One way to say it might be: there's a sliding scale of influence between a weaker but long-range repulsion and a stronger but short-range attraction. That sliding degree of the interactions may be called "quantity". But what is the "quality" -- in addition to what was already said by other posters, we might also note that the newly formed nucleus suddenly requires obedience to Pauli's exclusion principle, no two or more particles in the nucleus are allowed to have the same set of quantum numbers. What used to be separate individuals are now a single system with its parts, and somehow it was sliding scale of influences that initiated it.

Yeah, how was that?

Quote:

Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree@November 23, 2007 09:08 am I [hoped I] would at the very least get a clear and concise statement of what dialectics actually was.

If you want a concise explanation of dialectics, it's simply the doctrine of union of opposites. That's the most important and fundamental law/idea of dialectics.

Quote:

Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree@November 23, 2007 09:08 am Why is it so damn hard to explain? Am I being stupid?

Kinda actually. No offense or anything but it's not nearly as complicated as you're making it seem.

Quote:

Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree@November 23, 2007 09:08 am So the chain of events, contrary to dialectical materialism, does not run like this: Quantity-Quality. But like this: Quality-Quantity-Quality

Haha, I think you just got negation of negation. Quantity and quality are a dialectic themselves actually.

Also, in this formulation there would also have to be a quantity for the first quality. IOW, it's just a chicken-egg thing.

Quote:

BurnTheOliveTree

This is why you shouldn't isolate the laws. Quantity-quality doesn't ignore cause and effect. External causes become operative through internal causes.

Besides, pouring water into the kettle does eventually cause qualitative change: it no longer collects in the kettle once it is full, but rather spills out over the sides.

Trying to bury us in semantics again are we?

Quantity - relative magnitude

Quality - a distinctive property

Simple enough.

M:

That means you are just a conventionalist, and in view of the fact that you only see this principle work sometimes, an inconsistent conventionalist.

Nothing wrong with conventionalism so long as it is consistent, and non-metaphysical.

CYM:

It is if you are happy with Mickey Mouse Science, and ignore the difficulties the real world and genuine science throw our way.

I note you too leave 'quality' and node/'leap' undefined.

Ah, the Uber-mystic returns.

V:

In that case, the change from cold water to hot water is qualitative, but non-nodal.

And the change in geometry between isomers results in qualitative change, but this is not the result of an increase in matter/energy. Change in geometry causes change in 'quality' here, contradicting Engels.

Either way, this piece of Mickey Mouse Science that you have swallowed fails.

I did not know you were joining in, too

In that case, self-burial is OK with me, so long as you are the only one who ends up six feet deep.

With, of course, your mystical 'theory'.

I think some people look too deeply into the whole boiling water analogy anyway. It's just an analogy, an evocative image to explain the buil-up to a revolution. the thing about the match lighting the gas is not as clever as it seems, because the the change to capitalist society which creates the conditions for a qualitative buil-up to the revolution, was a qualitative one. So it's not like there were no qualitative changes which directly led to the quantative build-up before the qualitative change to communism.

Now as Marxists we are SOCIAL SCIENTISTS. We want to create a society based on communal ownership. All changes within a society based on profit are therefore insufficient and do not change the root of the problem - we can call this quantitative change. What we argue for is a qualitative change - a revolution, the establishing of workers states, and the ending of the capitalist state which serves the profit motive.

In this sense then, the kettle analogy makes sense: the conflict of interests within capitalism between proletariate and bourgeoisie lead to continual resolution by the triumph of one interest over the other, which then creates the conditions for the next manifestation of conflict.

The process is continual, and all politics is a manifestation of this. The kettle analogy refers to capitalism building up the conditions for its own overthrow, through a combination of technological progress which empowers us, and continual increase of the rate of exploitation, monopoly and centralisation of wealth and power, which makes the simultaneously makes proletariate grow in numbers and concentration and forces the bourgeoisie to confront it ever more, especially in times of inevitable crisis.

:banner: :banner:

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein@November 25, 2007 11:30 am In that case, the change from cold water to hot water is qualitative, but non-nodal.

I'm not sure what your criteria for being "nodal" is, but that change happens as a result of quantifiable increases in temperature. You could, though, reference the infinitesimal increase and argue from the calculus perspective, but that just results in a good example of Unity of Opposites (I believe Engels used it).

Quote:

Rosa Lichtenstein

And how are those changes not quantifiable again?

Z:

You are right -- those who do not like Mickey Mouse Science look into this deeply. You Mickey Mouse impersonators do not.

And I note you retreated to this fall-back position only after I have shown this 'law' is defective from start to finish.

Anyway, the analogy does not work, for steam and water are both H2O, so if this is used as an anlaogy, then after the revolution, the capitalist system should survive.

So, the rest of what you say is now irrelevant.

Engels 'law' cannot assist in our endeavour to understand history, nor help us change it.

Now, can we move on from this 19th century screw-up?

Uber-M V:

Dialectics does not work with the calculus either.

And, as I noted, it's you mystics that have yet to tell us what a 'node' is; so don't look at me. I do not prefer this term, and am happy to throw it away. I will however use it to embarrass your 'theory' -- as I have done.

Who said they weren't? But whether they are or they aren't, it's a change in geometry that causes the change in 'quality', contradicting Engels.

Now, if you know how to 'quantify' these changes, let's hear it.

Yes, but let's not forget that it's the external causes that bring real change. Capitalism may build up the conditions of its demise, but nothing will change without communist agitation.

V:

I thought everything changed because of its 'internal contradictions' according to you mystics? If it needs outside forces, perhaps aliens might help us out here?

And of course, you can only get away with such vague ideas because you refuse to define any of the terms you use, or say whether these systems are open or closed thermodynamically.

Mickey Mouse Science, as I said.

Why does it being a change in geometry matter so much? I don't follow. Did Engels say it couldn't be or something?

Quote:

Rosa Lichtenstein

What you're talking about is simply different arrangements, anagrams if you will. Therefore, it's easy to see how these changes can be quantified: how many positions they move, how many changes are made, etc.

erm, no...human beings still remain the same species after a revolution, only, they organise in a different way...just like H2O organises itself in a different way after boiling.

Anyway, the point of an analogy is that it illustrates a concept, not that a revolution can be adequately explained solely by a boiling kettle. It's like arguing with a non marxist. Oh, wait...

Z:

Maybe so, but then you cannot use this analogy to help you understand the radical change a revolution will bring about, for water is still H2O either side of boiling or freezing.

If so, the capitalist system will still be the capitalist system after the revolution, but just reorganised.

Now, if you ignore this, then that just underlines my earlier point that you apply these 'laws' entirely subjectively.

I believe I already posted the relevant Mao quote about that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein@November 25, 2007 08:40 pm If it needs outside forces, perhaps aliens might help us out here?

Ah, I knew the black helicopter UFOs would be back!

Quote:

Rosa Lichtenstein

I just did define terms! Like anything else, they're both open and closed (Union of Opposites ).

V:

Dear me, you need to re-read Engels, for he says this:

Now, he was writing when not very much was known about science, so he can be forgiven.

But you cannot.

Which just goes to show Engels got it wrong. For Engels did not just mention any old quantification, but specifically the addition of matter and energy.

None is 'added' here.

Z:

It's like arguing with someone who will not put up with your Mickey Mouse Science, you mean.

V:

Maybe so, but as I showed a few weeks ago, Mao screwed up too.

You clearly haven't a clue how to go about defining anything, have you? You seem to think that if a few ill-considered words are strung togther that that is a 'definition'.

That just shows what serious damage this branch of Hermetic logic has done to your thought processes.

Rosa you can and surely will find some way to get the last word, but you're butchering the kettle analogy totally. Nowehere does it say that "water=capitalism". All you have to understand is the build-up, and then the boiling point. The minutiae of it aren't important...though judging by your homepage, that's what you like best!

EDIT: responding to your points above, geometry can only be changed by adding motion.