In short:
Aristotle claims that something has truth in and of itself, whereas Marx claims that everything has a negative that must be taken into consideration: for instance, while the flower appears black, it may in fact emit a slightly purple light, thus making it a purple flower. The main point between the two is that Marx claims that objective reality is uncertain, that is, it may appear as one thing but can be taken further withanalysis.

In contrast, Aristotle says the following of a point on a line:
"we can make no distinction between a point and the place where it is... A point...is like the now in time: now is indivisible and is not a part of time, it is only the beginning or end, or a division, of time, and similarly a point may be an extremity, beginning or division of a line, but is not part of it or of magnitude... It is only by motion that a point can generate a line"

Here aristotle does a very productive thing, that is, shows a way of understanding certain things, but also a very destructive thing: he ignores a myriad of aspects that the point may have simply because they cannot be proven in certainty. In modern science, Karl Popper's method has been widely accepted but also held sceintists back, most notably in studying quantum physics. Popper's method is based on Aristotle's: If something cannot be disproven, it cannot betrusted at all.

Now, I don't mean to condemn either of the two thinkers, as they may have very much intended to simply provide a tool of analysis, but the fact that their is a real problem behind using Popper's method as the only means by which to judge a situation shows that science is being held back in part by western logic.

Discuss.

What does all this have to do with "Eastern Logic" -- the title you have chosen for your thread?

Is your concept of Marxism "geographical"?

Was Mao the Tao "made flesh amongst us"?

redtar wrote:

Well, didn't Mao sometimes use Taoist terminology in his writings? I suppose that Rosa would say, what a surprise!

The I Ching is one basis for the statement

Taoism, Ying/Yang relationship, etc. also contribute to the title. Why are you so antagonistic, and why didn't you know of this? this seems like somethign that would be common knowledge among those interested in marxism.

Is it? I thought Kuhn already conceded that we don't always abandon a scientific theory in the face of unexplained phenomena (that is, things that the theory cannot itself explain). Or, we continue to cling to a particular scientific theory for reasons other than rationality: dogmatism and commitment play a role. Meaning, even if Popper's method is being followed, it is not always easy what Popper suggests: falsify a theory, find fault with it, find the error, since scientists seem to be ingenious in finding ways to fortify their hypotheses. So, I think, in spite of Popper's method, science proceeds at its normal phase, like history.

Your Wikipedia link says: In Western cultures, the I Ching is regarded by some as simply a system of divination.

No different than the Tarot...or cutting open animals after ritual sacrifice and examing their livers...or astrology...or the cracks on roasted turtle shells.

Just more mystical crap!

Why do you continue to inflict it on us?

That's right. dumb it all down so that you don't have to make any real arguments... as usual. It's obvious, as usual, that I'm only referencing it as a side note to the point that I used the term "eastern." Yet you continue to attempt to disguise your distaste for any opposing ideas with completely defeatist statements - you can't even formulate a real argument about the issue. Just abotu whether or not I called it "eastern." You're a joke.

I have read that Popper's method has had problems with Quantum physics in particular, let alone the obvious fact that it rules out any marxist postulations. MY point is what people view as science - the study of nature - and what it has developed into - the study of nature insofar as it is able to be disproven.

IT is true that scientific theories have often been explored with methods besides popper's, but those are usually questions aready reached through a usage of popper's method.

Well, the I Ching was developed out of primitive roots...very primitive roots.

The basic symbols were originally developed to symbolically represent sexual organ.

Worship of sexuality appears in all primitive cultures. The ancients used different symbols to represent sexuality. For example, in many cultures, the image of a bull represents male sexual potency.

In China, possibly as early as 4000 years ago, the male and female sexual organs were represented by the following two symbols:

See if you could figure this out :

-- represents female genitalia
— represents male genital

By using these simple representations, they were able to compose 8 other, more complicated symbols (Ba Gua, or Eight Divinatory Symbols) meant to represent natural elements, such as thunder, rain and earth.

For example:
--
--
--

3 negative symbols (female genitalia) represent earth.

And:

—
—
—

3 positive symbols (male genital) represent heaven.


Ba Gua, or Eight Divinatory Symbols


Later on (probably around the time of Confucius), by using these 8 symbols they created 72 very complicated symbols meant to predict fortune.

This is roughly how it was developed. And the Yin and Yang concept was inspired by this also around the time of Confucius.

The Yin and Yang concept took the next few hundred years to be fully developed (later on with the help of Daoism, a "new" religion) into what you called "logic".


Now you see, after this whole thing is de-mystified, the "Daoist logic" actually rose out of primitive genital worship!

What you keep bringing up is dumb.

Had you wish to discuss western "dialectics", there were already a whole bunch of threads on the subject in this forum.

You threw in the "eastern angle" to what? "Legitimize" the concept in some fashion? Or make it sound "exotic" and "really cool"?

Well, here's some "evidence" for you. I was once informed, in lofty tones of course, that Nobel Prize winning physicist Niels Bohr was known for wearing a Taoist "yin-yang" amulet on a daily basis -- which "proved" that "dialectics" played a "crucial role" in Bohr's thinking on quantum reality.

The fact that Edwin Schroedinger independently reached the same conclusions as Bohr without ever having heard of either "Yin-Yang" or "dialectics" was dismissed as irrelevant.

redstar2000 wrote:


In the case Bohr, not only did he wear an amulet with the Tadoist yin-yang, but when the Danish government had him knighted, Bohr adopted the yin-yang for his very distinctive coat of arms, which can be seen in the Danish Parliament building in Copenhagen.

It should be noted that Niels Bohr, (creator of the Copenhagen Interpretation along with Heisenberg) did consider himself to be a dialectician. Interestingly enough he said that he derived his understanding of dialectics not from Hegel or Marx but rather from his countryman, Soren Kierkegaard. From Kierkegaard, Bohr derived what is known as the 'qualitative dialectic' in which the tension between thesis and antithesis is not overcome by a synthesis which supersedes them both. Bohr was also attracted by Kierkegaard's emphasis on discontinuities, on "leaps" rather than gradual transitions. For Bohr there were certain kinds of contradictions that cannot in principle be resolved, instead they must be embraced. Bohr saw this 'qualitative dialectic' as underlying his famous Principle of Complementarity according to which the wave description and the particle description of electrons and other subatomic particles are both equally necessary and it is likewise impossible to reduce one sort of description (i.e. particle or wave)to the other. It is impossible to subdivide phenomena at the atomic or subatomic level so as to establish a sharp distinction between the behavior of atomic atomic objects and their interactions with measuring instruments which serve to define the conditions under which such phenomena appear. At this level there will be aspects of phenomena that can be observed using certain experimental conditions that cannot be observed using other experimental conditions. Yet with those other experimental conditions we will observe other aspects of the same phenomena that we could not observe using the former experimental conditions. At the atomic level, the interactions between objects and instruments cannot in principle be controlled and it is this fact that makes it impossible to comprehend the varieties of evidence obtained using different experimental conditions within a single picture. Therefore, the kinds of evidence obtained using different experimental conditions must be regarded as complementary to each other , just as the two pictures required for describing such phenomena (i.e. the wave and particle pictures) must be regarded as being complementary.

Later on, Bohr came to regard the Principle of Complentarity as being not just a principle of atomic physics but rather as a general rule apllicable to other disciplines, far afield from atomic physics. Thus he saw the Principle of Complementarity as underlying his father's (Christopher Bohr) perspective on physiology in which both mechanistic causality and teleological causality were seen as equally necessary for understanding physiological phenomena with each perspective irreducible to the other. Bohr also maintained that the Principle of Complementarity was applicable to the humanities and social sciences.

This raises the question of whether or not quantum mechanics and the Copenhagen Interpretation of it lends support to the dialectics of nature. Back in the 1930s, quantum mechanics was condemned by Stalin's regime as idealist (and IMO a persusive case can be made that the Copenhagen Interpretation leans strongly in the direction of idealism since the observer is regarded as necessary for quantum wave functions to "collapse"). Soviet physicists had to fight a long battle to win acceptance for quantum mechanics as legitimate "materialist" physics.(The Soviet A-bomb project no doubt went a long way to helping the Soviet physicists in this regard). Later on the Soviets took the view that the Copenhagen Interpretation was actually supportive of dialectical materialism including the dialectics of nature and this view can be found in Soviet-era textbooks in physics and philosophy. Likewise, I have seen the same argument in the books of the American Trotskyist, George Novack. However, this contention is problematic since the proponents of the Copenhagen Interpretation clearly put the stress on observer-object interactions as at the root of quantum peculiarities. In other words the dialectics underlying the Copenhagen Interpretation are of the subject-object variety. Western Marxists certainly had no problem with dialectics of that sort but it is the contention of 'diamats' that dialectics extends well beyond subject-object interactions. And anti-dialecticians like Rosa and redstar2000 would argue that dialectics as understood by either the 'diamats' or the Western Marxists make little sense.

I prefer the "pilot wave" interpretation of quantum reality, myself. That is, I'd rather accept the fact that "faster-than-light" travel can take place at the quantum level and retain causality than accept the idealist Copenhagen interpretation.

Bohm interpretation

I am away from home at present, so I cannot comment on these posts.

I get back Monday, and will post something then.

Dean, I think I understand what you mean now.

Ah, but even this has problems (especially with locality and nonlocality -- for example, the "butterfly effect" is nonlocal whereas special relativity's "light cones" (causal relations defined as points within a cone) is local).

I myself prefer the relational form of quantum mechanics; although it is nowhere nearly as "finished" as the "Copenhagen" or "Bohm" interpretation.

One problem I have, though, is that people who prefer the Copenhagen interpretation have no clue what they are talking about! Here is a little "experiment" that demonstrates the "Uncertainty Principle".

Take a piece of paper, and draw a line. On this line, draw several dots. These dots are called "nodes". They represent discrete units of area, and nothing can be smaller than this area (it's equal to Gh/(2pi*c^3) for the gravitational constant G, Planck's constant h, and the speed of light c). About 10^66 of these are equal to one square centimeter.

We can only see a particle if and only if it is on the node. Now, the units of time and distance are such that travelling one unit of distance per unit of time is the speed of light (for anyone unfamiliar with this, look up Planck Scale).

Now, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That means that a test particle can travel only a fraction of a distance per unit time.

But wait!!! That means that it wouldn't be on any node, and thus we are "uncertain" with its position (although we know its velocity -- more precisely its momentum).

That is the uncertainty principle, if we have a test particle (a point particle, for simplicity) and it travels this pathway, we are uncertain of its position or momentum.

There are similiar pictures for energy and time, angular velocity and time, etc.

It's only the dialecticians (and, sorry to say, philosophers) that try to make it some mystical thing. It's very much real.

Here's some stuff on relational quantum mechanics:
Relational Quantum Mechanics
Relation Quantum Mechanics (technical paper)

JimFar:

"Well, didn't Mao sometimes use Taoist terminology in his writings? I suppose that Rosa would say, what a surprise!"

Quite right, Jim.

It is no surprise that ancient Chinese ruling-class mysticism appeared in Mao's version of dialectics, just as Greek/Egyptian mysticism found its way into Hegel's, and thus Engels and Lenin's.

The ruling ideas are always those of the ruling-class.

I thought that modern western logic was developed by Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell rather than Aristotle.

England, you are absolutely right, but this 'news' (now, in the case of Frege, well over 120 years old) has yet to penetrate the minds on most dialecticians.

In fact, you will find comrades here who will try to deny this.

A sort of Marxist Flat Earth society.

ill read some russel, and find out, the greatness of formal logic, ill let you know how that goes

Lone, good luck, but I'd advise you begin with Frege, a vastly superior thinker.

I suggest Michael Beaney's 'The Frege Reader', but better still begin with Joan Weiner's 'Frege Explained. From Arithmetic to Analytic Philosophy'.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~brianwc/frege/

But, if you are going to read Russell, begin with his 'Principles of Mathematics' (easily his best work), or his 'Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy' (a deeply flawed book, but incomparably superior to anything written before Frege himself) -- or even his 'History of Western Philosophy' (an even more flawed book, but it is immensely readable).

The last but one edition of 'Mind' was entirely devoted to his path-breaking 'Theory of Descriptions'.

And recall, Formal Logic is not about the world, but about the status of patterns of inference.

And you can't just read it -- well no more than you can just read mathematics.

Or begin here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Frege

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/frege/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/frege.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/