**From:** GERALD LEVY (*gerald_a_levy@msn.com*)

**Date:** Thu Apr 03 2008 - 09:12:37 EDT

**Next message:**GERALD LEVY: "RE: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Previous message:**dogangoecmen@aol.com: "Re: [OPE] How to read Capital"**Maybe in reply to:**Jurriaan Bendien: "[OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Next in thread:**Dave Zachariah: "Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Reply:**Dave Zachariah: "Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

> Trotsky noted that dialectical logic does not negate formal logic but is> a generalization of it: formal logic is, in a sense, a "special case" of> dialectical logic. Hi Ian: I would put it somewhat differently: formal logic is a sub-set (or'special case') of dialectical logic. I agree that dialectical logicdoes not _negate_ formal logic. Neither, though, can dialecticallogic be _reduced_ merely to formal logic. > > Also, the very architecture of the computer is dependent> > on the binary system - by definition, an expression of> > mathematical / formal logic.> > You equate computation with "computer", and by that you probably mean> your PC. I didn't intend to equate the two: in fact, I very deliberately used theword 'computer' rather than 'computation', in the above sentence.My point was simply that the basis of computer logic is, in a very fundamental sense, an expression of mathematical/formal logic. This makes it very suitable for the analysis of many subjects, but not others. > Computations can be realized in many kinds of systems; for example, in> our brains, in chemical soups, upon analog devices, upon collections of> people etc.> And some physicists seriously entertain the idea that the basic stuff of> the universe, the "ontology" of the "whole world", is fundamentally> on/off bits. No doubt there are physicists that entertain that idea but it remains controversial and an unproven theorem. > In my view it's high-time to move on from an exclusive focus on *natural> language* dialectics and begin to tool-up for the modern age. I'm not much concerned about the word that is used; what concerns me moreare the ideas which the words express. If there are other words for 'dialectics' that adequately express _all_ sides of that term then ... sure ... go ahead anduse them. But, I don't think that computation is a synonym for dialectics:rather, it can express one dimension of dialectical relations. In solidarity, Jerry _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

**Next message:**GERALD LEVY: "RE: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Previous message:**dogangoecmen@aol.com: "Re: [OPE] How to read Capital"**Maybe in reply to:**Jurriaan Bendien: "[OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Next in thread:**Dave Zachariah: "Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Reply:**Dave Zachariah: "Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Apr 30 2008 - 00:00:18 EDT
*