File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-02-02.144, message 31


Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 02:46:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Viraj Fernando <viraj-AT-interlog.com>
Subject: M-I: DIALECTICS OF TIME


_______________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: THIS VERSION CONTAINS THE ASTRONOMICAL VALIDATION OF AXIOM -23.9479MARX
AND SOME MORE EXPLANATIONS OF HOW THE BOURGEOISIE IMPOSED THE 24 HOURS AS
THE CONCEPTION OF TIME AS AGAINST THE YEAR OF NATURAL SEASONS AND PROCESSES
AS TIME.
ALSO HAS BEEN MORE READABLE.
________________________________________________________________________________









To all comrades:



Mark: Reference your post on Sohn-Rethel/Dialectics,

---------------------------------------------------------------------
You write:

That is why Sohn-Rethel, "minor" Frankfurt-schooler, continues to be
important when no-one gives a shit any more about Marcuse, Adorno,
Horkheimer et al. Because he showed that the Newtonian categories (which
Kant analysed) could be observed, and realy existed. He showed them
inside the commodity-form as it exists in capitalism. A lot of people,
Andrew Austin and Viraj included, say, yeah but how do these categories
jump from inside the comodity to inside Newton/Kant's head? as if that
mattered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Out of the above I take the following and lay emphasis on one word -"FORM":

>"He showed them inside the commodity-*form* as it exists in capitalism".



Now follow this argument:
1. An ostrich can not lay a hen's egg and a hen can not lay an ostrich egg.
Both have the same FORM - yolk and the albumen inside covered by a shell.
But genetically they are different. What is in an ostrich egg are ostrich
genes and what is in a hen egg is "hen genes". You can not mix up these
qualities. By hatching an ostrich egg you can't get a chicken and vice-versa.

2. If you read your Sohn-Rethel carefully, before he comes to commodity, he
says that Marxism deals with *FORMS*. He lays emphasis on this.

3. A magnitude in mathematics begins in the relative form; it is a relative
form of two motions equated against one another. This culminates in its
solution as a Universal Equivalent, which *appears* not to have any relation
to anything external. This is Marx's thesis, in the first pages of Capital,
in the discussion of forms of value. Because Marxism deals with *forms*, by
analogy, the same principle could be applied to mathematical axiom. In fact,
it is the reverse, his conclusion he draws only by the use of mathematics.
Therefore....

4. Magnitudes of value initially arise in barter in relative form of value.
 
In its *appearance* two use-values are equated

       2 yards of linen      =      3 yards of broad cloth.

But:  (this use-value -  not equal to  -  this use value)

5. Aristotle wrote similar equations (as Marx shows in Capital). Aristotle
scrathed his head and could not come up with the solution how on earth two
things entirely different from one anothr qualitatively, can be
quantitatively commensurable.

6. Marx came up with the answer, it is not the use-values that are
qualitatively equal but "some other thing". Use-values are produced by
concrete human labour, but that "some other thing" he called exchange value
and this value is produced by *abstract human labour*.

7. So what makes commodities qualitatively equal and quantitatively
commensurable is *abstract human labour*. (Ref Cap. Vol I, Measure of Value).
(I can't remember the exact title of the chapter).

8. What is the quality within a mathematical axiom, which allows a relative
form of an equation to be written? Is it *abstract human labour* that is
inside an axiom? If it is, they would be commodities and would be sold in
the market place.

We can have axiom producing factories and sell them by the thousands in the
market place! We too can be rich like the bourgeoisie!

9. This brings us to the point raised by Rakesh Bandari. Is it an ANALOGY?

       Qualitatively  Unequal / but /  Analogically Equivalent. 

       This must be obvious. 

1O. What Sohn-Rethel must say is that in FORMS they are equal. (Analogical
equivalence). Unless he says so, he too is a yet another confuser.

11. The relative forms of equations that lead to the derivation of
mathematical axioms, are to be found in astronomical motions. That is they
are based on relations between motions of astronomical bodies.

12. How do we know? We know that geometry evolved out of man's efforts to
express astronomical relations. That is, axioms came into being, in human
social practice.

13. Just like (that is analogically to) in exchange of commodities relative
forms of equations end up as the Universal Equivalent in the "special"
commodity  gold, which then gets represented by paper money and so on;
relative forms of equations in mathematics take the Universal FORM,- the
form of the axiom. Both appear as Fetishs, but actually not. They are Real
Abstractions,(what it means is, an abstaction made out of a natural
*relationship*). The pre-fix Real stands to remind and emphsise that it is
BUT an abstraction of a *real relationship*.

15.
a) Commodity FORM - analogy - Axiom           = Marxism  -    Materialism
b) COMMODITY form = Axiom (qualitative equality)= Fetshism. - Religious belief.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


THIS IS HOW WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE RIDDLE:  

1. The geometrical axioms were born in the human mind prior to
commodity-form arose. Because, human social groups derived geometry through
astronomy in social formations even before barter began. 

2. Their world conception was relational. 

3. Therfore even if they rounded up a certain number (which they derived
>from a relative form of an equation), say, 360.1407978 divisions(approx) to
call it 360 degrees, they still in their minds knew this 360 degrees was
only a CONVENTION. 

4. Underneath this convention they knew, lay the relation between the time
it takes for the earth to orbit relative to stars, and the time that it
takes to orbit relative to the sun. 

Why do I make this statement so boldly? 

In astronomy the path of MOTION of the earth round the SUN is DISTINCTLY
indicated as 360 deg., and the CO-ORDINATES of the EQUINOX all important to
earthly NATURAL PROCESSESES, are related to this path - the ECLIPTIC. 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do no talk about this without a) verifying with a Star Atlas b)Without a
counter-argument connected to Natural Processes and Social Pratice

Why? 

Marxian view is Materialist, and any arguments must be so based. (This
debate is for exchange of views between Marxian Materialists. There is no
place in this discussion for others. Any non-matrialist arguments and those
not linked to social practice will be considered invalid. Others may comment
but they will not be responded to).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Before productive forces were developed sufficiently, to enter into
barter of products, men were either hunters and gatherer, or nomadic herdsmen 
or early agricultural settlers, their conception of time, (Note the
dialectic:  the day vs the year), was more towards organising their social
productive life process, round the concept of the *year*. There was no
external coercive force,
making him mandatory to get up at a certain time, eat at a certain time, go
to work at a certain time etc, etc, etc,. He was free as an animal and had
to know the day only generally, in terms of morning, noon and night.

Such days came and went, but he counted TIME represented by the *year* in
terms of days. The day was only the 'counter' of time as the basic unit, the
unit that which gave *expression* to what time was for their productive
life. The year as TIME was all important, to do his migrations with the
changing seasons etc.

(The Year as Time will be dealt with is a separate paper where 360 degree
will be derived linking it to social practice, in a separate paper). 

6. All I am saying is that before commodity production began, man was free,
and there was no necessity for him to bother to know how long the day was.
For what purpose?

       1 solar day = 1 solar day  (no internal divisions)

7. The question of the length of day, enters upon man's head as a category
divisible by internal calibration, arise only when commodity production
began, and he had to labour within this day. The notion enters upon the
Guild Masters head "Time is money". "More time, more money". Then it enters
his head how can I find a unit to REPRESENT time that will divide the length
of the natural day?

Man must now get up on time, come to work, on time, have his lunch on time
etc, etc. For the mankind that had lived an idyllic existence, without a
culture for working on time, this discipline has to be enforced. Previously,
different people woke up at different times according to their natural
inclinations. And went back to sleep during the day whenever they felt like
(Free,Free, Free). But now under commodity production, this idyllic world is
turned upside down.

In a timeless world how can the Guild Master tell the journey man he must be at
work at such and such a time. Sunrise and sun set can not be the markers,
because between winter and summer, the length of the day varied sharply. The
workers had to be mustered to come and go to work at definite times. For
this they could have their bells or horns, but how can you regulate that to
be done at the set instances, regularly and uniformly today, tomorrow and
the day after. It becomes absolutely NECESSARY now to find devices which
represent duration.
But one devise would indicate one duration and another some other duration.
So the question arises what is duration? And how do you STANDARDISE
duration. Duration can not be visualised unless the whole day is quantified.
The duration becomes some part of the day. In this situation if the day is
represented by a certain quantity, dividing that quantity into a number of
equal parts makes it possible to bring some uniformity to the concept of
duration.

8. He gets hold of a geometric axiom used in astonomy, for rough
calculations -used as 24 Right Ascencion. (Not hours). 

But its actual value 23.94798215 (Marx).

9. Now the bourgeois have no use for a number that can not be symmetrically
divided. He does not care a damn about the real interconnections to nature.
All he wants is a number which has radial symmetry where time can be
represented by a rotatory devise. So he takes 24 Hours - R.A., and throws
23.94798215 (Marx), the real interconnection to nature, in the dust heap.

10. Now look at a star atlas, 24 R.A. is a geometric axiom. The bourgeois
borrows it for his measure of time, and calls it 24 hours ( and, 23.94798215
Marx, which is the real intrconnection to nature is forgotten forever).

>From then on:
        1 solar day = 24 hours


       Q.E.D.

Check in Star Atlas:
                Position on  Natural      Conventional  Borrowed by
                Star Atlas   Value         Value 

Earth's rotation   Equator   23.94798215  24 Hr. R.A.   Bourgeois (for Time)

Earth's Orbit      Ecliptic  360.1407978  360 deg.      Euclid for geometry 

      
UPTO HERE I AM CONSISTENT WITH MARXIST THEORY. 

ALL I HAVE TO DO, IS TO SHOW HOW THE NUMBER 23.94798215 CAN BE OBTAINED AS
GEOMETRICAL RELATION OUT OF ASTRONOMICAL MOTIONS.
__________________________________________________________________________

NOTE:  QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED ON THE ABOVE LOGICAL DEDUCTION ONLY IN THE
CONTEXT OF CONTRADICTING FUNDAMENTALS OF MARXISM. I WILL NOT ANSWER
UNRELATED QUESTIONS.
____________________________________________________________________________




THE GEOMETRICAL RELATIONSHIP: HOW THE NUMBER 23.94798215MARX  IS DERIVED
>FROM ASTRONOMICAL REALTIONS GEOMETRICALLY.

1. Marxian position regarding axioms is that they are not a priori, but
are/have been derived in social practice. So can we derive these by
experiment? Not likely. We have to go back in history. In this case we must
think and act as a primitive man who had no idea of QUANTIFICATION of time.
(If you are looking for a granduer theory with a lot of formulations,
differential equations, then you will be disappointed). 

These were derived prior to mathematical systems. Mathematics as you know is
not a priori. It was built up stage by stage in human social practice. At
the beginnig there were only the arithmetical operations, of additon,
substraction, multiplication and division. Anything more complicated took a
geometrical form initially. 

So we conclude that it is at this level that we have to continue our
investigation.

2. The primitive man sees TWO objects in the sky. The sun and the moon. (He
MAY not have known that the earth rotates or orbits). He observes that the
moon falls behind the sun day after day and comes back to the same position
>from new moon to new moon. 

So we have the lunar month and TWO ways of measuring this period by simple
counting. The lunar day and the solar day. (The dialectic of the lunar month).

3. Aristotlean Simultaneity: 

For Aristotle, simultaneity which determines time is two series of events
taking place simulatneously, demarcated by a definite beginning and a
definite ending. 

He was working on this riddle. Like his equations which Marx uses in
Capital, this riddle is also an unsolved project of Aristotle. (It is by
borrowing this concept from Aristotle,  Einstein constructed a simultaneity
with the light beam from A to B and back). 

Now from new moon to new moon, we have a definite beginning and a definite
ending of the two series of events, the occurence of solar days and lunar days.

So we get the relation,

29.53058818 solar days = 28.520006875 lunar days.

>From this the Relational Time is:

1 lunar day = 1.035434119 solar days.

(This is a trick straight from Capital Vol I, elemetary equivalent form of
value)


Note: man has no dimensions and therefore no measuring devices, no
caliberations. But what is available to him are natural occurences (the two
type of days) which he can count in his head without any devices.

4. The Universal Equivalent: We know that beginnings of geometry (social
practice) was in Astronomy. Why did man persue astronomy? For the
determination of time of narural seasons -year and orientation - nightly
star clock. So how do you arrive at a Universal equivalent by using geometry
for the nightly star clock? 

Draw two concentric circles one of unit radius, and the other of radius
1.035... From any point on the second circle draw a tangent to the first.
Connect the two ends of the tangent by drawing the radii. Take the arc
subtended between the two radii, run it round to measure the circle. It goes
23.94798215 times. The arc represents the angular distance orbited by the
moon in one lunar day. We have just used this measurement to measure one
rotation of the earth using an arc of itself. (Now check your "Capital" to
see how Marx defines a Universal Equivalent). So it is this 23.94798215 (in
topological units) that has been approximated to 24 hours. Once we have got
used to this round figure and forgotten its roots (alienation), how the hell
are we to find out how we got it? So we have 24 hours absolute time, a "Real
Abstraction".

        Q.E.D.


(Did Einstein abolish absolute time? No he did not. He uses velocity of
light as the standard. And this velocity is tainted with absolute time.
300,000 km/sec. The second there is, 1/86400 of the self same 24 hours which
is absolute, bourgeois manufactured time.)

NOTE:  You can check for the validity of the above 23.94798215 in the
following way. The arc represents the angle between the two radii. And this
angle is found by, first getting the cos value (the ratio 1/1.035..). Then
find cos inverse = 15.032 deg. Divide 360/15.032 =23.9479.. 

( Why I did not use this method in the original derivation because it is
illegitimate to use it at this stage. At this stage of the argument, you
(the reader) still does not know that the primitive man used, circle = 360
deg, as a convention, and we do not know whether primitive man used
trigonometry ).
________________________________________________________________________________

THUS I HAVE PROVED THAT:

1. OUT THE NECESSITIES OF COMMODITY PRODUCTION, IT BECOMES NECESSARY FOR THE
QUANTIFICATION OF THE WORKING DAY. FOR THIS QUATIFICATION, A SCALE OF
MEASURE BECOMES A REQUISITE. BOURGEOIS BORROWS THIS FROM GEOMETRY.

2. THIS GEOMETRIC ENTITY, IS DERIVED FROM ASTRONOMY

3. AFTER THE BOURGEOIS BORROWS IT FROM NATURE, THE BOURGEOIS CORRUPTS ITS
VALUE IN A MANNER THAT IS USEFUL FOR HIM AND HIM ALONE AND IMPOSES IT BACK
AGAIN ON THE EXTERNAL WORLD IN THE FORM OF ABSOLUTE TIME.

4. THE MARXIST COLOSSUS DOES NOT HAVE CLAY FEET ANY MORE. IT IS NOW
HOMOGENEOUS WITH THE MATERIAL OF THE REST OF THE BODY. WE, HAVE BY USING
MARX'S METHODOLOGY
OBTAINED THE VALUE OF A GEOMETRICAL AXIOM, WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE UNPROVABLE.


________________________________________________________________________________

NEXT STEP: WE MUST VALIDATE 23.94798215 MARX AS A USEFUL ASTRONOMICAL CONSTANT
FOR THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE. 
________________________________________________________________________________


The validation of 23.94798215 MARX as an astronomical constant: This will be
done by finding answers to phenomena for which Newtonian mechanics can
provide only qualitative explanation, and where it is bogged down in finding
quantitative correlations. 

Remember Einstein also started when Newtonian Mechanics had reached such a
crisis. That crisis was irreconcilability of Newtonian Mechanics and
Electrodynamics.

Einsteins relativity is quantitatively validated by only one result -  the
precession of the perihelion of mercury. 

We have not one but many such corroborative factors in astronomy to prove
our case.

A) Precession theory - a hoax - Mechanical Ellipticity of the earth 
   (C-A)/C = 0. 003278 Value contrived to yield desired result.
   CRISIS IN PHYSICS HERE !

B) CHANDLER WOBBLE - same (C-A)= 0.003278 incompatible when applied for free
eulerian motion, Conflicting hypotheses. None giving results.
   CRISIS IN PHYSICS HERE !                    

Kinematic Explanation - unable to demonstrate here without graphical
representation, therefore the ratiocination here below to be interpreted as a
relationship between earth's orbit (365.24), moon's orbit (28.52) and
earth's rotation (23.9479)

Observed Period      -   435 days approx.   

Theoretical Explanation
in terms of 23.9479Marx   365.2421987 x 28.520006875/23.94798215 = 434.97 days.

C) NEAR DIURNAL WOBBLE (NDW): Conflicting hypotheses, no result compatible
with observations obtained.

  CRISIS IN PHYSICS HERE!

Reason, from the derivation it will be clear, this is the value(=23.9479)
that represents the earth's circumference topologically. When this value is
replaced by 24, then  earth's gets a secondary circumference of larger
diameter. This is the unexplicable phenomenon " the upper mantle". Earth's
astronomical measurements are done relative to upper mantle but all
observations are based on observatories on earth's crust. Very awkward
position. But problem unsolvable.

Observed Period  -   23h 52m 55(+/-)5s approx.

Theoretical explanation
in terms of 23.9479Marx     

Logical Deduction: If Solar Day =  24  represents   23.94798215 
 
         Then:     Sidereal Day = 23.934469583 reprsents 23.88259377

                                                         = 23h 52m 57.33s       

LONG PERIOD OF NDW:

Predicted Period - 460 days (approx).

     This is the reciprocal of the difference between the two sidereal days.

             1/(23.93449583-23.88259377) = 460.3801663 Days
             

I hope the above solutions would be sufficient to prove the validity of an
astronomical constant/geometrical axiom, which had lay been buried by the
bourgeosie for over 2000 years!
   

Best regards/ Viraj





 





     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005