Re: dialectics and logic

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The material relevance of dialectics lies in the interconnectedness of
material reality from the subatomic to the universal level.

The German word for contradiction is closer to the word for contrast,
and it has a flavour of contrasting perspectives about it. Gegensatz.

It has some roots in the historical mode of production in the Middle
Ages when without printing enormous economic and social progress was
being made in a quasi theocracy. The clergy used disputation through
dialogue to build up a robust system of ideas of interest economically
but also technologically.

The story about the angels dancing on a pinhead is a vicious one sided
calumny by the rising bourgeoisie on the previous very lively social
system.  The middle ages also invented clocks and architecturally
amazing cathedrals. Unfortunately the democratic William of Ockham
also introduced an undialectical simplification of the scientific
approach which is arbitrary and false.

Some people sympathetic to marxism can see the relevance of
dialectical materialism in the social or political sphere, but are
uncertain about its universal applicability.

I consider its universal applicability is linked as I indicated at the
beginning not to abstract ideas but to the nature of material
existence.

Phenomena that are relatively durable, and affect our lives are
usually the result of an interaction of self-perpetuating processes,
as described in dynamical systems theory and in complexity theory.
There are other phenomena which are evanescent as described in quantum
theory, and they are probably far more numerous.

The phenomena with which we interact, not just self reproducing
biological ones like animal life, but systems like the solar system
which are "self-organising", are the result of the interaction of a
possibly relatively small number of forces.

Their reflection and analysis in thought requires a method of seeing
not only the tensions within those systems that might blow them apart,
but also the unity.

This can be discussed by a dialectical materialist principle that
looks at phenomena from contrasting perspectives of both unity and
struggle, at both the centrifugal force of momentum and the
centripetal force of gravity in the solar system, for example.

Dialectical materialism is a surprisingly robust approach deriving
from mediaeval social practice of addressing the universe of
relatively permanent phenomena but which are only relatively
permanent.

Like not only the capitalist system, but the solar system. And
probably also our own heartbeats, which we assume are permanent but
are inherently potentially unstable.

Sorry to be materialist.

This frightening truth, this radical departure from idealism, suggests
a flexible approach fully in accord with the latest developments in
science which computerised technology allow us to see, and which
enables us to share with our fellow men and women a knowledge of the
social world that is not mystical.

Yes in a world of riches and hunger there is a capitalist system in
which there is a contradiction between the absolute law of capitalist
accumulation and the immiseration of the masses in terms of exchange
value. There is unity between these poles of the contradiction, which
leads to its relative stability, shocking though that is. There is
also struggle between these poles of the contradiction which can
potentially lead to a higher level if reflected in conscious thought
so that ideas can also themselves become a material force. That in
turn can influence the contradiction of unity and struggle between the
private owners of the means of production and those who provide the
labour power by hand and brain for the means of production.

Sorry to be dialectical.

But don't think it is worth cherry picking the dialectics in the form
of social struggle if you do not deeply understand that the
dialectical materialist approach is relevant also for complex systems
like solar system, and your own heartbeat, neither of which will last
forever.

That's how I join up dialectical materialism this morning as an
approach deeply rooted in the complex material nature of reality.

Charles might put is somewhat differently but I think we broadly
agree.

Chris Burford


----- Original Message -----
From: "Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 5:41 PM
Subject: [PEN-L] dialectics and logic


[was: RE: [PEN-L] absolute general law of capitalist accumulation]

Charles B:
> For formal logic , arriving at a contradiction means
> there is a
> mistake,
> something is false.

Chris D.
> Technically, this is false. In logic, ever since
> Plato, the rule has been that something cannot both be
> and not be in the same way at the same time.
> Dialectics in Hegel and Marx do not deny this; they
> are more interested in seeing how different trends
> within a single phenomenon cause it to break apart.

I won't talk about Hegel any more, since I'm no expert at all on his
ideas (and he's not my cup of schnapps).

But for Marx, a "contradiction" was an empirical (real, practical)
phenomenon, unlike the "contradiction" in logic. A social
organization -- such as capitalism -- was a whole or totality, but in
its "structure," there were different parts that didn't work together
well. (Kinda like putting an English-unit part in a car that has an
engine that was specified & built using metric units, as my father did
once. Or like when NASA used metric and the private contractor used
the English system, so the Mars probe crashed.) In Marx's case, the
contradictions of capitalism were problems within the system such as
class antagonism and competition amongst the capitalists, summarized
by Engels as the contradiction between socialized production (the
whole) and individualized appropriation (the parts).

In orthodox or liberal economics, there's a (qualitatively different
kind of) contradiction between "what's good for society" and "what's
good for the individual," as in public goods theory.
jd