialectical view suggests otherwise...
>
> Social forms can be false, especially because analytical Marxists deny
> it (not you, I know.)  -:)
>
> Mervyn
>
> PS. Phil, where are you? I've changed my views about gravity but I'm
> still drowning.
>
>
>  GŁnter Minnerup <g.minnerup-AT-unsw.edu.au> writes
> >Dear Mervyn,
> >
> >on Tuesday, 9 December 2003, you wrote:
> >
> >> Is a mirage false? The thirsty traveller or other animal soon discovers
> >> it to be so, but it can be explained without imputing consciousness to
> >> the whole world.
> >
> >The mirage certainly isn't false. What the traveller thinks it
> is is false.
> >
> >Regards,
> >GŁnter
> >
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005