[twc]

twc wrote:

[By the way, can Admin offer us an icon for making lists? That helps to identify individual points, as here.]

Thank you for the list icon.

[twc]

How's this.TextTitle —  Essays on Marx's Theory of ValueAuthor — I I RubinYear — 1928Source —  http://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/index.htmPrice  — Links —  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaak_Illich_RubinStart — 18 Jan 2013 Discussion Timetable26 Jan — Introduction,  Section I  &  Chapters 1 to 32 Feb — Chapters 4 to 716 Feb — Chapters 8 to 122 Mar — Section II  &  Chapters 13 to 1616 Mar — Chapters 17 & 1830 Mar — Chapter  19We'll soon get complaints if the reading/discussion timetable is too spun out over time, and we can adjust it accordingly.[By the way, can Admin offer us an icon for making lists? That helps to identify individual points, as here.]     

[twc]

DJP wrote:

What I was thinking was having a subforum for reading groups, then within that have subforums for each book. That way there should be scope for discussion on multiple books and topics without it getting too much of a confusing mess. 

That's a perfect structure for book discussion.

Mike Foster wrote:

I think we should be wary of discussing whole books, especially something as weighty as Capital, where chapters or sections should be discussed in more digestible chunks.

Agreed, Capital should be discussed in chunks.However, is this what you have in mind for books like Rubin?choose bookchoose reading period [month, fortnight, week]start reading book"library silence"end reading bookopen topic up for discussion

DJP wrote:

I would have thought that just the normal forum rules would be all that is needed.

Ignore my list if normal WSM Forum rules are adequate. I would simply amend normal WSM Forum rules to impose a period of "library silence" before discussion can take place, as courtesy to let members read undisturbed.A period of "library silence" is merely the reading group analogue of courtesy silence in a public meeting that lets the speaker hold the audience's attention until the meeting is formally thrown open for general discussion.What do people think about imposing a period of "library silence", so that all may read — on their own and with their own thoughts — in peace?[Of course, once the period expires, it's open slather.]

[twc]

My thoughts…Aim — to study a text in order to understand and evaluate it in socialist terms. The text may be a book, pamphlet, video or music. It should be expected to stand the test of being taken seriously as a socialist text. It should be conveniently accessible, and not costly to purchase.Size — unlimited discussion group size, but conditions apply [see Membership] — if ever the group of participants gets too large, we'll have exceeded our wildest dreams.]Invitation — invitation to join the discussion group for the test run should be posted on the WSM Forum. Advertise more widely if/after the test run proves to be a success.Membership — discussion group to be restricted to any WSM Forum member who is willing to "sign up" to discuss the particular text. A discussion group needs an indication of its participants' willingness to discuss the text, as against those just wllling to read it. [Of course, reading the discussion of the discussion group aways remains open to everyone.]Test Run — the first text should be considered to be a trial. [DJP has suggested "Essays  on Marx's Theory of Value" by I. I. Rubin.] The discussion group for this text should be open to any WSM Forum member who is willing to "sign up" to discuss the text.Closed or Open — the discussion group [after the test run] should simply be open to any WSM Forum member who is willing to "sign up" to discuss the selected text. The group will elect an ad hoc chairperson with discretionary powers to issue warnings ("yellow"/"red" cards) for off-topic, irrelevant or offensive contributions that stray from the chosen text. [Forum Admin to implement chairperon's umpiring.]Latecomers — latecomers may "sign up" for late membership of an active discussion group for a time after the reading starts, but before a decided "cut off" date. The group democratically decides when it becomes too late for latecomers to join, and may decide that it's never too late.Structure — to be determined by democratic vote of the membership of the discussion group. Example: Week 1 — Chairperson sets the chapters to read. Week 2 — Discussion of last week's chapters. Week 3 — Chairperson sets the next lot of chapters, Week 4 — Discussion of this lot of chapters, and so on…Discussion — The format of discussion, if applicable, is to be decided democratically by the discussion group. Members are expected to discuss only the text, and not to discuss themselves or other discussion group members. Other discussion group member's contributions should be discussed only where absolutely necessary, and always in relation to the text under discussion. It is the text that we want to understand, and not group members. Chairperson to adjudicate on this. Offenders to be removed from the discussion group.Contributions — length of contributions to be at the chairperson's discretion. Relevance and concision is the goal.Procedure — Start at the start and proceed systematically to the finish. Chapters may be skipped or emphasized by group democratic consent.Decisions  — subject to offensive behaviour being monitored by Forum Admin. The general list of suggested texts is open to suggestion by all WSM Forum members. The actual text is to be chosen from the general list of suggested texts by democratic vote of the discussion group, since its members have "signed up" their willingness to discuss. [Maybe WSM Forum Admin know how to manage a static list of texts that people can add to, and vote on.]Timetable — Suggestion: Read one week; discuss the next. This gives readers a fortnight to consider the set material. It also gives people a week to read "on their own" without being influenced by other people's early views.Final ThoughtsThere is no reason why this proposed new forum can't have several discussion groups running simultaneously, discussing their own texts in their own independent threads.[Apologies to WSM Forum Admin for loading you already hard working fellows with additional hard work. Presumably, if things take off in this forum, there should be only one topic per selected text, and you'll have to prevent users from starting their own topics in this rather specially structured forum.   With all this bother, it's no wonder we all want socialism to come as soon as possible.]

[twc]

Take that as a Yes from me..Suggested conventionThe first post should tell us…Title — book's or article's titleAuthor — authorYear — when first publishedSource — web, bookstore, library…Cost — price, if applicable.Links — wikipedia, http://www.marxists.org.Then we can get on with reading and discussing the item.

[twc]

Yes, that's a better way to choose texts.If the idea catches on, can you think of a better name for it?

[twc]

Tom Rogers wrote:

Right, so what is a racist [if race does not exist]? This still doesn't answer my question.In that respect [of my definition], race is both a social construct and a physical and material reality and can be deployed conceptually using various modes and means.

I have studied your definition of "race". It defines "race" in terms of itself. Your definition is either circular or recursive [which is fine if intended to be algorithmic, although no algorithmic targets and processes are specified, and the terminus is subjective]. Either way, your definition of "race" is preloaded with itself, and can be presumed to exemplify to others how you and they might deploy the concept.So I stand on  equal footing regarding what you mean by "race" and on how you deploy it conceptually, and am now able to answer in your  terms your unanswered question "what is a racist if race doesn't exist?".But first I must  teach myself how to emulate your conceptual deployment of "race".Your definition starts with "race" as an abstract concept that initially signifies nothing. It seeks determinations based on measurable human differences until the abstract human nothing becomes concrete human everything — for if any belong to "race" so do all. We are in this together. As outcome of your recursive definition we are now concretely racial.I now must become adept at wielding your algorithmic selector — "whatever is statistically different among humans is an expression of race", and must be popped into its own "racial box". This is how your definition teaches me to deploy "race" conceptually "using various modes and means".So your definition and your conceptual deployment are exclusively "racial" because you unquestioningly attribute "racial expression" to statistical difference. They are "racial" because they do not countenance any other explanation. No other explanation is possible because if one "racial" explanation of human difference is subverted by another kind of  explanation of it, then so might they all. Your project would be wrecked.So your necessarily exclusive combination of racial definition, racial selection and racial deployment provides a perfect instance of "racism" — seeing "race" circularly in appearance interpreted racially as "expression of race".Your definition is adequate to "racism" even if not to "race".Your exclusively racial vision appears when you question the political motives, and so the scientific integrity, of some of the great theoreticians of evolution and anthropology, and re-appears when you challenge a Position Statement of an anthropological society as not being a position statement of that society. This is another example of yours that I must learn from in order to deploy "race" conceptually.But to the pressing question:Your definition of "race" is far too imprecise to deliver anything conclusive. It is incapable of proving that "race" exists as a "physical reality". In that important sense your "race" doesn't exist.Your conceptual deployment of "race" resolves into seeing "expressions of race" in measurable human differences. In that important sense you are teaching and you are deploying racism.Your own exemplary definition and your own conceptual deployment of "race" supply the answer to your own pressing question "what is a racist if race doesn't exist?"

[twc]

Yes, I support your suggestion for collaborative discussion of [often difficult] Marxian and Socialist texts in the forum.An open web forum is an excellent place — it attracts non-members and opponents with differing interpretations to share.Socialist Book ClubIf your idea takes off, it might bode well for the long-term success of a [book of the month] Socialist Book Club forum,  e.g.Home – Forum – General DiscussionHome – Forum – CommentsHome – Forum – Socialist Book Club…Apart from the forum's administration — to which we are indebted to you — there remains the issue of how to draw up the annual book list.Presumably we seek submissions in advance and vote on them over the web, if voting is possible on this site.Alternatively we rely on selections made by an ad hoc committee with extensive knowledge of the literature or of its reputation, though not necessarily being familiar with all of its detailed contents. [The detailed contents are what we hope to discover through the Socialist Book Club.]Yes, I agree with yout suggestion.Would anyone benefit from mine — a Socialist Book Club forum?

[twc]

Tom Rogers wrote:

 I would define race specifically as a biological, sociological and physiological expression of local variation within a human population which aggregates into sufficient discrete commonalities among the sub-population that it can be distinguished to a greater or lesser extent from other human populations, near and far, but with sufficient plasticity that the subject population shall remain, above all, human and still able to breed within other human populations and otherwise share the universal human experience.  The local variations should be measurable so that the expressions of race can be classified, recognised and falsified using accepted scientific methodologies.  In that respect, race is both a social construct and a physical and material reality and can be deployed conceptually using various modes and means.  Now, I am not an anthropologist, and this being my own definition, it should be treated as provisional as I am sure it reflects an imperfect understanding of the subject.  I am not going to use this home-brewed definition to enumerate the different races for you, but I do think the definition above is testable.

"Race" as "Expression"You define "race" as a measurable "expression" of human biology, sociology and physiology.But "expression" is not a directly measurable attribute of any thing/process. It can only be inferred indirectly from directly measurable attributes of a thing/process.Your definition comes preloaded with the directly un-measurable category "race" but fails to specify any directly measurable categories that "race" purportedly "expresses". It lacks any prescription of what measurable categories to measure, and so lacks one of the essential preconditions for making the definition scientific.Your definition comes preloaded with the unstated rule that whatever directly measurable categories are measured they will "express" the directly un-measurable category "race". Your definition of "race" is, as it must be for you, appropriately racial.But your definition necessarily relies on directly measurable categories to "express" a directly un-measurable category "race". It is scientifically obliged to establish a criterion of proof for testing whether selected measures "express" the non-measure "race", but it explicitly fails to meet this scientific obligation.So your definition lacks an explanation that links observation to theory — an explanation of how "race" happens to "express" itself. Without a link between theory and observation, your definition lacks another essential precondition for making it scientific.Naturally, your definition implies its own unstated criterion of proof. It unquestioningly assumes point blank that positive associations between measured attributes are ipso facto "expressions of race". That is pure nonsense without a theory of "race". Pure wishful thinking.Your definition's implied criterion of proof is thus racial, as is appropriate for your theoretical stance that "race" exists and needs only to be found. But its methodology reveals your unstated theory of "race" — whatever attributes happen to measure positive on some arbitrary scale are unquestionably "expressions of race".To make sense of clusterings of racially "expressed" measures, you have little choice but to establish a racial scale — a theory of "race". Otherwise nothing in your definition makes sense.So far your definition reveals itself as subjective, ill-defined, imprecise, apparently unconscious of its presuppositions, and scientifically useless."Race" as StrategyIn apparent openness, your definition actually seems to imply not science but strategy. Its implied strategy is to define "race" as the necessary outcome of an exhaustive search for positive associations among undisclosed measurable attributes of human biology, sociology and physiology.Such a strategy is the reverse of normal science. It proceeds from observation to theory, rather than from theory to observation. You wish to establish a new paradigm [like Newton and Einstein] from observation to new theory. Except those heroes of science were motivated by a deep crisis in existing theory. What is your deep theoretical crisis?Your strategy implies a search algorithm. Definitions that imply realization by search algorithm might be expected to state the problem unambiguously. They might be expected to helpfully specify objective criteria for search target, search procedure and search termination — telling us what to seek, how to seek it, and when to terminate.Your definition lacks these helpful algorithmic essentials. It is therefore algorithmically vague and so incapable of unambiguous implementation.Nevertheless, your definition implies its own well-defined condition of search closure. The target may be unknown and the methodology may be undefined, but the closure is crystal clear. The search for evidence of "race" can terminate upon finding whatever it is able to transform into whatever it's looking for.[If only Kuhnian revolutionary science were always so easy to prosecute!]Your definition unconsciously stacks the deck to ensure its own pre-determined success. For it, any clustered association is ipso facto an "expression of race". Your search for "expression of race" is satisfied once it finds something — anything — that it can use to justify itself. Really, so easy!Such facile closure on seeking evidence of "race" parallels the esoteric entry into ancient mysteries — you would not have sought me if you had not already found me."Race" as MetaphysicsOf course, you are only a wishful Kuhnian revolutionary scientist. You are more naturally a metaphysician.Your open-ended definition sets in train on open-ended "research program" that forces its implementation to establish the credibility of your definition's unstated-but-assumed metaphysics.Yours is not a scientific "research program", in which assumptions are consciously brought out into the open and made explicit for all to see, and where positive results are predictively subservient to clearly formulated criteria.For your definition's implied "research program", the dominant but unstated over-riding criterion is embodied in unstated but implied metaphysics — everything that measures positively has got to be an "expression of race". Your program — like the dominant program in cosmology among the ancients — is inextricably subservient to its motivating metaphysics.Such a "research program" is an unconscious parody of Plato's cosmological "saving of the phenomena", where geometric epicycles predict the behavior but only do so by subverting the explanatory physics. The ancient cosmologists honestly acknowledged that they were engaged in predictive geometry of periodic systems, and were decidedly not engaged in exploring physical reality."Race" as MathematicsYour definition implies mathematical analysis of measured categories that cluster to reveal "races". But clustering alone does not turn measured clusters of category frequencies into "expressions", let alone into "expressions of race".[In fairness, many of the great pioneering mathematical statisticians began similarly motivated.]Clusters must be proven to be more than mathematical — or more than predictive mathematically — to be "expressions of race". Otherwise they might be "expressions" of "non-race", just as epicycles are mathematical figments and are not physical actualities.We simply don't know what the mathematical clusters may indicate because your definition doesn't define "race" apart from whatever presumed "expressions of race" happen to cluster together."Race" without DeterminismYour definition clearly needs a scientific theory to force the conviction that it lacks for others than yourself. It needs a robust theory of how human biology, sociology and physiology "express" themselves to reveal "race".But you, its author, disown any scientific theory outright. In a previous post you protested "… when have I claimed adherence to biological-determinism (or any form of determinism, for that matter)?".You presumably then place your faith in "appearance" alone — the very thing that always has to be explained deterministically by science. The very thing that forms the fundamental basis of non-science from creationism to climate skepticism.Science, unlike your definition, relies on determinism. For your definition to be scientific it must derive from a theory of how "race" determines its measured "expressions". Yours is apparently unable to do so, or you have chosen not to do so.Without determinism, clusters of measured categories remain just so many clusters without further scientific significance, without necessity, unproven because unprovable, devoid of science."Race" as TaxonomySo your definition finally resolves not into science but into a non-explanatory taxonomy — even if you deem it to be and dress it up as science.We are not surprised that scientific "race" must parade as science. Its "science" is designed to emerge without encouragement directly from its loaded "taxonomy" of association of the kind you wish to gather.But, when dealing with the "races" of humanity, loaded taxonomies always "express" political views, just as you've "expressed" yours in association with "race" in previous posts.Supporters of scientific "race" roundly protest the "politics" of its non-supporters — just as you have done in previous posts. They prefer to sit back and let the "facts" of loaded "taxonomies" ineluctably "speak for themselves" — just as your definition is intended to issue forth consent.For supporters of scientific "race", taxonomy trumps science. Science becomes superfluous baggage. Let the scientist squirm before the might of loaded classification. Nothing could be more obvious than "race" when you can measure it, cluster its "expression" and taxonomize it.Measure but Why?Just what do you want to measure in order to determine a cluster of attributes that inexorably separate person from person? What motivates you to embark on an enterprise to divide fellow humans?.Biology, sociology and physiology are disparate things — apples and oranges territory. You seek cross correlations between distributions of disparate attributes taken from such disparate domains.Do you propose measuring length of nose, flaring of nostrils, hair of chest, intellect, beauty, refinement, cannibalism, matriarchy, patriarchy…?.Your definition is cautiously silent on what to measure. Yet your terminology is incautiously provocative about "race"  — you distinguish a "sub-population" from "other human populations" and refer to a "subject population".As to your definition's much-ado about scientific methodology — such methodological ballast betrays the non-scientist adding what he deems necessary to bolster the scientific credibility of his definition.But I see where your methodological ballast is directly targeted and singularly focused. Its [presumably Popperian] falsifiability applies only to locating an "expression of race" at its precise elevation on your presumed racial scale of cross-category clustering. Naturally these indispensable cluster measures [of something, whose significance is assumed but that we readers of your definition know not what] must always be Popper falsifiable.Significantly though, the racial scale itself and the "race expressed" in the racial scale is not declared to be Popper falsifiable.At long last… I have found your definition of "race" to be either unconsciously obtuse or to be consciously devious. Shining through its imprecision is one shimmering light of crystal clarity — "expressions of race" must be found because they exist.What amazes me about your definition is how deftly it smuggles in assent to your primary assertion of the existence of "expressions of race".

[twc]

A few observations on your riposte.

Tom Rogers wrote:

[1] I have demonstrated this [race as a life-separating agency] in one or two posts above, but elementary social observation also reveals it.  You only have to pick up a history book to see it, too. [2] Christians are engaged in worship of Christ (regardless of his historicity or metaphysicality)[3] a 'racist' would not be engaged in any form of worship as a racist.  [4] we don't say that an alchemist worships alchemy … even though alchemy is largely discredited scientifically. 

[1] History shows tribe, class, nation, religion, politics as divisive agencies within the same popularly acknowledged racial group. History shows tribe, class, nation, religion, politics consciously forbidding inter-marriage between tribe, class, nation, religion, politics within the same popularly acknowledged racial group.History shows popularly acknowledged racial groups [relentlessly] out-lawing miscegenation on biologically racial grounds — not to pollute "racial purity" — which would presumably be unnecessary if the popularly assumed biological racial determinism held sway. [Although these "biologically unnecessary" prohibitions are framed and imposed in tribal, class, national, religious, political forms.]Whatever the biological determinism history shows biological determinism's subservience to social determinism. For me, whatever minute differences, they simply don't matter in the scale of things — in a society in which one class robs and rules another [namely, us — regardless of [popularly acknowledged] race].[2] Leave the sentient Christian the remaining comfort to worship his/her metaphysics…[3] History shows the reverse —  "Aryan supremacy", "chosen race", ancient superiority over the "barbarian". Ironically, the Empire came to worship the alien god of a barbarian people, and that has discomforted Christian racists down the ages.[4] Alchemy was driven by greed — the transmutation of base metal into gold — the worship of unbounded wealth.[For your interest, whatever reservations you still  hold out for the academic minutiae of "racial" distinction, alchemy is wholly discredited scientifically.]

[twc]

For honest Christians, Christ does exist as a [divinely determined— sacred-text revealed] life-eternalising agency.For honest Racists, Race does exist as a [biologically determined] life-separating agency.Such conviction is circumstantially faith and/or prejudice, but is real for those who hold it.   

[twc]

Tom Rogers wrote:

Incidentally, what is a 'racist' if race does not exist?

Like a 'Christian', even though Christ doesn't exist as a life-eternalising agency.So a 'Racist', even if Race doesn't exist as a life-separating agency.Social being determines consciousness — ideology is pervasive. 

[twc]

emily_chalmers wrote:

Is socialism inevitable?

Yes. In the sense that it is determined.No. In the sense that determined processes can be derailed by other determined processes.InevitabilityIt is determined that you — the complex adaptive system called Emily Chalmers — will mature, have kids, gain wisdom, and [barring genetic predispositions] live to a ripe old age, perhaps look back upon a life of satisfying achievement, and eventually die to make way for a newer generation in a newer world in part of your making.But it is also possible that other circumstances may intervene to subvert the inevitability of this determinism.Determinisms are only inevitable in isolation, but the world is the only "isolated" thing/process we know, to which all other thing/processes are subservient.One of the goals of socialism is to minimize the effects of disruptive determinisms upon our own, just as this has ever been the goal of human society once it gained consciousness of itself as an entity — an organism or process of which we [just like Emily Chalmers] are an integral part.A class-divided society is always prey to disruptive determinisms that arise directly from its social being. Slaves, serfs, workers and their masters are subject to determinisms that overwhelm that of their own lives.Class-divided societies deterministically subvert themselves. In the most abstract sense, society is the essential unity for us — our language, our arts, our science, our culture, our relationships are society's. They are social. They are only Emily Chalmers's because she is a part of society. But she is also a part of a divided unity. She is a riven soul, just like the rest of us, because our unity — our essential social being — is riven.Mankind is damn inventive! Our society has always solved its problems in the past, and it will solve its class divisions because they will confront society's consciousness as over-determining our lives, of preventing our society [and so you Emily Chalmers] from moving forward, from holding us all intolerably back in ways that canon law, or shariah law, or feudal law, or chattel slave law inevitably became or will become to be despised by society as so much oppressive chaining of our social determinism — of the freedom that arises from necessity.If this isn't determinism and so, in the qualified sense, inevitability, then these words have no meaning, no social substance, for me nor for anyone else.We now confront capitalist law — which is what Marx devoted his life to unravelling. He showed how capitalism works — and must always work — to reproduce the privileges that must accrue to class control, to reproduce the subservience that must accrue to class lack-of-control, to reproduce [unfortunately for both classes] the inevitable social disruptions that must accrue to a class-divided society.The qualification that intervening processes may disrupt society's deterministic development into socialism now  boils down to — what irretrievable damage to the world can the capitalist class unconsciously wreck upon the natural foundation of our social world?So, recognizing such qualification, socialism is inevitable because it is scientifically determined.Social Being determines ConsciousnessMarx studied society — our social being. He based his study on determinism — in other words, he based his study on [qualified] inevitability.For Marx, social being determines our consciousness. Not the other way round — which is our ordinary commonsense, but non-scientific, way of viewing things.For Marx, the social relations of ownership and control of the means by which society must live — the necessity of it producing, maintaining and reproducing itself — are the basis upon which our consciousness feeds, intervenes, expands.Capitalist social relations of production consist of a class owning all the necessary resources of social production [minerals, fuels, agricultural seed and sperm, ocean stocks] and all the necessary instruments of social production [factories, mines, infrastructure]. But this social ownership and control is useless and these social resources and instruments remain idle without the socially-necessary third ingredient — workers to apply society's instruments they don't socially own to society's resources they don't socially own to produce the social goods [the wealth of society] they also don't own but need to consume in order to reproduce society — for those who do socially own and control the means whereby society must live.Surely, this is social necessity writ in large bold capital letters that even the blind can detect — although it took a Marx to first recognize it.The social consciousness that necessarily [inevitably] arises from this class ownership and control of the social resources and social instruments of production that are absolutely indispensable for society to exist — a state of affairs that every five-year old comprehends by analogy with his/her own life or that of his/her own pet animal — flows as a direct consequence of class ownership and control of what Marx called the "means of production". If that ain't determinism then nothing is!The social history of the 20th century, which Marx never lived to see, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the correctness of Marx's determinism. Marx's determinism wrecked Lenin and Stalin. Marx's determinism wrecked the labour parties. Marx's determinism, through those two deluded non-class conscious movements — wrecked our social, and so our personal, lives. [By "non-class conscious", Emily, I mean not having conviction in Marx's determinism, and so not having conviction in our Party's Object. In other words, movements that failed to acknowledge, openly opposed, and so consciously worked against instead of in full consciousness of, the social inevitability you are asking about here.] With conviction based upon outcome — the only proof we have that we understand anything — the Socialist party holds that mankind will recognize the necessity, the inevitability, the determinism of the Socialist Party's Object…A system of society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of living by and in the interests of the whole community.Recognition of the necessity to work to attain our Object is what is meant by working class consciousness.A united non-class society, inoculated against the exigencies of disruptive social determinisms — war, famine, poverty, depravation, mental depression — follows inevitably. Our descendants will look back and see more clearly from their privileged vantage point how all these disruptive horrors arose necessarily from our social being — one in which the capitalist class owned and controlled the very means of our living — one in which the capitalist class robbed and ruled us because they'd taken away from our control the means whereby we lived — they'd stolen our lives.Compared to this robbing and ruling of the working class by the capitalist class, nothing much else matters. The inevitability of its resolution is up to Emily Chalmers as much as to each and everyone of us.In that sense, socialism is inevitable.

[twc]

In the context of "appearance" delivering  to "consciousness" what it relies on in the patterns of "raw experience" as filtered by "reality"…Professional scientists must condition their "appearance" to deliver in all sorts of "reality" domains — a common enough necessity that explodes Paul Feyerabend's dramatic pontification that "incommensurable" "realities" are unbridgeable.The striking example for base–superstructure determinism is Crick and Watson recognizing in the 2D angular domain of X-ray crystallography a double-helix crystal lattice in the 3D spatial domain.[Note: I mean that DNA is a striking example of a base that raises a superstructure.]They had professionally primed their consciousnesses to conceive "appearance" in two visually distinct "realities" [where structures in one "reality" are wide, corresponding structures in the other "reality" are narrow; where they multiply numbers in one, they make running summations in the other, etc.]. But, as professionals, they had taught themselves to think in both domains and to detect signature similarities in the differences.These two domains are, of course, deterministically linked by the Fourier Analysis that is analogous to "epicycles on epicycles" [although maligned Ptolemy isn't actually guilty of this misdemeanor].Marx was far too deep a materialist thinker — ahead of us all —  to fall for grounding "consciousness" in "reality".  "Reality" can only be a utility for "consciousness". For us, "reality" is prosaically superstructual because our "consciousness" is. That's the new materialism for you!

[twc]

Hud955 wrote:

Scientific realism is, after all, the view (crudely) that things are as they appear to the senses.

Sense Data and AppearanceWhat is presented to the senses is not what "appears" to us. What "appears" to us is not the unmediated [or immediate] sense data presented to us. What "appears" to us is mediated [or mediate] sense data — the presented sense data already decomposed into "things" and "processes" of significance for us.Such mediation constitutes the necessary processing of the patterns of sense data into our conceived "reality" of them as "things" and "processes" — the patterns of "things" and "processes" we've come to identify and recognize within the sense data presented to us.For consciousness, this already unconsciously-processed sense data is what constitutes "appearance".Unconscious processing of sense data is essential to human "consciousness". To that extent it constitutes unconscious pre-processing for human "consciousness". So "appearance" is sense data unconsciously pre-processed for "consciousness" to dig its teeth into, so to speak.As such, automatic post-processing of sense data or automatic pre-processing for "consciousness" must be a flexible process. We are not intellectual automatons. Our "consciousness" must adapt to its world — our "social being" — the place we need it for.It must necessarily be conditioned to identify the content within sensual patterns that are significant for us social creatures. Otherwise we could neither learn from our past nor adapt to our future.Thus "appearance" cannot be neutral sense data at all. It must necessarily be biased sense data — sense data that has been unconsciously sliced, diced and conditioned by our socially derived conception of "reality"."Appearance", as sense data that is necessarily mediated by our conceived "reality", cannot be "reality" itself.What "appears" to us only appears to be "reality". That's why we have to prove its "reality" in practice.For consciousness, there is no such thing as sense data; there is only "appearance" mediated by "reality".ExamplesWhat is presented to our senses [as an adult] is what is presented to our senses as a baby, but what "appears" is totally different. And what constitutes the "reality" for us as adults or as children or as babies is totally different.What is presented to our senses [as moderns] is what is presented to Ptolemy's senses [or a hunter–gatherer's or Newton's]. What "appears" to each is perhaps only mildly different. But what constitutes the "reality" for a hunter–gatherer, Ptolemy or Newton is totally different.In both examples, the adult or Newton is presented with the same raw sense data, but unconsciously pre-processes it into vastly or slightly different "appearances", and interprets it as totally different "realities" from a baby or Ptolemy.In describing the conceptual chasm between Ptolemy's and Newton's scientific "realities", Thomas Kuhn characterized their "realities" as being "incommensurable" precisely because each conceived essentially the same "appearances" in scientific ways that were totally incompatible to the other. They inhabited different "realities".Babies spend time learning to identify patterns, as preparation for recognizing that patterns hold content for them. Adults build flexibly upon this foundation.[As an aside… Edit: I've removed an extract that I took from unpublished work on child psychology.]Contrary to "scientific realism" — things can't just be as they appear to our senses.

Hud955 wrote:

If they [appearance and reality] tend to diverge then you just have to look harder or view the world through a different medium.

Divergence"Appearance" gives us changing patterns translated into "things" and "processes" based on our conceived "reality". In other words, "appearance" is, thankfully for our need to navigate a changing world, already loaded by our conception of "reality".Unravelling content from pattern is precisely the role "reality" is required to play in "appearance".In this limited sense, "appearance" and "reality" do converge. But it is we who unconsciously impose the convergence. It is we who impose our conceived "reality" upon sense data to reconstitute it as "appearance". Our "appearance" is both loaded with and contaminated by our conceived "reality". Our "appearance" is biased toward us. It could not be otherwise.This is precisely where Marx detects dialectics at work…Convergence — "reality" necessarily imposed upon "appearance" — will eventually turn into divergence — of "reality" overthrown by "appearance". Necessity re-imposes the new "reality" upon "appearance".The helpful "reality" that makes sense of the patterns of sense data, and turns them into "things" and "processes" for us, will eventually become a fetter. It is then that we must change our conception of "reality" to free ourselves from the "dead hand of the past".Life would be straightforward if "appearance" directly gave us "reality". As Marx says, "there would be no need for science". There would hardly be need for thought.Unfortunately, "appearance" is necessarily loaded with doses of "unreality".Like most sentient persons, Marx recognized that ultimately "reality" is its own "foundation" but, unlike most sentient persons, he conceived "reality" as a social product. For him, everyone else's [including the scientific realist's] obvious truism that "reality founds everything" was ultimately a contentless abstraction. Materialist Marx would never base anything on a pure abstraction.Marx saw Hegelian Idealism as one of the few worthy examples of a system that takes "reality" — for Hegel, the Idea — as its own foundation. As a young man, Marx saw Hegel's extraordinary system wreck itself on its own foundation.Materialist Marx recognized the fragility of basing our "consciousness" of "appearance" upon "reality" — an as-yet-to-be-discovered thing — the outcome rather than starting point — looking through the wrong end of the telescope.Apparently-objective "appearance" is already fashioned by our conception of its "reality".For Marx, the key to "reality" lay in its prosaic necessity for us. Its necessary utility to guide us through our changing "social being".

Hud955 wrote:

Fundamentally, though, we get closer to reality through a more detailed and accurate observation of appearance, not by setting up an antagonism between the two.

Naive RealismWith regard to anchoring science on "naive realism"…"Naive realism" is the solid anchor of the geocentric cosmology still taught by Orthodox monotheists  [yes, Maimonides's universe is still taught in Orthodox Israeli high-school curricula and synagogues] half a millennium after Copernicus. [See "Attitudes of Educated Orthodox Jews towards Science" http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=nussbaum_fi_30_1%5D"Naive realism" is the solid foundation of intelligent design — views sanctified by the lawgivers of Orthodox Christianity, Judaism and Islam."Naive realism" was Lenin's dogmatic trump card in his "Materialism and Empiriocriticism".I know you take a critical attitude toward "scientific reality" and "naive realism".My argument against them is that one can't be naive about mental processes that aren't themselves naive — that aren't themselves entirely objective because they necessarily contain subjective elements.Consequently, we [you and I] both judge the same scientific processes critically, but from different "realities". Our opposing views are to that extent "incommensurable".

[Author]

Posts