Subject: BHA: RE: the universe is matter in motion (Engels) - he was right!
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:41:25 -0500




Hi Phil,

One of the things we both must realize is that we come out of different sub-traditions within the larger western philosophical tradition.  I cut my philosophical teeth on a combination of Bernard Lonergan's "transcendental Thomism"  and Michael Polanyi's "post-critical personal knowledge."  In later life, I got into a study of Whitehead, and most recently I have been trying to make connections with Bhaskar's thought.  It has only been on this list that I have had much dialogue with  people who take their materialism as seriously as you do. 

You, on the other hand, seem to have been much more strongly influenced by the Marxist tradition in philosophy.  You use Marxist terminology confidently, without either actual or virtual "scare quotes," and know the history of Marxist thought and its relationship to social and political conditions.  I would guess that you belong to a community -- or "network" -- of others who talk and argue about the Marxist tradition as insiders, people who embrace the tradition as a whole, even as you argue about specific issues within the tradition.  You treat thinkers such as Engels(the universe is matter in motion) as authorities.

Which gets to what I mean by "faith" -- judging something to be true based upon the testimony of authoritative others.  This is a very Catholic, even Thomist, notion of faith.  It must be contrasted with the notion of faith you seem to have when you write: "Of course, I would concede that 'faith' in a certain sense motivates me because I have no guarantees that my own life will turn out well let alone guarantees that it will all turn out happily for humanity."  This seems to me to be much closer to what I have always regarded as a more Protestant notion of faith, which combines faith as belief with what I would call "hope." 

Please don't read it as an attack upon your intellectual integrity when I say that I understand your defense of materialism as a kind of theology.   I will admit that I use the term "theology" partly because of the shock value of the "theos" part of the term.  What I mean by "theology" is the philosophical rationalization of a tradition to which the "theologian" adheres.  The critical clarification of any tradition I regard as authoritative might draw upon philosophy, but I regard it as theological work.

I say this, not because I expect you to agree with me, but because I would like you to understand my position, which includes understanding what certain key terms mean to me.  It is important to me to distinguish theology, as I have characterized it, from both science and philosophy.  It has to do with criteria of judgment.  Whenever a speaker or writer, regardless of context, uses consistency with an authoritative tradition as the main criterion of truth, he/she is being theological, rather than scientific or philosophical, even if the authoritative tradition is labeled "scientific" or "philosophical."   

This post has already gotten a bit long, so I will give a very brief answer to your final question.  I think ecumenism is a good thing because I see it as the best way to reduce "holy wars."  I think that we are going to continue to have fanatical holy warriors, who cry "death to the unbelievers," and who seek to act upon that slogan. (My fellow American, Gen. "Jerry" Boykin is a frightening example.)  I don't think ecumenical dialogue is possible with holy warriors.  But there are many people who can combine fidelity to their own deepest beliefs with an attempt to understand and respect the deepest beliefs of those who disagree with them.  The more ecumenical conversations there are, the less likely it will be that the holy warriors will be able to define the situation for all of us.  

I do have hope for a better world, and the vision I have of a better world would probably by characterized by capitalist ideologues as "socialist."  But I work to keep this hope alive because my understanding of the contemporary world leads me to believe that the kind of world order I hope for is improbable.  I would despair only if I thought it were impossible.

Best regards,

Dick

 
Hi Dick,

Your view that materialism is a theological position seems similar to Tobin's who usually ends his posts with a saying of C.S. Pierce that "faith requires us to be materialists without flinching".  (Though I am sure that for you 'faith' means something different to what it means for Tobin).

You are right to think that I disagree with the idea that materialism is a theological position.  Of course, I would concede that 'faith' in a certain sense motivates me because I have no guarantees that my own life will turn out well let alone guarantees that it will all turn out happily for humanity.  But I would submit to you that this 'faith' which motivates me does so because of the meaning that my mind makes of the world based on my experience.

As far as alliances are concerned, materialists are in general happy to make common cause with idealists, theists, agnostics and atheists as long as we do not think we are being asked to participate in what some Marxists call a popular front - a front that is objectively anti-working class (a united front is the term for a pro-working class front).  But you are right to raise this question about whether materialism is dogmatic and sectarian, because Lenin's bureaucratic measures against the 'God-seekers' within the Bolshevik Party and especially Bogdanov (who was expelled from the Party) cast doubt about materialism along the lines you are suggesting.  However, the lesson I draw from this is that Lenin was not a consistent materialist on this issue, because a consistent materialist would have fully recognised the contribution of such as Bogdanov and would have been prepared to cede influence to Bogdanov if democratic processes called for this.

Finally, why do you think ecumenism is a good thing?

Best regards,
Phil    

Hi Phil,

My hope is that materialists, idealists, theists, agostics, and atheists can make common cause in building a more just world order.  I know you disagree with me, but I am convinced that materialism is essentially a theological, rather than philosophical, position.  It is a matter of faith, rather than the conclusion to a philosophical argument whose premises are accepted by all men and women of intelligence and good will.  So I think that any successful movement towards a better world will have to be "ecumenical."  I was once a candidate for the Catholic priesthood, living in Nepal, training to be a missionary.  I tried to turn away from being a missionary, but could not.  I am trying to convert others to ecumenism, just as you are trying to convert others to materialism.  

You appear to be quite tolerant of non-materialists, but also seem to believe that converting a significant number of us to materialism is the essential pre-condition to a better world.  

I am tolerant of some non-ecumenists, but have a very hard time respecting "holy warriors" -- those fanatical adherents to any set of beliefs who cry "death to the unbelievers."

Best regards,

Dick
  
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Walden [mailto:phil-AT-pwalden.fsnet.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:36 PM
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: BHA: Anti-materialist pessimism/optimism is not the answer


Hi Dick,
To me the first step on the long road to a possible new world order is to create/develop a materialist understanding of what is going on in the world system.  You are right to point out that we already have some of that understanding in place, or potentially in place, in terms of analysis of the ownership, policies (insofar as we can surmise them), and actions of the transnational corporations.  More problematic is the ideological problem of how to enthuse people with the vision and belief that a new world order - what I would call socialism - is possible. This problem will not be solved in short order, and requires a determined struggle against dogmatism and scepticism.  Philosophically, I have a problem with the view that materialism is not necessary to this process (I don't know whether you're saying this but Mervyn is and so is RB). The problem is that if one rejects the need for a materialist philosophical approach to the task of building the new world order one is left only with ethical arguments against the existing system - which is more or less the level at which the oppositional movement is at in this period.  I am not knocking ethical arguments.  However, it is materialist arguments that are overwhelmingly the most important aspect of bringing about qualitative change in the world - ethical arguments are not (nearly) in and of themselves sufficient (if you don't know what sort of a world you're in then ethical arguments don't make sense to you
- viz for example the racist position towards immigrants and asylum seekers that most British people have got).  This anti-materialism or non-materialism seems to be a major weakness in meta-reality and in DCR. Phil  

Hi Phil,

Although the Communist ideal of a new world order was indeed inspiring, as you point out, it failed.  I think the American neo-con ideal of an American Empire with a Pax Americana has already failed -- more pox than pax.  What might very well succeed in replacing the international system of war-like nation states are the multi-national corporations -- international plutocracy.  I don't want that for my children (they aren't likely to be among the plutocrats).  

I'm not saying that a new world order is impossible.  A "global good society," however, does not seem probable.

Dick

-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Walden [mailto:phil-AT-pwalden.fsnet.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 11:51 AM
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: RE: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, war, Bourne


Hi Dick,
Thanks for the info about Randolph Bourne.  As far as I am aware, the Bolshevik leaders of the Soviet workers' state of 1917-18 did not think in terms of "sovereignty", but in terms of international working class unity as a precondition for human flourishing.  Bukharin correctly tried to develop this unity by advocating revolutionary (guerrilla) war against the advancing German army, in order to offer the German working class the opportunity to side with the Soviet workers' state (and thereby with the workers and peasants of the Soviet Union) rather than with their 'own' German bourgeoisie.  After a confused and militarily-pressured process of debate within the Bolshevik Central Committee, Bukharin's proposal was voted down and a decision was taken to sign the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and make peace with Germany, in the hope that socialism could be consolidated in the single state of the Soviet Union.  It was a case of nationalism winning out over internationalism.  If Bukharin's view had prevailed, humanity would in all likelihood have been spared an immense amount of social pain. Whether lessons have been learnt for the world of 2003 remains to be seen. Best regards,
Phil   


Hi Phil,

Randloph Bourne was an up and coming journalist and intellectual in the period just before and during WWI.  He had been a follow of John Dewey, but broke with him over Dewey's support of the War.  He died in the influenza epidemic, either just before or just after the end of the War.

By "state" I mean what used to be called (incorrectly) the "nation-state."  Many states are "multi-national."  States, whether capitalist or workers' states, define sovereignty in terms of the right to go to war to protect (or advance) their "national interests."  The modern state does not exist in isolation, but can exist only within a system of states, each proclaiming sovereignty as a right to go to war.

For me, "war" and "state" have to be defined together.  Each have to be understood in terms of an international order of sovereign states.  A number of people, including Marx and Bush, have sought to bring about a "new world order."  So far, these attempts do not seem to have succeeded.

Best regards,

Dick

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Walden [mailto:phil-AT-pwalden.fsnet.co.uk] 
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:00 PM
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: RE: BHA: Flourishing, Aristotle, war, Abraham


Hi Dick,
I would ask you for a couple of bits of clarification.  I was interested by your view that war tends to decrease internal conflicts within a state.  By "state" do you mean capitalist state or states in general (in my view the Soviet Union of November 1917 was not a capitalist state but a workers' state)?  And by "war" do you mean capitalist war or war in general (Marxists generally hold that war can be revolutionary)?  Of course, these questions would not have occurred to Hegel.  (Don't know who Bourne is or when s/he lived). Phil 



Hi James,

One of the advantages of a list is that we are forced to be more explicit about what we mean, and can review exactly what we said before. I think Bourne, and Hegel, are partially right, and partially wrong.  A state can be "healthy" only in a metaphorical sense -- it isn't really an organism.  So they are wrong.  But the metaphor suggests a number of propositions about the state that I think are right.  Such as: war tends to decrease internal conflicts within a state; war tends to empower officials of the state; war increases the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of the people; etc.

>From my persective, the good effects of war upon the state are
outweighed by the evil effects, not just in terms of injury, death, and destruction, but also in some of the very things that constitute the metaphorical "health" of the state.  Truth might be the first casualty of war, but genuine democracy is not far behind, even in wars that are honestly fought to "save" democracy.

Some further comments after your comments about Kierkegaard.



     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---