[lbo-talk] Contradiction (was law of value

Tahir Wood twood at uwc.ac.za
Fri Nov 30 00:04:50 PST 2007



>>> <lbo-talk-request at lbo-talk.org> 11/29/07 7:06 PM >>>
From: "Wojtek Sokolowski" <sokol at jhu.edu> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] law of value

[WS:] Contradiction is a state of mind, not a state of reality. There is nothing contradictory in reality - only material existence of objects. Some of those objects may be annihilated by other objects under certain circumstances - but that is not "contradiction" between these two kinds of objects, but merely a transformation of material forms in accordance with the laws of nature.

...................................................

Stated differently, "contradiction: is an indicator of a fault in our thinking about reality rather than a fault in the reality itself. Consequently, if we encounter a "contradiction" we ought to change our thinking rather than expect reality to change as a result of that contradiction. It is quite delusional to believe that the material world revolves around the products of human mind.

I love this particular debate. And I'm one of those who take the view that contradiction is of the essence of all things. The above argument is of course entirely consistent with Hegel, who thought that nature was non-dialectical, without history and therefore 'boring'. However, I have heard Hegel specialists argue that he was moving towards a different conception later in his life, closer to evolution. In any case the above argument is an anti-realist one, in the diremption that it introduces between thought and reality. The answer to this is not to say that reality obeys some 'laws of the mind' or something, but rather to say that mind obeys the laws of reality (i.e. nature, material world, etc.),of which it is, quite naturally, a part. Mind is not somehow outside of reality. As a general rule one might say that if material reality were free of contradiction (negation) it would be utterly formless, which is inconceivable. Heraclitus saw this a long time ago. It finally dawned on me when I was reading up on Rene Thom's application of catastrophe theory to semantics. He talks about 'actants', which are linguistic entities, disputing a domain of space-time in mental space. I never again could think of ideas as populating some kind of non-natural domain. Tahir

-------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/public/portal_services/disclaimer.htm



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list