From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 08:17:51 EDT
Looks the worst sort of old Diamat obscurantism to me. He uses formulae like without specifying what the circle operator means in this context: is it function composition or what? What is the summation operator, is it numerical summation, Boolean summation or what? It is full of dubious puns of notation, not even recognised in jokey way, mystification of simple wave equations, puns between the use of the words base and superstructure in historical materialism and the notion of basis in vector space notations - which are something quite different. It looks on a par with Sokal's paper 'Transgressing the boundaries, towards a transformative Hermaneutics of Quantum Gravity', but without the sense of humour of the latter. -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of glevy@PRATT.EDU Sent: 29 August 2005 15:01 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: [OPE-L] is algebra dialectical and vice versa? Any thoughts on the following? In solidarity, Jerry PS: I'm back in NYC and start teaching again later today. ============================ Leonid G. Kreidik and George P. Shpenkov "Philosophy and the Language of Dialectics and the Algebra of Dialectical Judgements" presented at the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, in Boston, Massachusetts from August 10-15, 1998 <http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Logi/LogiShpe.htm>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 16 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT