^^^ Didn't you read my PM on this issue?

What PM?

Don't tell me your PM inbox is full again?

I did not receive that PM; when did you originally send it?

I did receive two from you about Gil's posts, but that was all.

And it turns out that the 'error' you have spotted in my 'logic' is in fact a misreading on your own part, for I nowhere alleged what you have attributed to me.

I will keep this out of the public domain to save your blushes.

Just as an aside:

Jacob: You do realise that the SWP exists in the real world, whereas your 'user group' - interesting though it is - exists only on a message board in hyper space, don't you? Asking people to drop their commitment to a political party - and probably their only access to organized activity - so they can join 'your' sub-forum is a tad self-important, don't you think?

Meanwhile: Why so coy? Surely Rosa's alleged logical error isn't so scandalous that it can't be aired in public.

On the other hand, since you have already made it public:

here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...56&postcount=1

I will respond.

Where do I claim that dialectics is a cause (let alone the prime cause) of sectarianism?

So, not so much a logical error on my part, more a lack of care on your own.

And, even if you were right, it would be an error of fact, not of logic.

Z:

This would indeed be of interest to us if you knew the first thing about logic -- but you don't.

So, I wonder why you keep making such a fool of yourself in public.

^^^ I suppose. As if YOUR anti-dialectics is the root cause of Trotskyist sectarianism (I'm picky on semantics, and my language wasn't consistent, there).

EDITED FOR CLARITY [Check out the edited post. ]

As if committing to some sort of "news service" isn't organized activity, huh?

[Read up WITBD again, please. There were two central propositions there.]

I am sorry, is this an admission that I made no 'logical errors'?

And where do I allege that dialectics is a 'root cause' of anything (let alone of 'Trotskyist sectarianism') --, other than confusion?

Jacob: Sure, but a pretty low level activity. I understand the necessity to organise around the newspaper (I am SWP, for Pete's sake!); I don't think posting on the internet is really equivalent, though. Although I'm not discounting it completely - for obvious reasons.

Strangely enough, I'm reading an interesting post by you, written yesterday, where you admit http://www.revleft.com/vb/merge-marxism-workers-t70141/index.html

So, um, I don't know, maybe you should read it!

Rosa: Sorry, Rosa, for being just a dumb worker, without your academic erudition. Please forgive me, your Highness.

Z:

No need to grovel. You have been humiliated enough as it is (and by your own hand).

I am a worker too (and a trade union rep, unpaid).

The difference is, I learnt some logic before passing an opinion on it.

R: Yes, you've told us enough times. All that proves is that some workers can be intellectual snobs and bullies.

It's a valuable lesson for us all.

Z:

Diddums; did I 'wup your ass' a little too much?

The lesson being: learn some logic before you pontificate about it...

Only in your screwed up sexual fantasy, dear.

Point out where I ever pontificate on logic, to you or anyone else, and I'll apologise. Otherwise, stop telling lies and you apologise.

Now, I'd love to stay and chew the c(r)ud with you, but I have to get ready for work and I think we've derailed this thread enough.

Good lord, I'd try to split off some of the flaming in this thread but I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Tone down the animosity! Do I need to separate you two?

MM, Z and I have been at each other's throats now for over 18 months, and we are not likely to change - which, funnily enough, refutes yet another dialectical dogma...

He invariably comes off worst, but still he returns for more.

Z:

No, in those you always end up masochistically punishing yourself by being reasonable!

I will when you try to substantiate the many lies you tell about me.

Here's how Marxists.org defines totality:

So the totality relates to what I was saying in that opposites topic. It's the unity of indeterminate being and determinate being: absolutely determined being. IOW, it would be a perfectly defined thing. As such, an ideal totality must not exist; you can only approach it.

How does this all relate to Lenin's organizational approach? Well, that's up to you to decide.

When all the hot air (including my own) has disappeared into the internet atmosphere, from this thread, the simple fact is is someone asked what a totality is, I attempted a relatively straightforward one sentence definition, it was open to Rosa to engage with that (rather than referring to websites, telling me how meaningless I was etc.).....and she just didnt, you just didnt Rosa.Check back over the thread, you talked around it, you ignored but the one thing you never did was just plainly and calmly say, 'I dont think this definition of a totality works because .......'

I would be quite happy to do the same thing on any key idea of dialectics (except the concept of contradiction where my own view is undecided). I am happy to state a version of any of those key ideas and leave it out there for you to analyse and then come back on it.....

Leave out all the rhetoric and the references and the insults and the diversions and triumphalism and the playground antics and just DISCUSS the topic in front of and with the other people on this board interested in it.

I won't take part in such a conversation to win, I wont fear to lose....I just think its a good idea to converse, for all of us to help each other to refine our ideas and learn new ones.

Naive ? Maybe, but its always worked for me. Painful sometimes, when Im wrong and someone else is right, but what the hell, so is the dentist and s/he doesnt go around laughing with triumphalist glee in the belief that s/he has been vindicated by my cavities.

Its about solidarity.

(BTW I dont really agree with Marxist.org on this)

How so?