I've been reading a bunch into dialectics, and started "Dance of the Dialectic" by Bertell Ollman which i'm finding very interesting.
I want to write a few things, some articles that will generally be about historical research, analysis and critique of an event, or a text, or ideology. A lot of what i'm interested in gravitates around literary/media critique.
So are there still marxist, specifically dialectical methods, models or schools of thoughts that are still used? Modernised versions, evolutions (that don't fall into anti-communism, or some vague "post-marxism"), etc? Are there methods that bridge the gap like Marx's dialectic and can be used as much in science, in critique, in philosophy and in strategy and action?
Another thing I'm interested in: escaping the uselessless of media and literary critique. I don't just want to dissect a text and talk about what's inside or about the ideology, although that's a necessary step, but I want to see if that can be projected forward, to derive not only a critique but a positive method, a strategy for change. For example, a method that allows you to critique fiction writing and also gives you workable tactics for better writing, for revolutionary writing. Not simply pointing out the ideological content of something, but tactics for fighting it, for writing something better, for counter-acting. Feels like simply analysing and being critical isn't enough because it doesn't bring change, and can even bring a sense of powerlessness when all you're doing is in knowing rather than doing. In this example, how do we convert the analysis into something that motivates and guides new writing? I'm still unsure if this is really possible, it feels like media critique can only ever be subsumed into capital and can never really be used in revolutionary ways, but I'm wondering.
Sorry if some of this is rambly.
Our current model of subatomic phenomena is just that, a model, a story that fits the data and motivates the equations in a manner that is self-consistent. For that model to be True it would have to encapsulate all that can be known about something. But we know that our model of subatomic phenomena is definitively and inexorably incompatible with our model of cosmological phenomena. In our language, we have a habit of hierarchalizing scientific theory where the most "true" understanding of reality is that given to you by modern physics because it is in some ways a theory of the lowest level material phenomena we've been able to observe and make sense of. If tomorrow we discover axions or leptons, there would need to be a paradigmatic shift in our view of what is most foundational to accommodate, and all the moreso in order to reconcile quantum theory and gravity. In this way, the atom is not the final word on the composition of our phenomenal experience of matter, and is therefore a known stepping stone on a path to a more consistent and broader empirically consistent understanding of reality. The aether, in its time, was a consistent way to explain what was known in a way that makes sense. Similarly, there are still people (who are not taken very seriously) that are attempting to forego relativity entirely in favor of a notion of modified Newtonian gravity to further explain dark matter. There will always be people that foolishly look back or foolishly cling to what is current.
Can you elaborate more on the True? After comparing notes between you and @PaX@hexbear.net it sounds like the idea of the True is like a type of ideal.
All I mean by that is the I think unreachable aspiration of some fully "correct" and consistent description of reality that is external to it. So say you had a theory of physics with internally consistent logic that was capable of providing a priori an empirically accurate model of our reality at every measurable scale, and could explain perhaps some of the odd details of the standard model of particle physics. That would represent some sort fully complete knowledge of all that could be, and the nature of chemistry, biology, human psychology, and all of reality could in theory if not in practice be calculated out mathematically, given a theory that describes a complete set of laws that do not need to be extended. The question of what is True and if it is reachable is whether such a theory actually exists, or if our reality is something that we in fact can be certain of little because of the necessary limitations of only knowing to ask questions that can be, these days entirely via technological perceptual extensions, which is what a telescope or a particle accelerator really are as far as human society is concerned, be inferred by our bodies of flesh and juices.
I would argue that this kind of approach to science philosophy is very common, usually unexamined and implicit, and a sort of identification of the ultimate goal of science as a whole to be the project of carving out Hegel's Absolute Idea from the bedrock of human sense experience. I think such a theory is impossible, and much of our rumblings about what we might be able to do with the majority of scientific research, particularly in physics, to find new contradictions to explore is guided by the same sort of impotent death drive as Silicon Valley startup cults or any other late capitalist social enclave. And I would argue this chiefly because we are not particularly rational about pointing science at the alleviation of human labor and suffering because unprofitable scientists are only good for being pointed at exciting and flashy PR and news to get people to focus on something else than the crushing weight of capitalist society even here in the imperial core. That isn't to say that the science these people do is wrong, it's that they could be helping people, and instead they're running exploitative little startups in the pursuit of knowledge that is not useful for people's lives. We don't even get to see how much human labor and suffering could be alleviated by increased development and production if we had a system of globalized central planning and an intensive project of feeding and housing people to build efficient and automated production pipelines for the majority of necessary commodities. We're basically there, technologically speaking, to completely revolutionize human society into communism. We have the brainpower. But right now, the brainpower available is doing the atheist scientist equivalent of seeking to meet God in person in this life.
Very interesting, thank you for your comments. It's tough to formulate my thoughts because I'm trying to shift a lot of the concepts into the "humanities" side of the sciences more, and into art and literature. But I've personally always disliked how arbitrarily split the sciences have been in the bourgeois world. Not that there aren't differences, but I don't know. Something about the strange split between "hard" and "soft" sciences, and the inability of those fields, or even in between fields of the humanities themselves, to communicate, to collaborate on theory, on ideas, models and practice, is bothering me.
I've posted a big-ass comment on this post that goes further into what I wanted to get at.
I don't think we are disagreeing entirely. Of course, I am not saying our model of the atom is a perfect reflection of the underlying reality it represents or the final model that humans will develop to explain these phenomena. I'm not familiar enough with physics to speak too much more on this. But our methods have developed significantly since theories of the aether and to say that model is as true as the atom is rejecting all models that aren't a hypothetical perfect model of physics. There is no "True" model out there waiting for us to discover it, just scientists trying to describe the real objects and relationships this field of science is concerned with to increasing success.
I would argue that our methods have not evolved significantly: our technology has. The point I'm trying to convey is to encourage people to not confuse the theory or methods of science with what is real or unassailable. The thinking that the atom is in some way more true than say the value form is a mistake commonly made and encourage in our society, predicated on separating the theory out as a truth to be reasoned about on its own. I'm not really trying to agree or disagree, just explain what it means to be doing science without overdetermining the terrain or fetishizing it as a substitute for other explorations of reality
By methods, I meant experimental techniques for testing theories. For example, pre-modern physicists didn't have particle accelerators and couldn't even conceive of a particle accelerator because they didn't have any concept or the same concept of a particle.
That wasn't my intent, just to be clear. I just thought it was wrong to claim the atom is as true as the aether. The former is better at describing our empirical observations than the latter.