Rosa Lichtenstein
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Alan, yes the atmosphere here is far more comradely, even though one or two comrades here have preferred posting personal remarks rather than reasoned arguments.The comrades over at LibCom were hostile from day one, which began way back in 2007:http://libcom.org/forums/thought/thesis-antithesis-synthesisIndeed, several of them were happy to post blatant lies about me, and refused even to attempt to substantiate the allegations they made about me or my ideas: http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/Poseur%20001.htmhttp://anti-dialectics.co.uk/libcom_circles_the_wagons.htmThe same has happened at most of the places I debated this topic on the Internet over the last seven years; I have listed the many sites where this has occured here:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/RevLeft.htmAlthough it’s titled ‘RevLeft’ it contains links to the scores of forums and threads where I have debated this doctrine.I have to say that in the early days I was very abrasive and aggressive in my own defence; I have mellowed somewhat of late.”My point is surely you made the wrong decision when you said earlier in reply to me “that you used to read your publications when I was deciding which version of Marxism appealed to me back in the early 1980s. Needless to say, I decided against your view.””Well, I made this decision back in the early 1980s long before I was subjected to this sort of sustained abuse, but I also understand why comrades are like this. If you can stand another link, I have explained why they behave in this emotive and irrational way, here:http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2009_02.htm”Perhaps, taking into account our non-dogmatic attitude in contrast to many of the Left’s adherence to dialectics as political canon plus our open and receptive response and commitment to discussion and debate it is now time for you to review your earlier decision.”I don’t think so; I am committed to Leninism, and have been for over 25 years, and will be for the rest of my life.But thanks anyway for the comradely sentiments.
YMS:
“But that defines horse in terms of other Things: that slippery chain of metaphors and metonyms eventually leads to no-thing.”
So, in other words, we can define ‘horse’ without referring to ‘no-thing’ — a term, by the way, you have yet to explain, and one that does not occur in the dictionary (so even dictionary makers don’t use this mythical word of yours).
To see how far removed from reality this idea of yours is, try explaining to a child what a horse is. You will find that at no point will you refer to ‘no-thing’.
Moreover, is there anything that is, has or could be defined by reference to ‘no-thing’ (especially if we do not yet understand ‘no-thing’)?
“Since there is no intrinsic connection between signifier and signified the only real reference is to historical locutions – every word is meaningful only in the context of where it has last/usually been used, and is thus a metaphor for itself. As I’m sure you’ll know, denotations are actions of naming, simply to refer to a cigarrette is to enact the fact that the object in question is like unto the object previously referred to by the term cigarrette.”
You seem to think all words are names. They aren’t..
But, how does this provide the proof I requested? Here it is again:
“I’d like to see the non-metaphorical proof (which, if you are correct, will have to be written in a non-human language) that “human language…[is]…ultimately metaphorical.””
Now, if all language is metaphorical, then so is your ‘proof’ (which you unwisely expressed in language). This means that your ‘proof’ isn’t a proof.
On the other hand, if your ‘proof’ is literal, then not all language is metaphorical (since at least this ‘proof’ is not metaphorical), and hence your ‘proof’ isn’t a proof after all.
Either way, your ‘proof’ is not a proof.
“They can be connected, over time, but, if space/time is absolute, then not synchronically. However, that does no disprove connection (or, rather, interconnection), if I were tied to you by a (very long) piece of elastic, that was incredibly stretchy, we could go our whole lives without ever feeling any effect from such a laggy band, except one day, after many years, when it reaches its limit. We would still have been connected for all that time.”
Once again, this is not so. The light cone argument shows that they can’t be causally connected, ever.
“Now, as for connected, I would say I’m using it in the sense that my actions will have an effect upon another object through transmission: connection does not have to be direct or immediate. Or, put another way, I equate connection with casuality, which, in the context of the big bang theory means everything is connected in common cause and its transmission through the cosmos.”
So, you are using ‘connected’ to mean ‘causally connected’ — your problem is now to show — as opposed merely to assert or assume — that everything is now causally connected with everything else in the entire universe, and for all of time.
Good luck gathering the almost infinite amount of data you will have to collect to prove that one!
“She would be right, in a banal sense, that since the humans I interact with are connected to the web, and I can (and do) use it through them, I am connected regardless of whether I am in possession of a portal or not.”
In that case, save yourself some money and cancel the engineer’s call. Or, throw your phone away. After all, even without a phone, you are connected with everything in the universe, including the internet, and your friends.
In fact, you could ruin the entire internet and phone economy — for if this good news got out, we could all throw our phones and computers away. Even without them we would still be connected to the internet and to one another.
“And I think you need to re-read it, those points are synchronous space/time co-ordinates of absolute position, in the ‘real’ universe, over time the effect does spread, and, if the universe is limited, then all points in space will be eventually effected by an event in space/time.”
Well, as far as I can see, this will never happen; here is the relevant section (bold added):
“Because signals and other causal influences cannot travel faster than light (see special relativity), the light cone plays an essential role in defining the concept of causality- for a given event E, the set of events that lie on or inside the past light cone of E would also be the set of all events that could send a signal that would have time to reach E and influence it in some way. For example, at a time ten years before E, if we consider the set of all events in the past light cone of E which occur at that time, the result would be a sphere (2D: disk) with a radius of ten light-years centered on the future position E will occur. So, any point on or inside the sphere could send a signal moving at the speed of light or slower that would have time to influence the event E, while points outside the sphere at that moment would not be able to have any causal influence on E. Likewise, the set of events that lie on or inside the future light cone of E would also be the set of events that could receive a signal sent out from the position and time of E, so the future light cone contains all the events that could potentially be causally influenced by E. Events which lie neither in the past or future light cone of E cannot influence or be influenced by E in relativity….
“Keep in mind, we’re talking about an event, a specific location at a specific time. To say that one event cannot affect another, that means that there isn’t enough time for light to get from one to the other. Light from each event will eventually (after some time) make it to the old location of the other event, but since that’s at a later time, it’s not the same event.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone
YMS:
“I don’t need to prove that, since I’ve never asserted it.”
Here is what you posted:
“If light is everywhere (and when) at once, then we are all simultaneously bathed in the same universal sea of light, which touches us all.”
This is indeed a hypothetical proposition, the truth of which does not depend on the truth of the antecedent.
But, this is what you posted before that:
“It was a source, IIRC, for where I got the notion that light could be everywhere at once.”
Now, it seems to me that you are trying to support your claim that light is everywhere all at once in order to support your other idea that everything is connected. In that case, there doesn’t seem to be any other way you could support the consequent of the above hypothetical than by asserting the truth of the antecedent.
If that isn’t the case, and I misinterpeted you, I apologise, but I hope you can see that this was the only way I could make sense of your enigmatic/metaphorical prose.
“So much for linguistic philosophy.”
Well, this has nothing to do with linguistic philosophy, but has more to do with your enigmatic way of expressing yourself.
In fact, a crash course in Linguistic Philosophy would help you express yourself more clearly.
Alan:
“The ruin done by Leninism to Marxism (and the working class) has been historically far greater than any influence of Hegelian dialecticalism has ever been. You direct your criticism at the wrong ism when it comes to the future of the planet.”
Not so; it is possible to show that this damage is a direct result of several factors, one of which is dialectics.
“But you refuse to debate the issue of Leninism and its relevancy to the REAL world, preferring to indulge in discussions that are better left “to the gnawing criticism of the mice” to steal a quote from Engels.”!
Again, not so; I have debated, and will debate Leninism on the internet; but not in this thread, or at this site.
I have removed this reply to YMS since the editor here garbled it. I have re-posted it in two parts below.
ALB:
“Of course not and the spiritualists don’t think so either, but they do have the honesty to draw attention to our criticism of them as here.”
Don’t take my remark too seriously; I certainly don’t think the SPGB stands for what I said. I was merely making light of what I took Stuart’s position to be — wrongly, as I he pointed out.
And yes, Leninism, like other political doctrines, attracts mystics (as Lenin himself acknowledged). Dialectics has, of course, opened the door to this.
YSM:
“The light cone argument actually shows that over time everything will be connected, and given enough time, all points in space will come into contact with effects caused by me. It all depends, then if space/time is absolute, and if there are further dimensions.
I think we’re getting back to greek style static versus dynamic universe here, and the Xeno’s paradoxes.”
Well, Zeno’s paradoxes were based on a serious distortion of language; so no wonder he derived some odd conclusions.
I have demolished one of them here (in the second half):
http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2005.htm
Success! I pasted it into Word and removed the formatting. This concludes my first reply to YMS:
I think if you look carefully at the above definition, you’ll be hard placed to spot any reference to ‘No-Thing’ — whatever that is.
Again, the rest of what you say looks like yet more dogmatic metaphysics, which is, as I have shown, non-sensical.
“Systems move from high entropic states to low entropic states, energy seems to have an impulse to spread itself about a bit. All language is ultimately human language, and ultimately metaphorical.”
I’d like to see the non-metaphorical proof (which, if you are correct, will have to be written in a non-human language) that “human language…[is]…ultimately metaphorical.”
“Or, based on the best science available to us now. BTW, I note you snipped my comment about gravity, since that would, even with old Newtonian science, seem to present an adequate and provable example of all things being connected.”
1) Which ‘best science’ shows that there are vast regions of space and time that can’t be connected, let alone interconnected.
2) I didn’t snip it. I apologised later for missing it — did you alter your original post on edit?
3) The point about gravity does not alter my argument in any way. Unless you think gravity acts instantaneously across all regions of space and time, then most things in the universe, past, present and future, can’t be connected, let alone interconnected.
Unless, of course, you are operating with a mystical notion of ‘interconnection’ — something Einstein called ‘spooky’.
“An atom that was once part of him is now part of you.”
So, let’s imagine that you move house, and want to be connected with the internet. You ring your favourite IP and ask them to connect you with the web. The person on the other end of the phone, who has read Dietzgen and believed far too much of it than is good for any human being, tells you that since all things are connected, you are still connected to the world-wide web, so why are you ringing her.
Would you accept such an argument?
I think not.
The only conclusion possible is that you are operating with a novel sense of ‘connection’ — and one which, as I noted, depends on a mystical view of nature, with all those ‘spooky’ influences.
“The key word is now, over time they will be connected, but if space/time is fundamental then each point is atomic, unless there are further dimensions to be unpacked.”
I think you need to re-read the material on light cones, since that tells us that there are vast regions of space that we will never be connected with each other or with us — unless, once more, you are using ‘connected’ in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense.
“If light is everywhere (and when) at once, then we are all simultaneously bathed in the same universal sea of light, which touches us all.”
[This sounds a bit too much like Christianity to me.]
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Unfortunately, you neglected to prove that light is everywhere — or why this shows everything is connected — except in your odd sense of ‘connected’, which you have yet to explain.
I will have to break that post into two halves; there seems to be a code in the definition I posted that this editor does not like:
“And yet we can only define Things by relation to No-Thing and the flow of information through things relies on the gaps, aporia, absences between them. The forces acting on (and against) Things comes about only because there is a limit to Thingness. Whether we call that non-thingness Nothing, or fishcakes, or spleen, is irrelevant. The binary distinction remains. This binary opposition is inherent in thing, and merely implies fishcakes; but we have seen things, and cannot see fishcakes.”
I’m sorry, but we define ‘things’ all the time without ever once thinking of ‘No-thing’ — whatever that is.
For example, here is a definition of ‘horse’:
“n.
1.
a. A large hoofed mammal (Equus caballus) having a short-haired coat, a long mane, and a long tail, domesticated since ancient times and used for riding and for drawing or carrying loads.
b. An adult male horse; a stallion.
c. Any of various equine mammals, such as the wild Asian species E. przewalskii or certain extinct forms related ancestrally to the modern horse.
2. A frame or device, usually with four legs, used for supporting or holding.
3. Sports A vaulting horse.
4. Slang Heroin.
5. Horsepower. Often used in the plural.
6. Mounted soldiers; cavalry: a squadron of horse.
7. Geology
a. A block of rock interrupting a vein and containing no minerals.
b. A large block of displaced rock that is caught along a fault.7. Geology
a. A block of rock interrupting a vein and containing no minerals.
b. A large block of displaced rock that is caught along a fault.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/horse
I’m sorry, but my last repost to YMS has been garbled by the editor at this site. I’ll try to re-post it, since this editor doesn’t seem to respond to my attempts to repair it!
Stuart
“I’m bowing out of this thread with a few concluding remarks.
First, I am not confusing Leninism with Stalinism. This says about all that needs to be said on the matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nz11K1wUbrc”
Indeed, you are confusng the two, notwithstanding that biased video.
“Second, I think Rosa is partly right. He [??] is criticising the dialectics of Lenin and Leninism, inherited from Engels. This is a silly dogma, and Rosa’s criticisms, although tediously lengthy and monomaniacal and equally dogmatic, are about right.”
My work is ‘tedious’ since the ‘theory’ I am criticising is mind-numbingly boring. It’s impossible to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. And I am no more ‘monomaniacal’ than Marx was in his almost lifelong obsession with fighting to rid the planet of capitalism. I happen to think, and I also reckon I can show, that this theory has helped ruin Marxism. If that is so, then the future of the planet partly depends on defeating this theory.
“Third, Adam is right that this is not at all the same as Dietzgen, who was a very interesting and subtle thinker, whose philosophy is in accord with modern science. (As an interesting aside, also with Buddhism’s worldview, at least in some respects, but that’s not important.)”
I disagree; Dietzgen is among the very worst of theorists I have ever read; even worse than Engels. He’s no more in line with modern science than creationsists are. And Buddhism is not at all consistent with modern science. May I suggest you read Victor Stenger on this — particularly his The Unconscious Quantum?
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/meta.html
“Fourth, yes, I do mean “he”. If Rosa is a woman, I’ll cut my cock off and eat it with my hat. I refer you to rule 16 of the Rules of the Internet.”
Well, in that case, I’ll book you a bed in ER. [It looks like you have confused me with my ex-partner, which others have also done.]
YMS — I’m sorry, I didn’t see this:
“At the initial point everything was very literally interconnected, since it was one object, since then that object has unfurled itself in different permutations. If I’m connected, as I am, to the Sun by gravtitational forces, and the sun is in turn bound to the galaxy by gravitational forces, and that galaxy to the rest of the universe, then I think it makes sense to say everything is connected.”
Well, if we accept the Big Bang Theory (and I see no reason not to — that is, until scientists again change their minds, which they always do), and as I pointed out earlier, all this shows is that everything had a common origin. It doesn’t show that everything is now interconnected. You are still conflating “common origin” with “interconnected”.
“If I’m connected, as I am, to the Sun by gravtitational forces, and the sun is in turn bound to the galaxy by gravitational forces, and that galaxy to the rest of the universe, then I think it makes sense to say everything is connected.”
But, the light cone argument shows that this is an unsafe inference to make.
YMS:
“Nothing cannot be actual, by definition.”
In which case, it can’t have a relation to anything that is actual (since it’s not a ‘it’), and nor can it ‘struggle’ with anything actual. At which point your dialectic stalls.
But you have a reply:
“All I can know is that Thing is distinct from No-Thing. Now, it might be that No-Thing is a thing, of some different variety, but the fact of difference exists, and that is sufficient. All things are struggling with un-being, as the entropic principle moves through the universe towards heat death. We cannot know Things in themselves, but only through their acts, their actuality, and it is the aspect of action that separates Thing from No-thing. We can only know Thing and No-Thing through their mutual distinctions.”
Well, I am still not too sure how something actual can ‘struggle’ with something not actual.
Sure, the universe is running down (so scientists tell us), but how does that show there is a ‘struggle’ going on here? Are atoms really struggling to stay atomic? And what form does this ‘struggle’ take? Are electrons slugging is out with protons (or is with positrons)?
“We cannot know Things in themselves, but only through their acts, their actuality, and it is the aspect of action that separates Thing from No-thing. We can only know Thing and No-Thing through their mutual distinctions”
This reads like yet more a priori dogmatics, and is therefore, as I have shown, non-sensical.
What do you mean by ‘Things in themselves’? I know this term has been bandied about since Kant dreamt it up, but it seems to me to be an empty word, like ‘Slithy Tove’ — and so, with all due respect, what you posted makes about as much sense as this.
“Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.”
http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html
“Hardly metaphysical to say that everything is connected through common cause and (possibly) common substance. that’s mechanical. BTW, did you know taht, I think, every twentieth breath you take contains an oxygen molecule breathed in by Julius Caesar. he has touched you, and you have touched him. Across time, no less.”
Indeed, it is metyaphysical, since it purports to tell us about fundamental aspects of the universe that are way beyond any possibility of confirmation or disconfirmation — ad is based on no little speculation dressed up as popular science (of the sort that Cox is happy to pass of as solid sicience).
Your thought experiment about Julius Caesar, even if correct, hardly shows he has touched me — unless, of course, you are using the word ‘touched’ in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense. If so, what is it?
But, even if you are right, how does this show that regions of space and time that are outside our light cone are interconnected with us now?
“It was a source, IIRC, for where I got the notion that light could be everywhere at once”
‘Could’ is not the same as ‘is’; you need to prove with evidence, not speculation, that light is everywhere at once.
But, even if it is, how does that show that everything is interconnected? That yawning chasm in your argument has yet to be filled.
Alan:
“So just where do you debate your politics?”
I used to debate my politics at RevLeft, until they banned me for being too effective at demolishing dialectics.
“i assume you have viewed other pages of our website and know that we see Leninism as fundamentally no progress to the working class but in fact a hinderance – totally contrary to Marx’s maxim…well the International’s if we have to be exact , ‘The emanicaption of the working class will be an act of the workers themselves.’ Isn’t Lenin substituting the party for the class?”
Yes I am familiar with this tradition in Marxism — in fact, I used to read your publications when I was deciding which version of Marxism appealed to me back in the early 1980s. Needless to say, I decided against your view.
Your comment about the self-emancipation of the working class I take very seriously (indeed, it’s in my signature!), but, as I said, I have only come here to defend myself against the misleading comments about my work found on page one, and to discuss dialectics, and for no other reason.
So, you are wasting your time trying to draw me out.
