From: Christopher Arthur (arthurcj@WAITROSE.COM)
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 11:21:20 EST
Yes 'from surprise to surprise ' would be dialectic as opposed to a deductive logic. Hegel stresses that to solve the contradiction by creating a new category requires 'an upward spring of the mind'. There is also the Popperian surprise when the theory is found to cover new facts. For myself I never quite understood why H had a modal dialectic in Actuality. But when I did my mapping of the value form on the logic 'to my surprise' it emerged that this modal dialectic came just where I had to make the transition from the logical requirement for a universal equivalent to the emergence in reality of money. Chris On 21 Nov 2005, at 06:37, Howard Engelskirchen wrote: > Hi Jerry, > > Yes, your point about surprise and levels of abstraction is > interesting. By appealing to the assumptions we make at a level of > abstraction, e.g.by assuming a variable constant, and then moving to a > more concrete level, have you strayed onto the "sequence of models" > territory critiqued by Chris in his Chapter 2? And I take his point > in appealing to a logic of exposition is exactly to show that if we > keep stumbling over surprises, as VFT finds in Capital, ch. 1, then we > have a problem. Or is that just with a logic that is linear? That > is, supposing a presentation that was dialectical, could we find the > insufficiency of each stage to comprehend its presuppositions a kind > of surprise that drove forward the immanent logic of the argument so > that it constituted a move from surprise to surprise, dialectically > sublated, so to speak? Maybe I'm wrong but I don't get the impression > Hegel was the kind of guy constantly going, "Wow!". (I wouldn't be > surprised to be wrong!!) > > This also seems not the point you were trying to get at, but the > sequence of models problem does seem presented if we make assumptions > to deal with layers. > > In solidarity, > > Howard > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jerry Levy > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 11:51 PM > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Anita's Chocolate Cake > > Hi Howard, > > I guess I must have misunderstood a number of points of your > posts. I apologize. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > JERRY: That is, there > is a different role for chance and surprise depending on the level > of abstraction of the analysis, i.e. as we proceed to reconstruct a > subject matter in thought the role of chance which is often assumed > not to exist except as potential at a more abstract level of > abstraction, must be considered when we analyze a phenomena > in its most concrete, specific form. END QUOTE. > If it's legitimate for me to substitute "surprise" for "chance" in > your second > use of the word "chance", I'm interested in what it means for > surprise (or > chance) to exist only "as potential at a more abstract level of > abstraction." > This is interesting. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for the question. > > What I meant by that is that when assumptions are made at one > level of abstraction which treat variables as if they were constant > then one has created the potential for "surprise" at a more concrete > level of abstraction. In assuming a variable to be constant, within > the > context of a layered presentation of a subject matter, one has already > created a condition where there is a potential for surprise. Now, I > suppose you could ask whether the 'surprise' in the presentation is > a 'real surprise' for the author or just a surprise for the 'reader'. > I > think it _should be_ the case that if one has already thought out the > whole of the subject matter before writing, then the only surprises > should be for readers. But, this is not always the case with > authors. > I doubt that it was the case totally with Marx's political economy. > Even when one thinks one knows what one wants to say and how it > all fits together before putting pen to paper, there are often some > surprises that occur for authors in the writing process. Maybe there > are many of you that have had such 'surprises'. If so, I'd love to > hear about them. > > In solidarity, Jerry > > 17 Bristol Road Brighton BN2 1AP
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 23 2005 - 00:00:02 EST