File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1997/marxism-thaxis.9711, message 150


Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 11:53:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Viraj Fernando <viraj-AT-interlog.com>
Subject: M-TH: [Ralph] Universality of Dialectics


My dear Ralphi,

As Doug Henwood characterised you, you are a split personality. Have a good
look in the mirror and check whether it is true. The purpose of my
re-posting extracts from M-Sci regarding your expulsion was not to flame
between you Doug and Louis.
I quoted a lot more things there. The purpose was a) for yourself to see the
ugly side in you  b)for the list to know and understand your mental
instbility and deal with you appropriately.

HENWOOD(2/19/97):
>Look, Ralph, sometimes you froth like this, and sometimes you say
>intelligent and lucid things. Can you just stick with the latter and leave
>the frothing to someone else?
>
>Doug
>

Proyect:(1/31/97):
"Ralph hates everybody because he hates himself. Just ignore the poor soul
and we'll all be better off".

Both those statements do not reflect any animosity towards you, but only
sympathy for a suffering man. There is nothing to flame about those.

I pity you too.

Therefore I would differentiate between the 'living excretement' part in you
and the intelligent part in you and address these in two different posts.

This post concerns the living excretement part in you, where you froth and
fume and lie and distort. For what? Because of your impotence to answer, due
to time constraints or your own intellectual laziness to do the required
research, or straight forward bankruptcy in regard to a topic. And when your
frothing and fuming fails to intimidate your opponents you call for their
expulsion. You are telling this list that you called for expulsions in M-Sci
because there were alternatives for the expellees. Ha, ha, ha. Trying to
give the impression that it was a unique instance. You call everybody else a
moron, but it would only be a moron who would think that the members of this
list have very short memories reagrding your calls for expulsions and
resignation of moderators in this list.

Ralph Dumain wrote:
>I'm not going to belabor this point about list politics more than I must, so
>I'll try to be brief.  I'm back on thaxis to avoid further encounters of the
>sort we are now reminiscing about.   

Excellent. That was tragedy the first time in marxism-and-science, and there
was farce the next time in this list recently. You repeated the same pattern
here on this list. Calling for expulsions of list members and when that did
not happen attacking the moderators with all obscinities asking them to
resign. You were taken as a joke by them. They wrote "Ralph Dumain seems a
fun guy to have around". ...And you were flabbergasted into silence. So
please see that you really "avoid the encounters of the sort we are now
reminiscing" both in M-Sci and Thaxis.

> Ther should be free speech for everybody, but
>everybody doesn't have to be on the same list if there are alternatives.  In
>such cases, one need not be so tolerant.

Can you please tell me where were the alternatives.

a) For those who want to discuss dialectics of nature (science).

b) For Hugh, Dave and Walton when you called for their expulsion.

They did not even have the opportunity to use M-I from which they were
suspended. You knew it well. You deliberately wanted them out precisely at
that moment so that there would be NO ALTERNATIVES for them. Can you give a
good reason, given your own  noble statement above "free speech for
everybody", why you wanted Hugh, Dave and Walton out? And can you explain
why you went into tantrums against the moderators, when they did not heed you?

>People can flame me until the cows come home, that's OK by me.  I
>don't care about bad manners, only about idiots who have nothing to offer to
>any discussion.  One bad apple on a list is only one person, though the
>whole list may get tied up fussing over one individual.

Do list rules stipulate that idiots are not to be tolerated? And who decides
who is an idiot and who is not. You may think that you are 'cats' whiskers'
but you may be the biggest idiot around.

Besides, if you do not like an idiotic post either you point out where the
idiocy lies. Or if it repeats, you ignore. The rest of the list members
would also ignore. And if there are other idiots who join up the discourse,
they will catch up their own corner and discuss till dooms day. The
intelligent people need not even look in there. That becomes a sublist
within the list. Why should it bother you?

And I gave you some guidelines too at the end of my previous post. We can
develop on it, and incorporate that into the nettiqutte of this list.

>So my advice to you is: If a post is not to your liking, you in a civil manner
>state your disagreements, substantiating what they are. If you do not have
>time to address in detail, you state them briefly. And if you have
>previously addressed the subject and it is repetitively resurfacing as a
>curse, you give references to your previous posts to the list to retrieve
>from the archives or you incorporate them in your post.
>

If you are lazy to do all this then please keep your mouth shut.


Ralph writes:
> I thought that for the list, after being founded by Lisa,

Wrong again! You check and verify with Spoon's if you disagree.

Your buddy Louis Godena wrote(11/16/97):
>James Farmelant professes to know a great deal about the origins of
>Marxism-and-Sciences:
>
>
>
>>Viraj is probably unaware that the founder of this list, the late Lisa
>>Rogers
>>was a skeptic concerning the dialectics of nature.  Under the
>>reorganization
>>of the Spoons Marxist lists of a year ago she was to co-moderate this
>>list with Lou Godena.  Her untimely passing unfortunately prevented
>>this from ever happening... 
>
>
>Mr Farmelant has contributed valuable insights into a wide variety of topics
>on both Marxism-International and (especially) here on Marxism-and-Sciences.
>His assessments of what drives individuals, however, are frequently
>overstated, misconstrued, or, as is usually the case, just plain wrong. 
>
>For example, Lisa Rogers did not "found" Marxism-and-Sciences.  This list
>grew out of a proposal I submitted to Jefferson in early August of last
>year. Lisa contacted me a couple of weeks later, and suggested that we work
>together in fashioning some guidelines and on writing a statement of
>purpose. Most of what was ultimately adopted was written directly by me, as
>anyone familiar with my writing style and political outlook can readily
>discern.  It is true that it was both our intention that Lisa handle the
>pedagogical duties of m-and-i, and that I would concentrate (if that is the
>word) on administrative matters.  She was less concerned with the actual
>division of labor than she was with the prospect of entertaining people like
>Robert Malecki on a list devoted to intellectual thought.
>


>Since you hate western marxism and only
>exist to parrot the classics, why don't you stick to marxism-and-sciences
>where you belong?

a) This is not case of hating western marxism. It is an inquiry into where
western marxism deviates from marxism. It is an inquiry, that in order to do
these deviations, whether western marxist have accidentally or deliberately
misconstrued basic tenets of marxism.

I will not take what Andrew Austin says to be authentic western marxism. But
on what he claims to be western marxism I have grilled him to the end and
cornered him to ask two questions, which he fails to answer. Other western
marxists on the list are silent. The two questions are as follows:

1.
a) Whether or not Marx refers to a Law where "quantitative differences
beyond a certain point pass into qualitative changes", [Answer yes or no]

b) and if affirmative,  it is a falsehood to state that reference to this as
a Law was made for the first time by those who came 'after Marx' [Answer yes
or no]

2.
b) Whether or not Marx refers to the Negation of the Negation in property
relations. [Answer yes or no]

If affirmative, it is a falsehood to state that property relations belong to
the realm of ideal relations [Answer yes or no]

What Andrew has claimed from his western marxist position was, that there
were no laws of dialectics so far as Marx was concerned. Quality and
quantity was raised to a law by others in distorting his views. Negation of
the negation applied only to the realm of 'ideal relations'.

My position is that I do not take what Marx and Engels told to be the final.
[Trotsky propounded the law of uneven and combined development, and it is a
wonderful tool for marxist analysis. In fact application of this encompasses
the other three without involving them as 'wooden trichotomies'].
Dialectical method must develop further. But Marxist logic is a closed
system. Developments can and must take place within it, without
contradicting the basic tenets. And even the basic tenets, if they are to be
subjected to a revision, it must be done dialectically by negation of the
negation, (as Marx and Engels, rectifies Fuerbach's view of the negation of
the negation in the Holy Family). What I suspect is, that the western
marxists have ripped off the system without a dialectical negation. This is
what I am investigating.


>To give a complete picture of what really went on in marxism-and-sciences,
>you should have included a more generous sampling or your own and your
>friends' crackpot scientific reasoning.

I can talk only about what I wrote. As for what Sid Chatterjee wrote you
would find my point his mistakes out in there. [And also in these posts, a
private e-mail of mine was posted by Andrew (bastard), where I indicated "if
Adolfo's party came to power I will be shot". You were prejudiced from the
start, and you just lumped me with the rest. Do not make that mistake. In
these lists people are seemingly together, in one issue and then the go into
opposition.

Well it is good that you have refered to what I wrote, so I will pose the
questions I wrote to you when you went on that wonton attack on me.

I wrote to you on 2/15/97:

>Ralph Dumain,
>
>For some reason you seem to be unreasonably incensed with me. There must be
some
>communications problem. Therefore I would like you to consider whether there
>is anything unscientific about any of the contentions list below. In my
>opinion what you are doing is nothing but a groundless PERSECUTION, owing to
>some sentiment or prejudice that has built up in your mind. You might need
>some help from some comrades or somewhere else. I therefore request you to
>re-examine your position. This is not the behaviour expected of a marxist or
>for that matter from a decent human being. Please tell me *ONE* error I have
>made.
>
>I say PREJUDICE because, if you are neutral, you have to treat all who take
>wrong positions equally. Malgosia mentions earth's circumference of 40,000
>km as a convention and a similar view for 360 degrees.(I left it alone). It
>does not irritate you. Then Hobson Sherren quotes this to attack my
>position. I take it up, and indicate its untenability, support my view with
>those of Einstein and Engels. Then you come to their defence, calling it
>"innocence". (Perhaps Malgosia must be reminding you of your beloved Liza,
>that's a different matter, you keep those feeling to yourself. If that be
>the case pls do not reflect those feelings on the list).
>
>Ralph Dumain wrote:
>>Malgosia, your innocnece is charming, but it's not the conflicts
>>you can't make heads or tails out of, it's the gibberish.  PLease
>>be advised that if I eveer get my own spoons list, I will be worse
>>than STalin.  I can see Malecki cringing in the face of secret
>>trials and executions.  No secrets here.  Were I the list owner,
>>Chatterjee and Fernando would be immediatedly purged from the
>>list.  This is just a disgrace.  Why are Marxists who congregate
>>online such shits?  What unbelieveably extrementitious shits they
>>are!
>>
>
>Is not Hobson Sherren charming for repeating it? And Barkley Rosser charming
>for repeating it? Where does the guilt lie? What prejudice!
>
>If you feel what has been discussed is gibberish I will take them one by one
>and ask you whether you understand them or not. If you do not, it is you who
>should bow out of this list and nobody else. Please make your own decision.
>I think it will do a lot of good for your health.
>
>1. I have said that there is a geometric axiom of 24 hrs R.A, which is found
>in star charts. This axiom is to be found side by side 360 degrees.
>
>Anything wrong with that statement?
>
>2. I have  stated that, for the year 1900.0 one lunar month can be
>represented by 28.520006875 lunar days or 29.53058818 solar days.
>
>Anything wrong with that statement?
>
>3. Since the above represent earth's velocity of rotation relative to the
>moon and to the sun respectively, I have made a vector relation between the
>two, and found the subtending angle between the two vectors to be of the
>order 15.032 degrees.
>
>Anything wrong mathematically in deriving this angle?
>
>4. I have then found out how many times this angle goes to make up 360
>degrees and found that it is 23.94798215.
>
>Anything wrong with that? Have I done any computational errors?
>
>5. (Remember that this came up in the discussion of Sohn-Rethel and Real
>Abstraction, and on the question of identity or analogy. My position was
>that it was an analogy).
>
>I have stated that according to Marx in a Universal Equivalent form, the
>magnitude is obtained by relation of a part of an entity to the whole. The
>magnitude of  Money-form is obtained this way. I have shown that the
>division of 360 degrees by 15.032 is the same as dividing the circumference
>of the circle by an arc of the same circle. Thus this falls within the
>Marxian definition of a Universal Equivalent form. And therefore the analogy
>holds.
>
>
>Anything wrong with that?
>
>
>6. I have indicated that it is this Universal Equivalent of 23.94798215 that
>has been approximated to 24 Hr R.A. and used as a convention in astronomy.
>Now raised to a geometrical axiom with unknown roots. This is in accordance
>with Marx and Engels view on axioms as stated in Anti Duhring.
>
>Anything wrong with holding such a contention?
>
>7. On the question of axioms, I have indicated the the positivist view of
>Poincare who considers axioms to be mere conventions and Einsteins view that
>they have real roots to nature but they appear unrelated because the
>connections have gone to oblivion. Thus indicating Einstein's view is
>identical to the marxian view.
>
>Anything wrong with that?
>
>8. It has been told Hobson that by convention it has been determined that
>earth's circumference is 40000 km.
>
>On this matter I have questioned, that if by convention it is predetermined
that
>earht's circumference is 40000 km, and if this is the very standard of
>measure, how is that when we measure back it is not 40000 km, but something
>approximate.
>
>Anything unscientific about asking such a question?
>
>9. I have indicated that for the year 1900.0 the the tropical year is
>365.2421987 soalr days and the sidereal year is 365.25636042 solar days. And
>from this the period of precessin is 25790.84 years.
>
>Anything wrong about this data, or is there any computational error?
>
>10. I have indicated that if the distance traversed by a point on earth's
>equator in one lunar day is assigned the numerical value 25790.84, then the
>distance traverse by the same point in one solar day is 24908.24. If we
call the
>unit miles, then by this measure, earth's equatorial circumference equals
>24908.24 miles and earth's diametre = 7928.53 miles. I have asked to compare
>with the most acurate figures available (satellite measurements) and verify
>the degree of accuracy of the result.
>
>Anything wrong with this proposition?
>
>Have I committed some sort of a crime in equating the nominal value of
>period of precession to the spatial magnitude of the lunar day to obtain the
>exact circumference of the earth in miles?
>
>
>If there is any other thing I have stated wrong or unclear I request you to
>please indicate, and we can discuss them.
>

RALPH NOW LIKE A GOOD BOY PLEASE ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. After all you are
the one who raised this, you invited me to repeat to this list what I wrote
there. NOW YOU MUST RESPOND.


>It's so sad that such primitive
>concerns should even exercise people now.


I was talking about how to crack the enigma of TIME dialectically.

Einstein laboured the last 30 years of his life to get a break through to he
Unified Field Theory, and that attempt was completely frustrated. And what
was his conclusion?

'The passage (regarding the light beam)  from Einstein written towards the
end of his life regarding the beam of light, continues on to the Problem of
Time. We may consider  this message as his final and strong prediction -
about  The Grand Finale (The Unified Field of Gravitation).  =93One sees in
this paradox (of the spatially oscillatory electromagnetic field at rest),
the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained. Today
everyone knows, of course, that all attempts to clarify this paradox
satisfactorily were condemned to failure as long as the *axiom of absolute
character of time*, viz., of simultaneity, unrecognizedly was anchored in
the unconscious.  CLEARLY TO RECOGNIZE THIS AXIOM AND ITS ARBITRARY
CHARACTER REALLY IMPLIES ALREADY THE  SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM=94 (5)
(emphases added)'.

How strange Ralph for you to think that the problem that Einstein could not
solve was a "primitive concern".

This goes to show what a PREJUDICED, one track minded man you are. It
appears that in your laziness you do not read posts, but jump to conclusions
and become the Bull in the China shop.

And two more things for you to think about.


Roger Penrose: =93Our present picture of physical reality, particularly  in
relation to the nature of time, is due for a grand shake-up=97even greater,
perhaps, than that which has already been provided by present-day relativity
and quantum mechanics=94. - Emperor's New Mind.

Louis de Broglie: =93History shows clearly that advances of sciences have
always been frustrated by the tyrannical influences of certain preconceived
notions which were turned into dogmas. For that reason alone, every serious
scientist should periodically make profound re-examination of his basic
principles=94.


Please tell me who is 60 years out of whack?


Best regards/ Viraj






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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005