tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35011209.post116233840997593319..comments2023-04-23T12:45:31.897+12:00Comments on Chaos Marxism: Marxism 101 for Occultists, part 1Doloras LaPichohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15406903235156602127noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35011209.post-1163450245171908442006-11-14T09:37:00.000+13:002006-11-14T09:37:00.000+13:00reality is a feedback loop between the material co...<EM>reality is a feedback loop between the material conditions and our thoughts about them.</EM><BR/><BR/>Increasingly so in a modern industrial culture where humanity has achieved <EM>potential</EM> control over the physical world, but at the same time is alienated from it by precisely those structures which have given it potential control.Doloras LaPichohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15406903235156602127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35011209.post-1162843980247290922006-11-07T09:13:00.000+13:002006-11-07T09:13:00.000+13:00This from a poster having trouble getting through ...This from a poster having trouble getting through this comment interface:<BR/><BR/><I>Ah but Lenin, one way of understanding the phrase 'dialectical materialism' is precisely as an attempt to argue that the standard antinomy between idealism and materialism is inadequate. Whilst its true that Marx himself never used the term 'dialectical materialism' (a standard ruse of Engels bashers) this seems a useful thought.<BR/><BR/>As is fairly well-known, the term 'dialectic', whilst having a lengthy history of its own across very different genres of thought related to different modes of production, was particularly associated with that body of work frequently known as 'German Idealism'. Materialism is of course generally defined against idealism of any sort, whether German or not.<BR/><BR/>If Marx never used the phrase 'Dialectical Materialism' he certainly used the term 'dialectic' and the term 'materialist' rather a lot, something which is often held to be self-evidently incoherent by those who rule out the possibility that he was breaking the standard terms of discourse in the only language available to him: that standard discourse itself.<BR/><BR/>Your own point that ideas are themselves part of reality seems to build on this attempt to break the terms of the standard discourse (the fact that it is indeed still standard, for otherwise why would you have to make the point) is indeed indicative. <BR/><BR/>So here-in lies the rational kernal of Marx's coquetting with Hegelian idealism (as he was to put it) a rational kernal which might allow us to return once again to the vexed question of what is meant by 'a materialist dialectic' without ponderously pointing out that the standard discourse tells us that these two words cannot be used togeather.<BR/><BR/>Precisely. That is the point. There is a problem with the standard discourse. At least Marx seems to have thought so. <BR/><BR/>Am currently reading a re-evaluation of 18th century history in India tackling the question of state formation. Its argued here that an inability to understand that its quite possible for social orders to contain elements which are both functionally interdependent in the short-term, whilst at the same time in the long run destructive, has bedeviled discussions usually polarised between those who see the disintergration of the Mughal Empire as a time of chaos and rapine plunder, and those who see in this process regional assertion and state formation. <BR/><BR/>The phrase 'contradiction' is used by this historian to describe the process. In sentances of course contradictions mean nonsense according to well known theories of meaning. Its possible that we need to extend our understanding of the different forms of contradiction to understand the notion of crisis in different social formations. I'll post you the article which is rather interesting in this respect.<BR/><BR/>Of course for those who believe that any departure from the standard discourse is a crime against reason, its always possible to invent new words and jargon rather then confronting the fact that their may be problems with the standard discourse.</I>Doloras LaPichohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15406903235156602127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35011209.post-1162756843236606122006-11-06T09:00:00.000+13:002006-11-06T09:00:00.000+13:00the essence of Marxist materialism is that the rea...<I>the essence of Marxist materialism is that the real world and the "sphere of ideas" are intimately connected</I><BR/><BR/>That's an odd way of putting it. Ideas are not merely connected with reality: they are <I>part</I> of reality. They are material. They are a part of matter. The way you've phrased this looks like you're positing the very dualism that you're opposed to.<BR/><BR/><I>everything is in a continual process of flux and change</I><BR/><BR/>Is it, though?<BR/><BR/><I>everything contains within it the seeds of its own destruction and evolution into something different</I><BR/><BR/>Does it, though? Can't we afford to resist such a priori claims and simply restrict ourselves to saying that this is how we understand societies to have evolved?Richard Seymourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03382239516001223229noreply@blogger.com