Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 20:14:05 -0500 (EST) From: Viraj Fernando <viraj-AT-interlog.com> Subject: M-I: Dialectics/ Sohn Rethel This is in reference to Andrew Austin's post in relation to Siddarth Chatterjee's post regarding the mirror analogy. This is a hilarious situation. Ofcourse, Siddarth is wrong. *Real Abstaction* does not concern mirror images. It concerns, first all from bartering of commodities one to one directly, how money developed and of how money came to *appear* as an independent entity with no relationship to other commodities. How it started with gold as the Universal Equivalent of Value, and there aftereven acquired even a more abstract form paper money. With paper money it atleast had a bodily form. Now it is becoming even more abstract. Electronic signals. Then there are other quantities in science which are constants, like 360 degrees, which nobody can figure out how and why they decided on 360 degrees. One may think it is because of its divisibility it can be divided by digits 1-10 except 7. One argument could be, if this is made as the Marxist's claim why did the leave out the lucky number 7? Use 2520 and the problem is solved. Why did not they do it? "Marxist contention is disproved". What we say is something different. What we say is all values are *relations of value*, they are relative. Our dilemma is that while we insist that no magnitude could stand on its own without relative roots, we can not prove how 360 degrees came into being. This has a history: 1. Mark Jones asked Andrew Austin a yes or no question about the subject, which he must answer then and there. He ran away from it. That means he does not know whether to say yes or whether to say know. That means he does not know anything about what Marx says about or what Sohn-Rethel says what Marx talks about. In cricketing terms, Andrew Austin got clean bowled by Mark. 2. Rakesh Bandari wrote about Sohn-Rethel on this subject: I responded and tied up the debate on Dialectics of Nature which is going on now, because these are related subjects. In this I cited the problem of the 360 degrees. 3. There was a fierce attack on Engels by *malgosia askansas* (another Engels hater?), on this position. As a Marxist you should know values can not stand on their own. Things are interconnected in this world and in the Universe, so nothing can stand as an independent value in reality. It has to come out of an interconnection. Look at how Marx analyses value in Capital. 2 yards of linen = 3 yards of broad cloth. It is only because Marx took this route he could solve the riddle of money. Read Anti-Duhring instead of attacking it, it is an essential book written by Engels to Marx's specificion and editorship. Engels killers beware, every shot that you fire at him, gets ricocheted back to Marx and does equal damage. And thereby damage the Marxian system. Read and understand Engels and then criticise, he is not the fool you think he is. Joao Pualo Monteiro explained this aptly in his post of yesterday. 4. Siddartha comes in with his mirror analogy in defence. But a wrong defence. 5. Andrew Austin who knows nothing about the subject as proved by Mark Jones' yes or know question, comes to attack Siddartha. What is this? Shooting in the dark? It only hurts Marxism in the name of Marxism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Siddartha keep on bowling, does not matter even if they are loose balls, I will catch them at the boundary line. This could be used as a Socretean tactic. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Malgosa Akanasas, Please read the lengthy reply to this by Joao Pualo Monteiro which appeared on the list on 28/01/97. It gives an expose` on what marxian system is and the contribution of Engels to the system). Malgosa Akanasas wrote: What in the world is "real abstraction"? As opposed to what, "unreal abstraction"? What are these categories designed to express/accomplish? Fernando, you write: > The real abstraction in mathematics is what? The mathematical axioms. You ask an incomprehensible question and then, not surprisingly, give an incomprehensible answer. Aren't the concept of "rational number" or "the number 2" or "straight line" or "right angle" or "area" abstractions? Or are they abstractions, but not "real abstractions"? Axioms are definitions of mathematical concepts. The axioms of Euclidean geometry define the concepts "line", point", "angle", "plane" through elaborating a system of relationships between them. The Peano axioms of arithmetic define the concepts "natural number", "addition", "multiplication". Does abstraction, for you, reside in definitions? A thing, then, is concrete until one defines it? You quote Engels as saying: "The so-called axioms of mathematics are a few thought determinations which mathematics need for its point of departure. Mathematics is the science of magnitudes, its point of departure is the concept of magnitude. It defines this lamely and then adds other elementary thought determinations not contained in the definition from outside the axioms, so they appear as unproved and naturally also unprovable (my note: such as "a circle has 360 degrees"). The *analysis of magnitude* will yield all these axiom determinations as necessary determinations of magnitude.... They are provable dialectically, in so far as they are not pure tautologies". This is shocking nonsense, and you've made it worse by adding your interjection about the 360 degrees. The division of the circle into 360 degrees has the same relationship to provability as the decision to take a length equal to 1/40000 of the equator and call it "kilometer". There is nothing mysterious about the statement "the equator is 40000 kilometers long"; that's how we decided to define our unit of measurement. Similarly with "a circle has 360 degrees". How the hell does mathematics "define the concept of magnitude lamely"? What are the supposed "thought determinations" it adds "from outside the axioms"? What I see here is a projection, on the part of Engels, of his own shocking ignorance, into supposedly mistifying properties inherent in mathematics itself. What does Engels mean by "analysis of magnitude"? What is he going to go out and analyze? -- I assume it won't be any of the things that mathematics offers him, since he's so lame at understanding them. What does he mean by "necessary determinations of magnitude"? What does he mean by saying that these determinations are "provable dialectically"? What does it mean, to prove a determination? What are the goals of this Engelsian project, and what is it supoosed to be good for? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Best regards/ Viraj --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005