RE: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century

gerald_a_levy@msn.com

> I think we are using 'logic' somewhat different here.

Hi Dave Z:

Yes, I think that's the case.

> I suppose what you > mean is causal laws or mechanisms of social psychology, class struggle > etc. They have empirically testable content.> I was speaking of logic proper, as a in 'logical system', which is a > formal language and a set of axioms and rules from which one deduces > statements. 

Yes, but the issue is whether capitalism can be accurately described as
being a 'logical system'  using the definition you give above. 

There is _more than_ one logic within capitalism: e.g.  there is a logic of
capital and a logic of the working-class  (Mike L). Each class has its own 
logic and  class action is further complicated by the reality that classes
are not homogeneous but instead are internally stratified. Those 
stratifications, which historically develop and are somewhat different in 
different social formations, lead to 'sub-logics'.  There could also be 
said to be a 'logic' of states, yet how is that formally articulated
and how does 'class logic' interact and modify the logic of the state
and vice versa?  Classes and states thus interact in such a way that the
behavior of each is modified. You can talk about 'legitimation', etc. all you 
want to but I doubt that such (dialectical) relations can be formally 
modeled.

There is an ontological issue here concerning *over-determination*.
Over-determination does not negate the possibility of reference to
logic(s) within a social system but it should give pause to believing
that all of the relations within the system can be formally modeled
and expressed mathematically.

> If it can be expressed in words then it can be  expressed in strings 
> of symbols too.

I doubt that is true, but how would we test it? 

In solidarity, Jerry

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope