I have a text or HTML version of the main article 'Studies in
Dialectical Materialism' and anybody is welcome to it.

It is important to keep in mind that dialectics are not a human
construct but actually inhere in matter and in higher forms of its
organisation including society and its development. Hence a true
understanding of these requires a mastery of the former.

However, Healyism was a classic example of the transformation of
dialectics into formalist dogma. And there was nothing revolutionary
about Healy's practice.

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, tom.2... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
...Dialects must be
studied to be learned. We may find it difficult that the dialectic was
discovered by a German writing in the obtuse language of German
philosophy of the early 19th century, but these are the conditions
under which it was discovered (in an idealistic way). Once the wheel
is invented, it doesn’t have to be reinvented.

Well put.

...
It is fine to use the everyday language of the 21st century but the
formal logic learned at school and university does not suffice to
'understand' dialectics and that is why I wrote about suspending
judgement not as a thing of faith but keeping the mind open enough to
learn a new approach to thinking itself. And I do think that many
people understand the transformation of something into its opposite,
the new into the old, the revolutionary party into a counter-
revolutionary one as with Stalinism etc.

Not all Hegelian concepts and categories are archaic, many remain
useful in developing critical thought. I would agree that sometimes
Healy for instance presented dialectics perhaps too heavily loaded
with Hegelian concepts and categories for many to understand but it
will always be a struggle to teach dialectics because it is very much
an active method of thought rather than a more passive and structured
one. Dialectical thought and revolutionary practice go hand in hand
and will always antagonise the formal scholar.

Roger

one of the most difficult and interesting areas of number theory today
is the study of something called Euler systems (obviously it's way
above my head).

I have a buddy who is one of the world's greatest mathematicians, and
he's just about done with a book on this subject.

This buddy of mine has never studied dialectics! Can you imagine
that! He spends his life traveling to advanced mathematical think
tanks and institutes giving lectures, wins medals, but has never
studied dialectics!

How is it possible for him to contribute intellectually at this level
without reading crap by dead soviet philosophers? I just don't get
it! Could he possibly be an "unconcious dialectician"?

one of the most difficult and interesting areas of number theory today
is the study of something called Euler systems (obviously it's way
above my head).

I have a buddy who is one of the world's greatest mathematicians, and
he's just about done with a book on this subject.

This buddy of mine has never studied dialectics!  Can you imagine
that!  He spends his life traveling to advanced mathematical think
tanks and institutes giving lectures, wins medals, but has never
studied dialectics!

How is it possible for him to contribute intellectually at this level
without reading crap by dead soviet philosophers?  I just don't get
it!  Could he possibly be an "unconcious dialectician"?

On Jul 1, 8:28 am, dusty <trackdu... at (no spam) yahoo.com.au> wrote:

It is important to keep in mind that dialectics are not a human
construct but actually inhere in matter and in higher forms of its
organisation including society and its development. Hence a true
understanding of these requires a mastery of the former.

Could you provide an honest answer to this question: Do YOU claim a
*mastery* of dialectics?

Given the state of the texts, very few if any Marxists today could
claim such mastery, because it requires a thorough grounding in Hegel,
which in turn requires a deep understanding of Kant. Few with the
patience to require such understanding of doctrines in philosophy's
history have had the time, energy, or inclination to master the laws
governing "matter and in higher forms of its organization including
society and its development."
srd

So what's peoples opinion here concerning Rosa Lichtenstein's
Anti-dialectics website at:  http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/index.htm
She argues that dialectics is unnecessary to Marxism and indeed has
been harmful to it.  She rejects dialectics whether in the form of
orthodox materialism or in the more heterodox varieties of
Western Marxism (i.e. Gramsci, Lukacs, Sartre, Horkheimer etc.)

It is only by taking a critical attitude to this 'formalising of
dialectics' that we can develop dialectical materialism today but this
work doesn't easily fit into the everyday consciousness because in the
struggle to grasp even works by Hegel the mind tends to 'formalise'
the content in order to understand the logic espoused. It is
necessary to suspend 'judgement' for a time and just follow the
'argument' in the order that this 'content' may stimulate new thought
through contradiction. Whilst the work of some of those soviet
philosophers may be useful in presenting the 'bare bones' of
dialectical categories and their interconnections it is necessary to
understand the 'active' side of dialectics and the fact that it
develops through struggle.

Roger

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, scottpsolo... at (no spam) gmail.com wrote:
please give an example of how a study of the dialectical method led to
a practice that led to a great scientific discovery in the past 50
years.

That would be Stephen Jay Gould, I do believe.

please quote the great scientist who attributed his discovery to his
understanding of the dialectical method

That would be the early book of his, forget which one, where he talked
about Engels's "Dialectic of Nature" and how he was into it and how it
related to his own work.

He didn't of course rant about how his discovery was *because* of his
mastery of The Dialectic, not being a Healyite.

-jh-

That would be Stephen Jay Gould, I do believe.