[twc]

Here is how DJP embedded his video—as seen from his Source text:    <p>    <iframe     src="//www.youtube.com/embed/VNqNnUJVcVs"     height="315"     width="560"    allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"    ></iframe>    </p>To embed your own video, just as DJP did, follow these five steps:Copy DJP’s text [above] to a text-editor application.Replace DJP’s three values for src, height and width with your own.     So you should replace//www.youtube.com/embed/VNqNnUJVcVswith your own video’s web address315with your own video’s height in screen pixels560with your own video’s width in screen pixels.Check your changes, and save them as text-only.In the Socialist Party Forum “Comment:” window:Click the Source icon—currently, you can only successfully paste videos as Source text.Paste your video text at the end of your message—only if you are familiar with the rules of the web-language XHTML, should you attempt to paste your video text where you want your video to appear.Click the Source icon to revert to normal text, and you should be able to see, and to preview, your embedded video.If your video doesn’t show up, or work, check that you have not inadvertently deleted a "—you must have balanced double quotes around your values.  So carefully check your text, and try again.

[twc]

Robbo, If “discretion is needed”, then discretion over-rides your “ethics”.You’ve now gone too far, and inexpertly whittled down your “ethical” precept to don’t cross the picket line if the strike is for socialist reasons.But few strikes are for socialist reasons.  This is not quibbling but goes to the heart of applying abstractions to concrete situations:Strikes are defensive reactions against the dire human consequences of the relentless compulsion of capital to expand itself.  People almost never strike for socialist reasons—to replace the root cause of capitalist exploitation—but primarily to ameliorate their living and working conditions under capitalism, i.e. to make the best out of a bad lot.Of course, Leftists believe that all strikes are pro-socialist.If “you’ve got to use your nonce”, then your nonce over-rides your “ethics”.Rather than sticking to abstract precepts, how about practically taking someone to heart and discussing the direful repercussions of detected welfare fraud—to be careful they aren’t setting themselves up for far worse social deprivation, given the omnipresent surveillance systems now in place.  This also is not quibbling—it’s what concerned friends [may] do.We all take vicarious pleasure in Pyrrhic victories over the “system”, but only Leftists think they dent capitalism, and promote socialism.If your “particularist” solidarity excludes proletarians of some professions, and only includes those of capitalist professions you approve of, what remains of your “proletarian ethics”?  How does your code tell us which capitalist “ethical” professions to be in solidarity with?I am not “twisting” your words, but only teasing out their implication—as I see it, if they are turned into an abstract prescription—in order to point out that all “particularized ethics” boil down to “particularized” anti-ethics for those they “particularly” exclude.I simply seek to show that all such codified “ethics”—and they have to be codified for universal reference if they are deemed to be essential—are easily turned, by concrete circumstance, into the exact opposite of what they abstractly encode, and of what their framers desired.There is not a single abstract proposition dealing with human behaviour that is inviolable in the concrete.So to your questions…I answer “No, No, No”.  But my answers are far less relevant than you seek to make them, because they are concretely specific answers—unlike your “ethics” which are abstractly general—to concretely specific questions that plumb the deepest prejudices that capitalism generates.Your “particularist ethics” are pre-ordained to see someone who answers “Yes, Yes, Yes” as being unethical.  But that is not necessarily so.  They are typically guided by an opposing “particularist ethical” practice, that excludes yours.No, No, No versus Yes, Yes, Yes, is then a case of one “particularist ethics” versus its exclusionary opposite “particularist ethics”.  Here might prevails, as it invariably does.Your “particularist ethics” exclude the possibility that, under capitalism, persons act under material conditions that shape their conviction.  Their pro-capitalist actions may be highly rational—rational in dominant capitalist terms—and demonstrate their “particularist” conception of integrity.It’s the rationality of their pro-capitalist perception that we must expose by pro-socialist rationality.  Your desired proletarian solidarity ensues of its own accord.

[twc]

wrote:

A working class that does not consider it to be morally reprehensible to cross a picket line  or inform on "cheating" benefit claimants to the authorities or to proudly support what "our boys" are doing in places like Iraq, etc etc is quite frankly, a working class that is a million miles away from effecting a socialist revolution.

 These are not specifically socialist issues, and should be evaluated rationally according to circumstance.Most socialists don’t need an “ethical” crutch to be motivated to perform acts of working-class solidarity, and many anti-socialists act this way without socialist prompting.The worst of what you are saying is that the Party should mandate that all proletarians should:always obey the dictates of each and every Union boss, independent of whether he runs a scab Union, or whether he calls a strike for anti-socialist reasons with anti-socialist outcomes—like corrupt Union officials in cahoots with the bosses.always condone or encourage welfare fraud, independent of its punitive consequences. Why not always the same for criminal theft?always reject working class solidarity with our fighting boy and girl proletarians who put their lives on the line. What about those proletarians whose non-frontline labour safely supports the war effort, or those whose labour actively supports capitalism?

[twc]

So, the Party must embrace your notion of “proletarian ethics”—a form of “ethical particularism”.Who’s in and who’s out of “proletarian ethics”, and why, particularly?Incidentally, this is very late news for the rest of us, who’ve apparently been, until now, only groping blindly for a working-class emancipation that will involve “the emancipation of all mankind, independent of race or sex” [DOP 4].Previously, socialists saw “ethics” as socially rational behaviour, a natural outgrowth of social practice, and not something that could successfully be imposed upon it—which is the fundamental problem with the recalitrant “ethics” of class societies.Capitalist “ethics” may stink, but they’re rationally social behaviour under capitalism, a natural outgrowth of capitalist social practice, and something that the capitalist class—despite enormous coercive powers expressly aimed at enforcing them—is ultimately powerless to enforce.  Capitalism’s prisons, law courts, armies, and acceptable commercial malpractice are testaments to capitalism’s inability to impose its impossible “ethics”.  Capitalism’s signature institutions and practices are the capitalist system’s self critique, that even the un-emotional observer of capitalism can see.Presumably your “proletarian ethics” emotionally condemn capitalism’s signature institutions and practices as “ethically” wrong from a proletarian particularist point of view.Either way, Socialism seeks to transcend all such “ethics”, whether “right”, “wrong” or “indifferent”.Instead, Socialists aim to escape forever from such ideal impositions upon our rational social behaviour.  We seek to give rational social behaviour free social rein.Socialists see class-society “ethics”, as materialist Marx saw them, as Feuerbachian reifications of unrealizable ideal social behaviour; the badge of man’s social alienation; the terrible ideal he is powerless to honour; the creation of his mind that dominates him; the necessary illusion of a society that needs illusions.We want to overthrow the capitalist society that needs and breeds such illusions.A Party like ours that has no material leaders, is not going to saddle itself with ideal ones, in the guise of a Party-dominating “ethical” principle. “Ethics” have always functioned to render social control, and their legacy—as Christianity proved—has always been social impotence.  They do not free men.  Your pre-Marxian philosophical mindset can only conceive a notion—an idea—to solve a practical problem. You desire the imaginings of men’s minds to enforce their behaviour.  You have no confidence in man’s rational social behaviour issuing naturally from his social circumstances themselves.Materialist Marx saw rational social behaviour as the natural consequence of rational social conditions.  And that’s how the Party sees it, and what its DOP commits it to!It’s you who should reconsider your pre-Marxian socialist idealism. It’s you—the would-be philosophical imposer upon the Party from above—who should desist from imposing a notion upon its rational political practice.How about having a genuine attempt at comprehending a Marxian explanation of social practice—an explanation of the consciousness that drove an extraordinary scientific practice, which actually freed mankind from the coercion of ideas that formerly controlled its social thought and behaviour.  See post #9, above.It’s you, not I, who should embrace your ethical notion, your reification of impossible rationality, but only to acknowledge what it actually is for you—the social comfort a stridently emotional socialist like yourself apparently needs at present.

[twc]

Yes, Pannekoek is correct to recognize that class-consciousness is the essential ingredient.That’s precisely why I gave a Marxian explanation of the incomprehension of the world’s non-Marxian cosmologists and commentators when they try to explain the—to them—inexplicable rise of Copernican heliocentric-consciousness.I hoped, apparently against hope, that readers (if any there be) might pick up on heliocentric-consciousness as the astronomical equivalent—the type specimen—of Socialist class-consciousness.That’s precisely why I concentrated on the natural and ineluctable growth of heliocentric-consciousness as the exemplar of the natural and ineluctable growth of class-consciousness.That’s precisely why I described Copernicus’s scientific methodology in strict Marxian terms that you might recognize from Capital. His methodology is essentially Marx’s, with one significant difference, that Marx (coming much later) was in a position to justify his own methodology, as described in the Grundrisse and Capital.That’s precisely why I focussed on the fundamental contradiction that drives Copernicus’s science—the contradiction between “sensuous” appearance, as the necessary form of appearance of essence, and the conceptual essence itself, which forms the logical basis for reproducing that appearance conceptually.That's why I pointed out the trap that those of a philosophical mindset fall into when they get hung up over the contradiction in content between appearance and essence, whereas Copernicus, Hegel and Marx see this as a necessary part of human comprehension.I considered it crucial to demonstrate Copernicus’s practical resolution of the contradiction, for that seems to have been the key to establishing both Copernicus’s and Kepler’s heliocentric-consciousness.  This is surely significant for us.Copernicus was first to travel along this road, and his experience of it is clear to us because the conditions of his problem are now clear to us. The necessary relation between heliocentric essence and its appearance to us from an orbiting Earth, involves clearly understood mathematical transformations.  It is therefore no accident that modern science begins with the development of heliocentric-consciousness.  Whatever the case, Copernicus’s problem parallels the Socialist’s.  I wanted people to perceive the similarities for themselves, rather than have my interpretation thrust down their throats.I comprehend, for a number of reasons, why you thought the article, which I contributed as an “essay in historical materialism”, was way off beat.  Firstly, people are ashamed to write and read “essays in historical materialism” anymore, and secondly the parallels with socialist consciousness are masked but implied, and not made overtly explicit.That’s my veiled point in concentrating on the logic of the emergence of heliocentric-consciousness by documenting its dawning in Copernicus and Kepler.  That’s why I emphasize their scientific conviction—the analogue of socialist conviction.Heliocentric-consciousness prevailed when astronomers suddenly realized it made sense of the entirety of their hitherto inexplicable astronomical world.  This is the prototype, archetype, progenitor, exemplar of class-consciousness prevailing—it makes sense of our hitherto incomprehensible world.  With class-consciousness our social life becomes rationally comprehensible.There’s no role for moral suasion, emotional bullying, or might is right. They only impede comprehension. Conviction comes from comprehension. Heliocentric-consciousness prevailed mentally—rationally—because it made rational sense of the world it was mentally abstracted from.The same course awaits class-consciousness.  Until it makes sense of our social being for the majority, it cannot prevail.  But make sense to the Party it already does, and make sense to the majority it certainly will.Meanwhile our task is to rationally convince the majority that Socialist consciousness makes sense of their world.Our road has been travelled many times since Copernicus. He arrived.  So will we.

[twc]

In case my point is not obvious…If this 2008 Keck Observatory near-infrared adaptive optics photograph doesn‘t refute TV presenter Delano’s claim that “no experimental evidence has ever been obtained that unequivocally proves Copernicanism to be true” then nothing will.On the other hand TV presenter Delano seems ready to swallow the line that near-ecliptic anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background implies that we humans are thereby special, presumably (without having seen the TV program) to God.

[twc]

Alan, your barely repressed anger reveals that it is you—not me—who may need to get a grip.You express anger at alternative consistently-socialist approaches that deviate from your own prescriptions and preconceptions. If they are consistently-socialist approaches, even if not yours, what consistently-socialist right have you to curtail them?Maybe, learn to accommodate them, and live and let live, without seething with hostile anger.  Vive la difference.You want socialism in your special emotional way—socialism of your “truly human” kind—and yet you feel justified in reverting to overt emotional blackmail to persuade others into it. Just re-read your mock-pathos “me culpa”.What sort of consistently-socialist approach is one that confers upon you alone—the emotional socialist—the special privilege to twist emotion to your immediate needs?  What consistently-socialist response do you have to opponents who resort to the same emotional ploy as yours but turn it against you?  It takes two to tango, with emotion.Unfortunately, the irresistible temptation to emotional duplicity is precisely what becomes so easily justified on emotional grounds. Take the expert emotional evangelicals. Appeal to emotion has always been the ploy of dishonest rogues, which a consistent socialist like you is the exact opposite of.Emotional suasion works for a while, but backfires catastrophically [e.g., the Bakkers and Swaggarts of the world].As you well know, violence is just around the street corner from “anger, emotion, etc.”  If the Party has learnt, and consistently taken to heart, one lesson of practical street politics, it is that violence is the enemy of cooperative Socialism in a world where the ruling class monopolizes the generation of “emotion, anger, etc.” and monopolizes the means of violence.One intellectual thing the Party has learnt, and held consistently, is that uncontrolled “anger, emotion, etc.” are enemies of rational thought and thought-out action—the very qualities on which the Party’s cooperative Socialist case and world crucially depends.On the other hand, it is the bourgeoisie who need to manipulate “anger, emotion, etc.” in support of its class rule precisely in order to annul rational thought and thought-out action.The Socialist Party will soon enough find more than enough “anger, emotion, etc.” in its support, involuntarily out of the nature of capitalism.  It has no need to foment it in order to create socialists.Rational conviction in socialism to cure the ills of capitalism will motivate socialist action and remain long after artificially drummed up “anger, emotion, etc.” has gone to bed, or to jail.But, above all, your “anger, emotion, etc.” trump card is that you want socialism the ethical way—now what scoundrel could dare argue against that?Well, you just argued against it several posts ago—that in order to achieve your conceived variety of socialism, by your conceived variety of propaganda, you stand ethically quite prepared to stoop to unethical practice, when you feel it’s justified by your variety of aroused “anger, emotion, etc,”—the very qualities of your variety of socialism.But to argue against ethics myself.  Ethics are the soporific of capitalism. They are its essential sham veneer. That’s the only ethical case we have under capitalism.For the rest, capitalism’s ethics are appropriate to and perfectly adequate to capitalism, and there’s little we can do about it that our capitalist politicians can’t, and they have the virtue of being in a position to legislate those necessary legal aspects that changing capitalism demands.For our part, ethics is a distraction.  More important than ethics is moral integrity.Integrity is the fount of the Socialist Party’s survival in the face of the enormous odds stacked against it.  The integrity of our rational case for socialism is our only rock-solid foundation.  Integrity, if one were needed, is our moral trump card.  Not insipid ethics.I now find it hard to see what specifically socialist essence remains in your Socialism of “anger, emotion, ethics, etc.” that distances it from any other political movement, since they all rely on it, and play this card like professional experts.We can only stand in awe of the nationalist regimes that played the “anger, emotion, ethics, etc,” card with overwhelmingly brutal genius.  Playing games with “anger, emotion, ethics, etc.” is not, and never has been, us.  Not for Socialism!  It doesn’t work!For the sake of rational discussion, accommodate the fact that all of us, who adhere to the Party Declaration of Principles and seek to realize its Object, contribute to socialism with integrity in our own limited but complementary ways.

[twc]

No, that was not the peeved miserable point Alan was making.He knows precisely what I mean, even if you don’t.

[twc]

Your forced confession of false engagement to maliciously “throw a spanner in the works” is childishly contemptible.  Henceforth no-one can trust the intent and integrity of your posts.When your “bad mood” mellows, calmly read over your last paragraph

wrote:

Socialism … is about passion, anger, righteous outrage …or it should be

and consider its implications.That’s not the socialist case as codified in the Declaration of Principles, which you openly agitate to change, hopefully not into “passion, anger, righteous outrage” and “might prevails”—“as it should be”.I have not sought to thrust my views on the Party, but I will always defend its avowed case against anyone, including cantankerous irrational you.Your gleeful fomenting of anti-socialist blood sport—you know exactly what I mean—is dangerous and foolish on a site that attracts it without your incitement, and has limited resources to defend itself against specialized attack. Your questionable actions sink you in my estimation.

[twc]

The relevance is that Claus Peter Ortlieb was formerly quoted to disprove the objectivity of “sensuous” practice in the name of Marx.  If what you are doing for Socialism is not objective, what’s its relevance?

[twc]

For Christ’s sake Alan, can’t you see that that’s the very view I’ve exploded.Except that your reference to Barnett is an even worse target than Ortlieb, and beneath contempt for scholarly consideration. Barnett was a popularizing dud like his contemporary Koestler.I should now follow your link…

[twc]

This TV special is not about Copernicanism at all.  It is about something quite distinct from Copernicus’s solar system, of which there is no scientific doubt.Instead this sensationally promoted TV special focuses on two working hypotheses of cosmology, one of which happens to be named after Copernicus:Copernican Principle—we are not in a special place in the universe,Cosmological Principle—the universe is isotropic, or the view from anywhere looks roughly the same.The apparent breakdown of (2) from the “evidence of our senses” [cosmic microwave background observations from the COBE and WMAP satellites] supposedly implies the breakdown of (1).So what if the Universe is anisotropic on the cosmic scale.  That’s “evidence of our senses” we are compelled to comprehend by Copernicus’s analysis–synthesis practice.The implication that (1) is false, and the Earth is a special place, has no Copernican analysis—synthesis practice to comprehend it.Instead it is immediately self-evident to ever-doubting religious hankerers after a cosmic sign of God’s hand to bolster lagging faith.  God apparently offers salvation through the anisotropy of the Universe!Notice the hysterical “experts” in the promo confidently informing us we are special.  This is intelligent-design “science”!The contrary “evidence of our senses” is overwhelming:The Murchison meteorite—a carbonaceous chondrite left over from the 4·5 billion-year old planetesimal dust that accreted to form Copernicus’s solar system—contains 12% water and at least 14,000 molecular compounds including 70 amino acids and 11 alcohols (just for measure).Our Milky Way contains probably 400 billion exoplanets, with almost every star having at least one planet.Copernican solar systems are everywhere throughout the Universe.  Here is the modern day equivalent of Galileo’s view of Jupiter’s attendants, except that we are looking at planets in Copernican orbit around the star HR 8799 129 light years away.We may be special, but we aren’t super-universe special.

[twc]

“The Evidence of Our Senses”An essay in historical materialism¹ 

C. P. Ortlieb (False Objectivity) wrote:

the evidence of our senses speaks in favor of the geocentric view.

For Copernicus, “the evidence of our senses” was both the start point and the end point of science.  And the “evidence of our senses” that vitally mattered to him was naked-eye observation of planetary astronomy.Copernicus’s scientific practice became the exemplar for future scientific researchHe analysed planetary astronomy into a general principle that reduced its complexity, but nonetheless managed to preserve its essential aspects.In modern terminology, he reverse-engineered it to arrive, by abstraction, at the mechanism that drove it—its essence—the general principle of heliocentrism that the planets revolve around the Sun [helios] and not around the Earth.He undertook to reproduce, by logical synthesis, the “evidence of our senses” as the necessary form of appearance of its heliocentric essence.²Copernicus saw his scientific role as comprehending the determinism that necessarily binds essence and appearance in order to comprehend the “evidence of our senses”.At the heart of Copernicus’s deterministic science lies a deep contradiction that energizes it:  its heliocentric essence contradicts the appearance it aims to comprehend.Consider the ContradictionThis contradiction between “sensuous” appearance and conceptual essence continues to disturb those of a philosophical mindset.  It became a cell-form for ensuing western skepticism, taking an extreme turn in Kant’s critical philosophy, where only essence, and its synthesis can be known.³ Latter-day Kantians of the Left remain affronted by this essential contradiction that drives one of them, Claus Peter Ortlieb, to consider Copernicus’s sheet-anchor—the “evidence of our senses”—as false objectivity.Renaissance thinker Copernicus would have been appalled.  If the familiar appearance of the planets isn’t objective then neither is its heliocentric essence nor the determinism of appearance by essence.  Astronomical science becomes utterly impossible.Copernicus, who anticipated most attacks, could scarcely prepare himself for this one.  In this essay I defend Copernicus’s analytic–synthetic scientific practice against the Left Kantian charge of its false objectivity, in Marxian terms:The heliocentrism of Aristarchus, Copernicus and Kepler was scientifically possible only because heliocentric essence is disclosed by astronomical appearance.  It could not have elicited their conviction otherwise.Consider the AppearanceFor nine months the brightest star in the sky, the evening star, trails the setting Sun along the zodiac.  During its course, it moves away from the setting Sun, turns about, moves back, and vanishes in the Sun’s glare for a further nine months.Meanwhile, out of the glare of the rising Sun, a morning star appears.  For the next nine months it leads the rising Sun along the zodiac, moves away, turns about, moves back, and vanishes in the Sun’s glare for nine months.Every 19 months this cycle repeats itself, over-and-over again, as certain as the Sun’s day or the Moon’s month, and just as obvious to watchers of the sky.⁴ This eternal round appeared to our neolithic ancestors,  just as it appears to those of us who are “familiar with the night”,⁵   and just as it will appear to our socialist descendants.Consider the Essence“Oh, East is East, and West is West”, wrote Kipling, but that didn’t prevent the wise men of the East—the astronomers of Babylon—from identifying the bright star of the East with the bright star of the West, as two aspects of a single planet Venus ♀ [their goddess Ishtar].In so doing, they bequeathed to the world a potent conception of ‘Venus’ as a unity-of-opposite motions about the Sun—a conception that was destined to became the cell-form of heliocentrism.⁶ It was only a matter of time and circumstance before Greek astronomers conceived Venus’s familiar East ⇄ West movement about the Sun as the appearance of a circular orbit, seen from side-on.Such an insight could arise, and carry conviction, only after industry and transportation had embraced the wheel, and “sensuous” experience of harmonic rotation had become socially commonplace, i.e. where:⁷potters made plates and bowls on turntables;spinners wound textile threads on spindles;artisans turned timber and stone on lathes;toolmakers cut gear trains.Aristarchus, whose 3rd century BCE writings vanished in the anti-scientific Christian era, conceived Venus’s harmonic oscillation about the Sun as what we’d expect of an orbiting planet glimpsed edge-on in the common plane of a solar system.So too did Copernicus in Renaissance times, with more powerful naked-eye observations and scientific resources at his disposal:  namely, the astronomy, physics and geometry that flourished in late pre-Christian antiquity, as rescued from oblivion and elaborated by Arab scientists.What else could Venus’s “sensuous” maypole-dance around the Sun signify?  Only heliocentrism makes sense.⁸ Consider the LogicVenus always appears within 45° of the Sun, and so is closer to it than we are.  Her year must be shorter than ours, because the closer the planet, the faster it travels [Aristotle De caelo, II.10]. But Venus has a long year of 19 months, as the Magi from the East knew.  That’s a physical impossibility!Explaining Venus’s impossibly long year is Copernicus’s Hic Rhodus⁹ Copernicus faces the reality that science is born out of the resolution of contradiction.  The appearance it seeks to explain, and the essence it explains that appearance by, necessarily interpenetrate but are not identical.Copernicus only establishes his science in actuality, once he can logically deduce ‘impossible’ appearance as necessarily flowing from his science’s heliocentric essence.  Here’s how he did it:Venus’s apparent 19 month synodic year is the time Venus takes to orbit the Sun—its actual year—plus the additional time it takes to catch up to the moving Earth.¹⁰ Copernicus derives the actual year by deflating the synodic year proportionate to planetary contributions:      365·25/(synodic year + 365·25) , (the derivation of this famous Copernican conversion factor should be obvious to mathematician Claus Peter Ortlieb).Venus actually has a short year.  It orbits the Sun in only 224 days.Consider the ConvictionReverse engineering a quantitative heliocentric year from Venus’s impossible “sensuous” year seems to have clinched qualitative heliocentrism for Copernicus, just as it did for his successor Kepler:¹¹ 

Kepler (Myst. Cosmo. Ch. 20) wrote:

every [astronomer] wants planets to proceed with a slower motion the further their distance from the centre.  For nothing is more reasonable, witness Aristotle, [De caelo] than that “the motions of the planets should be in proportion to their distances”, … In Copernicus’s cosmos such a ratio is quite apparent at first sight.

Copernicus’s deterministic explanation of the ‘impossible’ is the stuff of scientific conviction—of heliocentric-consciousness.  With this act, naked-eye astronomy falls into place, and the “evidence of our senses” becomes comprehensible.For the first time, a working scientist is openly conscious that the “evidence of our senses” is necessarily at odds with its analytical essence but is in harmony with its synthesized appearance.This disparity is what deceives the Left Kantians, but Copernicus has demonstrated in practice what it naturally is—simply the way we humans comprehend all things.At this triumphant moment, modern natural science is born, and Ishtar, she of dual aspect, is its progenitor.Consider the ScienceBlood-red Mars ♂ flares in the midnight sky 70 times brighter [in opposition to the Sun] than its feeble glimmer [in conjunction with the Sun], when Mars is lost amid the background stars.  This is the “evidence of our senses”.Watch heliocentric-conscious Copernicus now in full flight:

Copernicus (De Rev. Ch. 1) wrote:

Mars is brightest when it rises at sunset because it is on our side of the Sun, and so is close to us;  and it is faintest when it sets at sunset because it is on the other side of the Sun to us, and so is far away from us.

Mars’s extreme brilliance makes heliocentric sense, but is a geocentric impossibility.  That’s the “evidence of our senses”.Henceforth Mars supplants Venus as the generative cell-form of heliocentrism.  Within the appearance of Mars’s extreme brilliance, there lurks a cyclic anomaly that reflects Mars’s non-circular orbit.  This “sensuous” anomaly prompts Kepler into conceiving elliptical planetary orbits.Kepler’s quantitative reverse engineering of planetary motion is a staggering achievement on so many counts.  After Kepler, the cosmos becomes quantitatively heliocentric.  He shows us how to synthesize the precise appearance of the planets deterministically from their heliocentric essence.Heliocentrism, by the “evidence of our senses”, simply annihilates geocentrism.  And warlike Mars is executioner.Consider the FutureHenceforth the Earth becomes the potent cell-form for explaining the earthly charges brought against the heliocentric heavens, which astronomer Copernicus confidently abstracted from, content that one day they might be mopped up by a future heliocentric-conscious champion.  That champion was Newton, who proudly acknowledged that he stood on the shoulders of giants.If Left Kantians claim “the evidence of our senses” is false objectivity, I challenge them to make good their claim by showing us how they would have reasoned differently from the Babylonian astronomers, Copernicus and Kepler who somehow managed to find a decent working substitute for genuine objectivity, when they delivered us the world as we all now know it.How would they have unravelled the “evidence of our senses”, in their own Left Kantian way, and bequeathed to us a more philosophically perfect solar system than the Copernican?¹²  Notes⁽¹⁾ Written in response to “Unconscious objectivity—aspects of a critique of the mathematical natural sciences (excerpts)”,  Claus Peter Ortlieb. https://libcom.org/library/unconscious-objectivity-aspects-critique-mathematical-natural-sciences-excerpts-claus-pe⁽²⁾ Analysis of appearance into essence is variously described as “Phenomenology” by Hegel, “descent from the concrete to the abstract” by Marx, and “revolutionary science” by Thomas Kuhn.  Synthesis of appearance from essence is specifically called “Logic” by Hegel, “ascent from the abstract to the concrete” by Marx, and “normal science” by Thomas Kuhn.⁽³⁾ Marx [Thesis VIII] and Engels [Feuerbach] reply that such quibbles are solved by human practice, and the comprehension of that practice.  This essay aims to comprehend Copernicus’s practice for the benefit of his Left Kantian critics.⁽⁴⁾ The Aboriginal Yolngu imagine that the morning star is tethered to the Sun by a rope.  Amazingly, for pre-literate folks, they foretell its 19 monthly rebirth, and celebrate its advent in myth and ritual.⁽⁵⁾ Robert Frost, “Acquainted with the Night”.  Given our light-polluted cities, we now need to have “outwalked the furthest city light”.⁽⁶⁾ The Babylonian astronomers noticed that the evening star on entering the setting Sun conveys its Eastward motion to the morning star that emerges from the rising Sun;  and symmetrically for the Westward motion.  The “evidence of our senses” forced them to conceive the phenomenon—as Hegel proved we humans conceptualize all that we comprehend—as an instance of a more general category:  in this case, the conservation of movement that observational astronomers are intimately familiar with.  That is how the Babylonian astronomers discovered the planet Venus.  Incidentally, it is impossible not to see the star followed by the Magi [Matthew 2] as a vulgar nod to the pre-classical Eastern ‘wisdom’ that astonished the early Greeks.⁽⁷⁾ Ptolemy [Almagest] argued that celestial motions have just got to be circular because that’s the only form we [Greeks] are familiar with that keeps on repeating itself harmonically.⁽⁸⁾ Claus Peter Ortlieb claims “Galileo observed the movement of the moons of Jupiter around the planet, but this does not prove the truth of the Copernican system … by way of observation…”  However, Galileo and the astronomical Cardinals were attuned to the appearance of Venus [and Mercury] as the Sun’s attendants.  On watching Jupiter’s attendants, each was “pre-adapted” to involuntarily recognize the signature of the same phenomenon.  Make no mistake, the astronomical Cardinals instantly knew precisely what class of “sensuous” phenomenon they were observing.⁽⁹⁾ “Either put up, or shut up”, as famously used in modern times by Hegel and, following him, Marx.⁽¹⁰⁾ Just as a runner must first complete an orbit of the track to be able to lap a competitor.⁽¹¹⁾ Heliocentrism is “quite apparent” to Kepler because it makes sense of astronomical appearance.  Kepler joins Copernicus in refuting Claus Peter Ortlieb’s primary thesis.  Incidentally Kepler exploded any suggestion of strict proportionality, when he distilled the observational “evidence of our senses” for the planet Mars into his three “laws of planetary motion”.⁽¹²⁾ Left Kantians are more comfortable at delivering negativity or even nothing, as demonstrated by Peter Ortlieb, who takes humble pride in declaring himself impotent to realize his article’s own thesis.

[twc]

You understand my question.For the sixth time—how does an anti-objectivist know that he’s tied his shoes?

[twc]

LBird wrote:

And your posts, twc, are the cream on the cake of obfuscation:  no-one knows what you mean.  I certainly don’t and I’ve asked you numerous times to enter a discussion and explain.But you just continue to post incomprehensible, lengthy posts which achieve no purpose whatsoever.

 Let me hold your hand. “For the fifth time.” “Do you know how big the number five is?  How many fingers do you have on your hand?  Five, yes that’s very good.” “Now, listen carefully.  Are you ready?  …  Good.” “Can you tell me how you know when your shoe laces are tied?” “Do you understand the question?  …  You do.” “Do you think you can you answer it?  …   You think so.” “Now, please begin…”

[Author]

Posts