A question to Rosa.

AGITprop · #1 1st April 2008, 03:37

Under risk of having links to endless essays thrown at me, can you please give me a few examples of things that change in quality without quantity added or subtracted (changing in value essentially).

I am just curious to know your justification on your statement contradicting dialectical materialism on this point.

Thank you.

PS I'd also like to hear people's opinions on Rosa's criticisms and apparent 'demolition' of Dialectical Materialism.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #2 1st April 2008, 11:07

You should have addressed this in a PM to me; we do not allow threads on RevLeft members here.

So, after I have answered you, I will move this to Chit Chat.

There are countless things that change in quality where there is no change in quantity -- but these depend on how 'quality' is defined, and on how the local environment of the change is delineated. It also depends on how we interpret the word 'added', which many take for granted, or confuse with 'expended in the process of change' -- which is not at all the same as 'added'.

When I have posted these before, some comrades have challenged them becuause they were operating with a different set of definitions of the above (or none at all!), and indeed different from those accepted by Engels or Hegel (it seems). So, if you challenge them on that basis, you will need to specify your exact meaning, so I can adjust these examples accordingly.

Now, one of the reasons I posted my Essays on the internet is to save me having to keep writing the same old stuff, over and over, so here is a snippet from Essay Seven (some links have been removed -- they are all present in the original).

There are some obvious objections to several of these examples; they are are dealt with in the footnotes (which have not been included below):

Quote:

There are countless examples where significant qualitative change can result from no obvious quantitative difference.These include the qualitative dissimilarities that exist between different chemicals for the same quantity of matter/energy involved.

For instance, Isomeric molecules (studied in stereochemistry) are a particularly good example of this phenomenon. This is especially true of those that have so-called "chiral" centres (i.e., centres of asymmetry). In such cases, the spatial ordering of the constituent atoms, not their quantity, affects the overall quality of the resulting molecule (something Engels said could not happen); here, a change in molecular orientation, not quantity, effects a change in quality.

To take one example of many: (R)-Carvone (spearmint) and (S)-Carvone (caraway); these molecules have the same number of atoms (of the same elements), and the same bond energies, but they are nonetheless qualitatively distinct because of the different spatial arrangement of the atoms involved. Change in geometry --, change in quality.

This un-dialectical aspect of matter is especially true of the so-called "Enantiomers" (i.e., symmetrical molecules that are mirror images of each other). These include compounds like (R)-2-clorobutane and (S)-2-chlorobutane, and the so-called L- and D-molecules, which rotate the plane of polarised light the left (laevo) or the right (dextro)) -- such as, L- and D-Tartaric acid. What might at first appear to be small energy-neutral differences like these have profound biochemical implications; a protein with D-amino acids instead of L- will not work in most living cells since the overwhelming majority of organisms metabolise L-organic molecules. These compounds not only have the same number of atoms in each molecule, there are no apparent energy differences between them; even so, they have easily distinguishable physical qualities.

Change in quality -- identical quantity.

In response, it could be argued that Engels had already anticipated the above:

"It is surely hardly necessary to point out that the various allotropic and aggregational states of bodies, because they depend on various groupings of the molecules, depend on greater or lesser quantities of motion communicated to the bodies.

"But what is the position in regard to change of form of motion, or so-called energy? If we change heat into mechanical motion or vice versa, is not the quality altered while the quantity remains the same? Quite correct. But it is with change of form of motion...; anyone can be virtuous by himself, for vices two are always necessary. Change of form of motion is always a process that takes place between at least two bodies, of which one loses a definite quantity of motion of one quality (e.g. heat), while the other gains a corresponding quantity of motion of another quality (mechanical motion, electricity, chemical decomposition). Here, therefore, quantity and quality mutually correspond to each other. So far it has not been found possible to convert motion from one form to another inside a single isolated body." [Dialectics of Nature pp.63-64. Bold emphases added.]

However, Engels slides between two different senses of "motion" here: (1) change of place, and (2) energy. In this way, he is able to argue that any change in the relation between bodies always amounts to a change in energy. But, this depends on the nature of the field in which these bodies are embedded (on this, see below and in Note 4a); Engels's profound lack of mathematical knowledge clearly let him down here.

Independently of that, Engels also confused the expenditure of energy with energy added to a system. The difference between the two is easy to see. Imagine someone pushing a heavy packing case along a level floor. In order to overcome friction, the one doing the pushing will have to expend energy. But that energy has not been put into the packing case (as it were). Now, if the same case is pushed up a hill, Physicists tell us that recoverable energy has been put into the case in the form of Potential Energy.

Now, in the examples of interest to dialecticians, it is the latter form of energy (but not necessarily always Potential Energy) that is relevant, not the former. The former sort does not really change the quality of any bodies concerned; the latter does. If that is so, then the above counter-examples (e.g., the Enantiomers) still apply, for the energy expended in order to change one isomer into another is generally the first sort, not the second.

Despite this, a few die-hard dialecticians might want to argue that any expenditure of energy is relevant here. That would be an unfortunate move since it would make this 'Law' trivial, for in that case it would amount to the belief that any change at all (no matter how remote), since it involves the expenditure of some form of energy (and energy not always put 'into' the bodies concerned), is the cause of qualitative change to other bodies. This would make a mockery of Engels's claim that only energy added to bodies is relevant to this 'Law'.

"Change of form of motion is always a process that takes place between at least two bodies, of which one loses a definite quantity of motion of one quality (e.g. heat), while the other gains a corresponding quantity of motion of another quality (mechanical motion, electricity, chemical decomposition)." [Ibid. Bold emphasis added.]

Several examples of this sort of change are given below. The problems these create are discussed at length in Notes 5 and 6a, where attempts to specify the boundaries of the local energy budget involved (which would be necessary to prevent remote objects causing proximate change) are all shown to fail.

Finally, Engels seems to think it is always clear what a single body actually is:

"Here, therefore, quantity and quality mutually correspond to each other. So far it has not been found possible to convert motion from one form to another inside a single isolated body." [Ibid.]

However, nature is not quite so accommodating. In fact, when we look at the material world, and refuse to impose an a priori schema on it, we see that the picture is not as straightforward as Engels would have us believe. Indeed, as we will also see, it is easy "to convert motion from one form to another inside a single isolated body." The reader is again directed to Notes 5 and 6a for more details.

Counter-Examples Just Keep Stacking-Up

Moving into Physics: if two or more forces are aligned differently, the qualitative results are invariably different (even when the overall magnitude of each force is held constant).

Consider just one example: let forces F1 and F2 be situated in parallel (but not along the same line of action), but diametrically opposed to one another.

Here these two forces can exercise a turning effect on a suitably placed body. Now, arrange the same two forces in like manner so that they are still parallel, but act diametrically along the same line. In this case, as seems clear, these forces will have no turning effect on the same body. Change in quality with no change in quantity, once more. Since there are many ways to align forces (as there are with other vector quantities, like velocities and accelerations, etc.), there are countless counter-examples to this rather pathetic first 'Law' here alone.

Some might object here that moving a force in the manner envisaged requires energy, so these examples are not in fact energy neutral. However, the arrangements listed could once more exist side by side. A qualitative difference then would be obvious, but there would be no quantitative discrepancy between them.

In addition, the expenditure of energy depends on the nature of the force field they are embedded in (i.e., whether or not the field is "conservative"). [On conservative forces, see here and here.]

In a conservative field, the work done in moving a force in a circuit is zero, but certain (non-circuitous) line integrals in such fields can also be zero, if these are chosen carefully.

In either case, we would have a qualitative difference for no extra quantitative input, something this terminally vague 'Law' does not rule out. Naturally, once again, this 'Law' could be tightened to exclude these and other awkward counterexamples, but then it would cease to be a law and would become just a narrow convention (and one that would have to be imposed on nature). [These examples also depend on how the word "added" is defined. If it doesn't mean "expended in the process", then we can ignore the complications over conservative forces. If it does, then they do apply.]

Perhaps more significantly, this 'Law' takes no account of qualitative changes that result from (energetically-neutral) ordering relations in nature and society. Here, identical physical structures and processes can be ordered differently to create significant qualitative changes. One example is the different ordering principles found in music, where an alteration to a sequence of the same notes in a chord or in a melody can have a major qualitative impact on harmony, with no quantitative change anywhere apparent. So, the same seven notes (i.e., tones and semi-tones) arranged in different modes (Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aolean and Locrian) sound totally different to the human ear. Of course, there are other ways of altering the quality of music in an energetically neutral environment over and above this (such as timing).

Another example along the same lines concerns the ordering principles found in language, where significant qualitative changes can result from the re-arrangement of the same parts of speech. For instance, the same number of letters jumbled up can either make sense or no sense -- as in "dialectics" and "csdileati" (which is "dialectics" scrambled up; but, which one of these two makes the more sense I will leave to the reader to decide).

Perhaps more radically, the same words can mean something qualitatively new if sequenced differently, as in, say: "The cat is on the mat" and "The mat is on the cat". Or, even worse: "It is impossible to understand Marx's Capital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel's Logic", compared with "It is impossible to understand Hegel's Logic, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Marx's Capital." Here there is considerable qualitative difference with no quantitative change at all.

[What are the odds that Engels would have tried to alter his first 'Law' to counter that awkward fact?]

There are many other examples of this phenomenon, but a few more should suffice for the purposes of this web site: a successful strike (one that is, say, planned first then actioned second) could turn into its opposite (if it is actioned first and planned second). Now even though the total energy input here would be ordered differently in each case, the overall energy budget of the system (howsoever that is characterised) need not be any different. So, the addition of no extra matter or energy here can turn successful action into disaster if the order of events is reversed. Of course, we can all imagine situations where this particular example could involve different energy budgets, but this is not necessarily or even always the case, which is all I need.

There are literally thousands of everyday examples of such qualitative changes (where there are no obvious associated quantitative differences), so many in fact that Engels's first 'Law' begins to look even more pathetic in comparison. Who for example would put food on the table then a plate on top of it?

A change in the order here would constitute a qualitatively different (and more normal) act: plate first, food second. Which of us would jump out of an aeroplane first and put their parachute on second -- or cross a road first, look second? And is there a sane person on the planet who goes to the toilet first and gets out of bed second? Moreover, only an idiot would pour 500 ml of water slowly into 1000 ml of concentrated Sulphuric Acid, whereas, someone who knew what they were doing would readily do the reverse. But all of these have profound qualitative differences if performed in the wrong order (for the same energy budget).

How could Engels have missed examples like these? Is dialectical myopia so crippling that it prevents dialecticians using their common sense?

More counter-examples rapidly stack up: a child living in, say, Paris can become an orphan (qualitative change) if both of its parents die in South Africa (meaning that no quantitative change will have happened to that child -- unless, of course, we are meant to re-interpret a change in a distant geographical/familial relation as a quantitative change).

The largest cut diamond on earth (in a safe, say, in New York) could change into the second biggest if another bigger diamond is cut in, say, Amsterdam. This example also applies to other remote changes. For example, the biggest star in a galaxy could become the second biggest if another star hundreds of millions of light years away (but in the same galaxy) grows in size (perhaps over millions of years) through accretion of matter. So, in both cases, there would be a qualitative change to the first object with no relevant matter or energy added or subtracted from/to that object. There are countless examples of remote change like this.

A cheque drawn, say, in New York will become instantaneously worthless (qualitative change) if the issuing bank in Tokyo goes bust (meaning that no quantitative change will have happened to that cheque).

A Silver Medallist in, say, the Olympics can become the Gold Medal winner in an event (qualitative change) if the former Gold medallist is disqualified because of drug-taking (meaning that no quantitative change will have occurred to that Silver Medallist).

Two identical "Keep off the Grass" signs can mean something different (qualitative change) if one of them is posted on a garden lawn and the other is positioned near a stand of Marijuana plants, at the same height above sea level (thus with no change in energy).

A circle looks like an ellipse (qualitative change) when viewed from certain angles for no change in energy.

The same three mathematical (or physical) points can undergo a qualitative change if, say, from being arranged linearly they are then re-arranged as the corners of a triangle. Here, there would be a qualitative change with no quantitative change, once again. There are, of course, a potentially infinite number of examples of that sort of change imaginable for 2-, or 3-dimensional shapes, for n points (be they mathematical or physical -- so this is not necessarily an abstract set of counter-instances).

Plenty more here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

AGITprop · #3 1st April 2008, 14:02

I think you are completely wrong.
Im in Economics class at the moment.
I'll respond either tonight or tomorrow.

Also, this thread is not about you, it is about your theories. I think this should be moved back to philosophy. I think this is discrimination.

*Yazman* · #4 1st April 2008, 15:50

<3 Rosa

Rosa Lichtenstein · #5 1st April 2008, 16:57

GG:

Quote:

Also, this thread is not about you, it is about your theories. I think this should be moved back to philosophy. I think this is discrimination.

You are lucky; before I became a mod, and way before you joined, anyone who posted material about my theories had their posts deleted, or the thread closed (and clearly not by me).

I did you a favour, therefore.

Stop whingeing...

Rosa Lichtenstein · #6 1st April 2008, 16:58

Yaz:

Quote:

<3 Rosa

Eh?

**Jazzratt** · #7 1st April 2008, 17:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein

Yaz:

Eh?

The lesser than three thing is meant to be a heart.

chegitz guevara · #8 1st April 2008, 17:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunther Glick

I think you are completely wrong.

The question is trying to prove it. When I went to her website, I immediately recognized that I was well out of my depth and that I did even begin to understand what I thought I knew. I have started trying to study formal logic in order to try and understand her arguments. God that shit (formal logic) is drier than an Egyptian mummy. This is the sacrifice I make for the struggle. Some people catch bullets, I study formal logic. How I envy them.

Holden Caulfield · #9 1st April 2008, 21:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yazman

<3 Rosa

you will get no where, i tired and she took the piss outa my user name

maybe we go find strong women elsewhere or form a fan club Yazman

*NoXion* · #10 1st April 2008, 21:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jazzratt

The lesser than three thing is meant to be a heart.

Or it could be a pair of bollocks, depending on your type of mind.

RNK · #11 1st April 2008, 23:05

Yeah, well, I bet I know more about hockey than Rosa does!

Rosa's intelligent, no doubt. Her problem, though, is that she tries to apply the intelligence she has in one field to every topic imaginable. ie, Mao was a monster that killed millions of baby peasants because his belief in dialectics was incorrect.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #12 2nd April 2008, 00:19

Chegitz:

Quote:

I have started trying to study formal logic in order to try and understand her arguments. God that shit (formal logic) is drier than an Egyptian mummy. This is the sacrifice I make for the struggle. Some people catch bullets, I study formal logic. How I envy them.

There is no formal logic in the above passage (or in Essay Seven, from where this passage was taken), and very little in my entire site outside of Essay Four, Three Part One and Eight Part Two. Even then, there isn't very much.

If you can't see that, then you must be studying the telephone directory by mistake.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #13 2nd April 2008, 00:21

HeWhoComplainsTooMuch:

Quote:

you will get no where, i tired and she took the piss outa my user name

What a fibber!

[I take the piss out of those I happen to like...]

And, Jaz -- thanks for that.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #14 2nd April 2008, 00:23

RNK:

Quote:

Her problem, though, is that she tries to apply the intelligence she has in one field to every topic imaginable. ie, Mao was a monster that killed millions of baby peasants because his belief in dialectics was incorrect.

The problem with you mystics is that you like to make up fairy tales about me -- it's the only way you can find to neutralise my ideas.

I bet you even stick pins in my effigy...

And Mao would have been a monster even if he had beleived in shape shifting lizards, and rejected dialectics.

And even though the former is way more rational...

So, that is not my argument, but one you dreamt up.

To help us out in future, can you put a "Once upon a time..." before all your posts?

There's a good little mystic...

Rosa Lichtenstein · #15 2nd April 2008, 00:30

Noxion:

Quote:

Or it could be a pair of bollocks, depending on your type of mind.

In your case, I'd need a magnifying glass before I began to chop away...

SovietPants · #16 2nd April 2008, 01:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein

Noxion:

In your case, I'd need a magnifying glass before I began to chop away...

I just wanted to quote this.

Cryotank Screams · #17 2nd April 2008, 01:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosa Lichtenstein

In your case, I'd need a magnifying glass before I began to chop away...

Quote:

To help us out in future, can you put a "Once upon a time..." before all your posts?

This is why I love Rosa

Dros · #18 2nd April 2008, 01:08

Rosa's understanding of formal logic is obviously good.

The problem with her alleged "demolition" is that she fundementally misunderstands what the purpose of dialectics is. And then, when you try and argue with her, she starts whining like a three-year-old and calling you names like a "mystic" and some such other bs.

[Watch as Rosa proves my point for me

]

Rosa Lichtenstein · #19 2nd April 2008, 01:26

Drosera:

Quote:

The problem with her alleged "demolition" is that she fundementally misunderstands what the purpose of dialectics is. And then, when you try and argue with her, she starts whining like a three-year-old and calling you names like a "mystic" and some such other bs.

No need to call you names; you just can't answer my argument.

And, once more, most of my essays do not depend on Formal Logic!

chimx · #20 2nd April 2008, 01:56

Yes, Rosa strongly prefers informal illogic.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Rosa Luxemburg	Knowledge 6 6 6	History	16	17th February 2004 18:54