Dialectics bites the dust

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

T:

First, I fail to see how you can have two contradictory forces without a resultant, furhermore, if resultant is understood as change, it is because of the 2 forces that combine into resultant, obviously, they dont create a resultant, they combine into it, and if they havent, there would be no resultant, obviously.

And what if there are 100 forces? Are they all 'contradicting' one another?

[And I note you keep helping yourself to this word, i.e., 'contradict' without saying how it can apply to forces, when it is a propositional or linguistic descriptor.]

But, anyway, the point of this section, is not to analyse the notion of contradictory forces (something that Essay has already cast serious doubt upon), but to show that change is produced by a resultant, not by a contradicition, which, even if we accept this obscure way of talking, will have already been resolved in that resultant.

So, even on that assumption, change would not be the direct result of a contradiction, but of one force, the resultant

And, I deny that forces can interact in this way, anyway.

I post my reasons for saying that in Note 22 of Essay Eight Part One, as the links in the essay you are reading indicate.

What I claim is that we still do not know what forces are (indeed, modern physics has replaced them with motion along geodesics (in the case of gravity), or has explained them away as the exchange of momentum, hence all those 'exchange' particles), and our way of resolving them and recombining them is just a calculating device, and not representative of anything physical in reality (just as when we are solving simultaneous equations in n dimensions, no one imagines there are n dimensions out there as a result). I reference several books and articles where this is spelt out in more detail.

[turnoviseous]

T:

First, I fail to see how you can have two contradictory forces without a resultant, furhermore, if resultant is understood as change, it is because of the 2 forces that combine into resultant, obviously, they dont create a resultant, they combine into it, and if they havent, there would be no resultant, obviously.

And what if there are 100 forces? Are they all 'contradicting' one another?

[And I note you keep helping yourself to this word, i.e., 'contradict' without saying how it can apply to forces, when it is a propositional or linguistic descriptor.]

But, anyway, the point of this section, is not to analyse the notion of contradictory forces (something that Essay has already cast serious doubt upon), but to show that change is produced by a resultant, not by a contradicition, which, even if we accept this obscure way of talking, will have already been resolved in that resultant.

So, even on that assumption, change would not be the direct result of a contradiction, but of one force, the resultant

And, I deny that forces can interact in this way, anyway.

I post my reasons for saying that in Note 22 of Essay Eight Part One, as the links in the essay you are reading indicate.

What I claim is that we still do not know what forces are (indeed, modern physics has replaced them with motion along geodesics (in the case of gravity), or has explained them away as the exchange of momentum, hence all those 'exchange' particles), and our way of resolving them and recombining them is just a calculating device, and not representative of anything physical in reality (just as when we are solving simultaneous equations in n dimensions, no one imagines there are n dimensions out there as a result). I reference several books and articles where this is spelt out in more detail.

We are not dealing with 100 forces here, we are dealing with 2 opposing forces here, as a simple relation between 2 objects. How can you talk about 100 forces if you cant handle a basic relation between 2 objects?

Obviously if an object pulls the other to itself, and the other pulls the first one to itself, these are opposing forces, no matter how one looks on it.

I dont see how contradiction is resolved in a resultant, in fact, if it was resolved, there would be no resultant. You give example of resultant being 0, while oppositions are non-zero. Again, this does not negate what I am saying. The fact that movement happens from opposing forces, does not mean that it should visibly move as you want it. It is hard enough to try to see how in real life you can have 0 resultant composed of opposing forces without an instruments, which is biased, and takes out small momental fluctuations.

But, anyway, the point of this section, is not to analyse the notion of contradictory forces (something that Essay has already cast serious doubt upon), but to show that change is produced by a resultant, not by a contradicition, which, even if we accept this obscure way of talking, will have already been resolved in that resultant.

So, even on that assumption, change would not be the direct result of a contradiction, but of one force, the resultant

We can clearly see that resultant in pracitce always has 2 forces, never 1 force, and resultant cant stand in the middle of nothing, composed of nothing, in effect what is combined in a resultant are 2 forces. You can always give me an example of 1 force acting on its own, of a resultant composed of only 1 force, but I cant think of one.

What I claim is that we still do not know what forces are (indeed, modern physics has replaced them with motion along geodesics (in the case of gravity), or has explained them away as the exchange of momentum, hence all those 'exchange' particles), and our way of resolving them and recombining them is just a calculating device, and not representative of anything physical in reality (just as when we are solving simultaneous equations in n dimensions, no one imagines there are n dimensions out there as a result). I reference several books and articles where this is spelt out in more detail.

So in fact, when a rocket is pulled to the sun, nothing real happens? Surely, it looks like the rocket was eaten by sun on paper, but it actually didnt happen? I think the only way to get the destroyed rocket back, you would have to draw it again on paper.

[turnoviseous]

Standard, first-order classical logic. You need to remember that logic is handled differently in mathematics than it is in philosophy.

Check these:

http://ethics.acusd.edu/Courses/logic/powerpoint/contradiction/logical%2520contradiction,%2520identity,%2520and%2520compatibility/sld003.htm

http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/Logic/logiglos.html

And an extended discussion here:

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:qwOgK66SXdAJ:www.leidenuniv.nl/philosophy/medewerkers/catarina/articles/paraconsistenttext.pdf+%22Contradiction%22+%2B+%22logic%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=45

I can post references to logic texts that define it this way, if you want.

On one of the links you gave, I find

Contradiction

    A contradiction occurs when one asserts two mutually exclusive propositions, such as, "Abortion is wrong and abortion is not wrong." Since a claim and its contradictory cannot both be true, one of them must be false. Few people will assert an outright contradiction, but one may fall into an

Obviously the statement "Abortion is wrong and abortion is not wrong" is a contradiction in formal logic, since it is always false! It is not because the "wrong" and "not wrong" oppose each other, but rather because the result is always 0 (in this statement).

Again, I brought it up since you said you dont "subscribe to mathematical truths", well these "truths" are truths of formal logic. This is a bit away of the subject at hand.

Well, if we are to talk successfully about such things, the language of traditional philosophy is hopeless (and it is even worse if we use the jargon inherited from Hegel). Hence I try to show that howsoever you try to slice things, traditional dialectical formulae will not work.

We have enough resources in ordinary material language that more than adequately cope with change -- including the sort you mention -- and without having to rope in these obscure Hegelian notions.

Now, I'd like to see you construct a contradiction out of the things you mention.

I have tried every way I can think of -- you are welcome to try to bring this 'theroy' back from the dead, if you can.

Granted social processes are long and drawn out, but if something is prevented, it never happened, and cannot form part of a contradicition.

Now you can re-define the word 'contradict' so that it means the same as 'prevent' (but as I show, it does not even work then), but that would be a subjective linguistic fix drafted in to help cure an ailing theory, and not reflective of reality. It would be a bit like someone re-defining their overdraft to mean 'I have $10 million' in the bank.

Or someone re-defining capitalism to mean 'fair to all...etc'.

When you say

"Granted social processes are long and drawn out, but if something is prevented, it never happened, and cannot form part of a contradicition....Now you can re-define the word 'contradict' so that it means the same as 'prevent'"

Again here, as I point out, you miss the question at hand, it is not a question of a done events, it is not a question of whether something "prevented", but of if something is "preventing".

On the other hand, you are saying that a general contradiction can either be composed of "prevented" or "opposing" and not both. Why is a mistery to me.

First, to be clear, you are yet to demonstrate to us that this theory of yours has ever started to live. From what I see, it is your theory that is dead, not dialectics.

Sure, if your theory is correct, everybody can accept it, but you are yet to demonstrate it is correct.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

T: recall  I only quoted these sites, I did not endorse anything they said, even if they define contradictions more in line with the standard approach we take in first-order logic.

Since mathematics is still stongly Platonist, then mathematical logicians tend to define things in relation to that background -- as either true or false; so this is extended to tautologies and contradictions.

Now I have no real objection to the definition you were taught, if it is not interpreted Platonistically. But it often is -- and all sorts of problems arise from that.

Either way, this is not good news for dialectics, since both definitions rule out 'dialectical contradictions' as being true, or where both halves are true.

So, I do not think this line of enquiry is going to help you or DM.

You might want to move on therefore.

Again here, as I point out, you miss the question at hand, it is not a question of a done events, it is not a question of whether something "prevented", but of if something is "preventing".

But as soon as you complete that transitive verb, you end up slap bang in the middle of one of the options I analysed, and you are no further forward: 'preventing' what....

You are invited to try, and I wll oblige by dissecting it.

Once more you are helping yourself to the idea that a contradiction can be cashed out in material terms, that is, that it is the equivalent to a 'preventing' -- I'd like to see your proof -- to put you on the spot for a change.

First, to be clear, you are yet to demonstrate to us that this theory of yours has ever started to live. From what I see, it is your theory that is dead, not dialectics

Well, first: since I subscribe to historical materialism, I do not need to do that.

Second: what I am doing is trying to address an important subjective reason why Marxism is so unsuccessful (and Trotskyism is even worse). Hence I am trying to prevent any more ruling-class poison, in the form of dialectics, seeping into our movement.

So it is not a question of whether there is any 'life' in my theory (since I do not have one, over and above Historical Materialism -- I have no philosophical theory and do not want one, since I claim that all such theories are nonsensical (this comment does not apply to scientific theories!!), but whether I can help stop the life going out of our movement.

Sure, if your theory is correct, everybody can accept it, but you are yet to demonstrate it is correct.

Where did you get the idea that I had a theory?

[turnoviseous]

recall  I only quoted these sites, I did not endorse anything they said, even if they define contradictions more in line with the standard approach we take in first-order logic.

Since mathematics is still stongly Platonist, then mathematical logicians tend to define things in relation to that background -- as either true or false; so this is extended to tautologies and contradictions.

Now I have no real objection to the definition you were taught, if it is not interpreted Platonistically. But it often is -- and all sorts of problems arise from that.

Either way, this is not good news for dialectics, since both definitions rule out 'dialectical contradictions' as being true, or where both halves are true.

So, I do not think this line of enquiry is going to help you or DM.

Yes, I agree, this has nothing to do with dialectics, as I said, I only brought it up because you were refering to "logical" contradiction in your essay. Then again, when you say "Now I have no real objection to the definition you were taught, if it is not interpreted Platonistically.", I wonder how you interpret this formal logic definition.

But as soon as you complete that transitive verb, you end up slap bang in the middle of one of the options I analysed, and you are no further forward: 'preventing' what....

Preventing you from having too much time to do something productive, I dont know how successful I am, but probably you are wasting 10 minutes for each reply, which would be enough for me. And if I finally prevent you from being productive, then I can claim you never were productive. I like your theory, its definitely good for ones ego.

Well, first: since I subscribe to historical materialism, I do not need to do that.

Second: what I am doing is trying to address an important subjective reason why Marxism is so unsuccessful (and Trotskyism is even worse). Hence I am trying to prevent any more ruling-lass poison, in the form of dialectics, seeping into our movement.

So it is not a question of whether there is any 'life' in my theory (since I do not have one, over and above Historical Materialism -- I have no philosophical theory and do not want one, since I claim that all such theories are nonsensical (this comment does not apply to scientific theories!!), but whether I can help stop the life going out of our movement.

So in effect, you are rejecting labour theory of value and many other things along the way, but then I fail to see how you relate to historical materialism at all.

That Trotskyism is "so unsuccesful", as you say, might be your experience, of your organization, group, whatever, its definitely not for most people on these boards who hold different views than you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

T:

I wonder how you interpret this formal logic definition.

As a Wittgensteinian, I treat it as a rule for the use of negation.

Preventing you from having too much time to do something productive, I dont know how successful I am, but probably you are wasting 10 minutes for each reply, which would be enough for me.

I wasn't sure if this was serious, but if you are preventing me doing what you say, then it never happened (i.e., whatever you prevented me doing did not) and so could not be part of a contradiction.

So in effect, you are rejecting labour theory of value and many other things along the way, but then I fail to see how you relate to historical materialism at all.

Why on earth would you say that? Look: I fully accept, 100%, historical materialism -- I just reject the Hegelian mumbo jumbo that has been superimposed on it. End of story.

Now you might find that hard to believe, but I find it even harder to believe why those who claim to be materialists have accepted all this Hermetic rubbish from Hegel.

That Trotskyism is "so unsuccesful", as you say, might be your experience, of your organization, group, whatever, its definitely not for most people on these boards who hold different views than you.

Well, I have been hearing this sort of thing now for well over 25 years, and I have yet to see the evidence -- not the hype (Trotskyists are good at that!).

Name one successful Trotskyist revolution....

[And I say that as a Trotskyist myself.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

T:

We are not dealing with 100 forces here, we are dealing with 2 opposing forces here, as a simple relation between 2 objects. How can you talk about 100 forces if you cant handle a basic relation between 2 objects?

Of course, you are right, but I only raised this as a side issue, since it seems to me that in real life situations, your abstract system will not be able to squeeze these into that Hegelian straigth-jacket. And as far as I can see, it is only in such abstractions that you get just two forces.

But, never mind me always answering questions, how about you telling us what is so contradictory about even two forces?

Obviously if an object pulls the other to itself, and the other pulls the first one to itself, these are opposing forces, no matter how one looks on it.

I agree; where did you get the idea that I did not? I just do not see how this can physically work, without reading thse 'forces' as surrogate (pretend) agents, as minds, as people, or as having 'hooks'.

This is why physicists have edited forces out; they look far too animistic/metaphysical.

I dont see how contradiction is resolved in a resultant, in fact, if it was resolved, there would be no resultant. You give example of resultant being 0, while oppositions are non-zero. Again, this does not negate what I am saying. The fact that movement happens from opposing forces, does not mean that it should visibly move as you want it. It is hard enough to try to see how in real life you can have 0 resultant composed of opposing forces without an instruments, which is biased, and takes out small momental fluctuations.

Well that is just the problem; whatever value the resultant takes (zero. -10, 2.8, 1 billion, it matters not), and even if it is changing all the time, change is produced by this resultant, not the 'contradiction'.

But, I keep asking you, and you keep avoiding it: why are opposoing forces contradictions?

You just take this for granted -- or because Hegel (and other mystics) said so. I do not mean to be rude, please forgive me if I sound it; but you keep asking me to defend my ideas, but you have yet to say how forces can be read as contradictions..

We can clearly see that resultant in pracitce always has 2 forces, never 1 force, and resultant cant stand in the middle of nothing, composed of nothing, in effect what is combined in a resultant are 2 forces. You can always give me an example of 1 force acting on its own, of a resultant composed of only 1 force, but I cant think of one.

Well I reject this sort of talk anyway; I merely posed it as an embarrassment to DM. However, I think I gave an example (simple harmonic motion); I am not sure why you rejected it.

However, even if I am wrong, you mention these two forces combined as one force, or as combined in the resultant. This seems to suggest that the resultant is a container of some sort and can hold other things in it.

If not, what does your metaphor mean?

So in fact, when a rocket is pulled to the sun, nothing real happens? Surely, it looks like the rocket was eaten by sun on paper, but it actually didnt happen? I think the only way to get the destroyed rocket back, you would have to draw it again on paper.

Well, as you must know, in relativity, nothing actually 'pulls' the sun anywhere. It moves in scalar energy gradient along a geodesic.

But, even if this is wrong, or misleading, do you really think forces have hooks in them, to pull things?

If not, what do this metaphor mean, too?

Even Woods and Grant half see this:

Gravity is not a "force," but a relation between real objects. To a man falling off a high building, it seems that the ground is "rushing towards him." From the standpoint of relativity, that observation is not wrong. Only if we adopt the mechanistic and one-sided concept of "force" do we view this process as the earth’s gravity pulling the man downwards, instead of seeing that it is precisely the interaction of two bodies upon each other. [Reason In Revolt, p.156.]

Engels went further:

"When two bodies act on each other…they either attract each other or they repel each other…in short, the old polar opposites of attraction and repulsion…. It is expressly to be noted that attraction and repulsion are not regarded here as so-called 'forces', but as simple forms of motion...." [Engels (1954), pp.70-71. Bold emphasis added.]

As Max Jammer said (in agreement with Engels):

"(The eliminability of force)...is not confined to the force of gravitation. The question of whether forces of any kind do exist, or do not and are only conventions, has become the subject of heated debates....

"In quantum chromodynamics, gauge theories, and the so-called Standard Model the notion of 'force' is treated only as an exchange of momentum and therefore replaced by the ontologically less demanding concept of 'interaction' between particles, which manifests itself by the exchange of different particles that mediate this interaction...." [Jammer (1999), p.v.]

[References in that Essay at my site.]

No forces, no DM-contradictions, even if we knew what the latter were.

[turnoviseous]

Rosa,

Thank you, you are definitely keeping me in good mood here in my dull workday. I had a nice laugh (no offence, it just seems so funny to me) this morning, maybe I reply in the evening.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

T: stopped laughing yet?

Or have you said all you want to say?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It is with great sadness I learnt of the death of Ted Grant; a great comrade, who, although I disagreed with him about much, I agreed with him about so much more.

[turnoviseous]

T: stopped laughing yet?

Or have you said all you want to say?

Well, my dear Rosa, I dont have so much free time as you. But even my co-workers, who are far from being supportive of dialectics or marxism, laughed at your theory. I rest my case.

Please feel free to spam the board for as long as you wish, and provide us with interesting humor
material, thats why you are here I believe.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Turn:

Well, my dear Rosa, I dont have so much free time as you. But even my co-workers, who are far from being supportive of dialectics or marxism, laughed at your theory. I rest my case.

Considering my theory is Historical Materialism, I take it you are now a non-Marxist.

Please feel free to spam the board for as long as you wish, and provide us with interesting humor material, thats why you are here I believe.

I note once more that you cannot argue against me, so you resort to childish behaviour.

Nevertheless, since I suspect you do not know (your brain cells having been numbed by exposeure to too much dialectical logic): but laughter is not an argument.

Oh, and I too work full time, but I can defend my ideas.

[turnoviseous]

My 6 years old sister the other day drew a cube....and she overthrew your anti-dialectical theory with a stroke of 12 lines.

You know what a cube is.


You draw a point, but a point doesnt exist by itself, so you draw another one. So then, you get a line, and a line must have its counter line and voila you have a cube.

I will ask her, if she has any more interesting arguments against your theory :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Turn, you are really getting desperate if the best you can come up with is the thoughts of a six year old.

You draw a point, but a point doesn't exist by itself, so you draw another one. So then, you get a line, and a line must have its counter line and voila you have a cube.

What has this remotely got to do with anything?

Is it even relevant to rational debate, let alone anything in this thread?

You can't reply to my posts, or my essays, and can only play the juvenile and laugh, imagining that that is a serious debating point, and then you come up with this pathetic post.

In your position, I’d give up before you make an even bigger fool of yourself in public.

[turnoviseous]

I dont really care what you think of me, or anyone else for that matter.

I dont have time to go back in to the debate really at the moment. Maybe some other time if I have abundance of time, and if I will be insane enough to even consider your theory sane again. So you can save your insults for maybe some other time.

But again, I just want to say, that you proved nothing at all, maybe that you are a lonely and a desperate person, apart from that not really anything that destroys credibility of dialectics. The cube example is just as credible as your theory, thats probably the irony.