Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 13:32:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: EPISTEMOLOGICAL & ONTOLIGCAL DIALECTICS -- KEY ISSUES (fwd)




---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 11:18:18 -0600 (MDT)
From: hans despain <hgd9230-AT-u.cc.utah.edu>
To: marxism2-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: EPISTEMOLOGICAL & ONTOLIGCAL DIALECTICS -- KEY ISSUES

Relational dialectic refers to internal relations.  Lukacs emphasizes 
these types of dialectics, and (over-)emphasizes the social aspect.  
Claiming that dialectics are only applicible to the social realm, with 
empiricism the "proper" method for natural sciences.

Ollman, however, might be a better paradigm for this category.  
Specifically his *Alienation* (1971) chapter 3, where he expounds a 
relational sociology.  His *Dialectical Investigations* (1993) reduces 
dialectics to a mode of thought (abstraction).  That is he is more 
concerned with epistemological dialectics in the latter.

In any event i too want to be careful about historical relational 
dialectics, or dialectical processes.  However, with historical processes 
we might be able to make transcendental statements, which offer us 
possible (social) ontologies.  

In this sense, i like Dunayevskaya's New Beginnings (but i need to think 
about this much more), but still dislike to identify Capital as 
Absolute.  i don't think this was Marx's commitment.  However, i guess i 
am unhappy with most every interpretation of Hegel's Absolute.

i do not see epistemological and relational dialectics as being 
isomorphic, again i have in mind internal relations.  Internal relations 
are something more than an epistemological category.

We are in agrement about being cautious about the relation between 
subjective (epistemological) and objective (ontological) dialectics.  
This is where i believe Bhaskar to be the most important.  Including the 
relation between (historical) process and (current enduring) product, 
(roughly relational and practical dialectics respectively).

Persoanly i have been very impressed by your thoughtful posts along these 
lines. i realize now, you have been careful about this before i realized the 
importance.

And this has been a major fallacy continually committed by Marxists 
(including Lenin as you pointed out).

Maybe we could futher pursue your thoughts about qualitative categories 
and quantitative expressions relating to contradictions.  i too believe 
you to be on to something important.  It seems to be that this is where a 
strong case for dialectics can be made. i liked very much your comment: 
"I believe contradictions are not eliminable from systems of qualitative 
categories as they are from quantitative formulations." (although i am 
unclear about your example).

This is a point i have attempted to make in the past, although i have not 
been able to make a clear, single statement.  This is a distinction 
between chaos and dialectics, for example.

Perhaps more important is dialectic for social theory (values and ethics) 
again perhaps Bhaskar could help us here too.  Btw, his chapter in *Plato 
Etc.* (1994) on Dialectics (chapter 6) is quite useful and better than the 
comments in the dictionary.

hans d.




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---