Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:28:39 GMT From: hariette-AT-easynet.co.uk (hariette spierings) Subject: M-I: Another mis-understood Napoleon! >Viraj Fernando, > >I should make one correction in your text. I *do* believe that historical >materialism is a science. Dialectics as an art in no way sneaks into my >writings. A historical materialist analysis of aethetics might be a future >discussion, but that would still not be the dialectic as art, but rather >dialectical analysis of the dialectical process behind the production of >art. I regard historical materialism as not only the most sophisticated of >sciences, but more--it is *critique* (that is, it is historical, >self-reflexive, and subjectivistic). My argument is the historical >materialism is the science of history and society. Dialectics can be (1) >method, (2) process internal to social formations >(relational/social-ontological), or (3) process external to social >formations (physical/natural-ontological). What I object to is the latter >possibility (physical/natural-ontological. I regard this reification of >dialectical logic as non-scientific (rather pseudoscientific) and, in >fact, a form of mystics. > >I fear my opposition has yet to comprehend my argument. I don't say this >to be arrogant; what is reproduced so often claiming to be a reflection of >what I have written is incorrect. > >Andrew Austin > > > > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005