Re: [A-List] electronics and value

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 12/17/02 4:39:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, bobenoch@xxxxxxx writes:

> The paragraph of the article I was criticizing
>  was not discussing human history, nor Marx, but Physics.
>  Perhaps you will agree with me that, while Marx's' method of analysis is derived from, and confirmed by observation, this cannot be said about the assertion that "matter created consciousness"


You and I are more than simply on the same side of the social equation; we are brother/comrades traveling along a specific route. Our discussions have much to do with the inherent difference of experience that defines the individual, as opposed to "theoretical differences."  

This question of "matter created consciousness" requires reprinting the paragraph in dispute. Below is the paragraph.

"The basis of this "science of society" is historical materialism. Marxism builds on the philosophic principles of materialism  that the universe is "by its very nature material," it exists independent of consciousness. The universe is not the embodiment of a "universal spirit," or the construction of a subjective observer. The universe is objective, knowable, and law-governed. "Matter is not the product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter."
 

I most certainly concede that the above paragraph reveals a lack of artistry in articulation. 

The universe may very well be the embodiment of a "universal spirit," governed by properties far outside the realm of mans unaided perception. The words "universal spirit" are torn from another historical period as you state and run into conflict with what would be called "universal substance - spirit," today. 

"Matter is not the product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter," is rather quaint for many of us schooled in the method of Marx for many years, but a revelation to millions who are opening their minds eye to the unfolding social conflict. 

As a propagandist of Marx method, I would have written the lead paragraph much different, basically stating the following. 

"For thousands of years mankind has sought to understand why society changes. Karl Marx method of inquiry into the logic or law system governing the inner compelling driving forces underlying society change is called Marxism or the science of society. Marxism builds on the philosophic principles of materialism. Materialism as a branch of philosophy attaches fundamental importance to the material universe that exists outside the head - thinking or consciousness, of the individual, and this includes that tiny part of the universe we call island earth. 

"No longer is it enough to explain change in society based on a universal spirit. It is necessary to examine how and under what conditions mankind eats and reproduces it material needs in society." 

I would totally avoid the subject of the matter/consciousness concept because the focus of the article is electronics and value. 

As a sidebar, it is my understanding that our modern Bible - King James Version of the Sacred Text, Old Testament is a materialist document in ancient form of presentation. 

To the point: Do I believe that matter created consciousness? No or rather, yes . . . .wait a minute, the form of this materialist presentation is cloaked in mechanical logic. Actually, the paragraph states:

"Matter is not the product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of matter."

This sentence should read: 

"Matter - the universe understood and not yet understood is at least 12 billion years old according to current understanding, and does not spring from the mind or consciousness of man. The earth itself is perhaps 4.5 billion years old and mankind appeared on earth much later. Human consciousness itself can be no more than a specific evolution or form/fragment of this material universe."   

Somewhere in Lenin - perhaps his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, he calls the brain "matter that thinks," and by doing so does not seperated consciousness from the matter organism - the brain, from which it emerges. 

Machinery at the stage of electronic-computerize production process lacks consciousness and displaces labor - not the consciousness itself. Consciousness cannot be separated  from the from in which it expresses itself in man as productive activity. My point is that the quote from the article Historical Materialism is not so much about physics as it is about consciousness as the act of material reproduction of society and man herself. 

If in fact mans consciousness cannot be separated from the organism of the brain and the brain is a component of a larger organism, then the strength of the power of observation is bound up with the maintenance of the larger organism. That is to say, the strength of the power of observation and cognitive functioning as material consciousness existing outside the ability of the individual to see with the naked eye, rivets on what man literally eats.  

Eating or consumption contains its own law system and in terms of man's biology alkalinity is fundamental. 

What has this to do with the general discussion? Everything . . .including Mark's piece on population, energy conversion, this state of the destruction of environment and even social revolution. All of us come to the same juncture in the road from different sides of the social equation. 

To purify man's consciousness mean purifying the organism in which consciousness erupts and emerges and this carries one back to the logic of industrial society and the contamination of the environment called woman/man.

All of long held propositions and belief system are in disarray because we are undergoing the process of the evolutionary leap - transition, to a new mode of production. Yes, dialectics - the form of materialism, must be changed. Such a task is outside my ability. Yet, I have presented a materialist approach to man's consciousness outside the ideological formulation. This approach doesn't unfold the law system of consciousness formation. It is simply an approach. 

When Marx labored society was undergoing an evolutionary leap from agriculture to industry, and yes - the ideological form of combat most certainly contained an anticlerical character.  

All of this was written not because you speak untruth, but because the materialist presentation of the question of the transition in the mode of production became lost in approaching matter from the modern standpoint of physics. 

Your brother and comrade in arms - theoretical arms. 


Melvin P.