26 Apr 1997 to Mustafa and Lau Kam To, c.c. Hegel List Re: Essence, and Sartre Discussion on Essence Mustafa, my political travails are sorting themselves out somewhat, and I have had some mental space to look at your excellent contribution to the discussion on Essence (http://werple.net.au/~andy/txt/essence2.htm), responding to my unfinished draft on Essence (http://werple.net.au/~andy/txt/essence1.htm). You raise in particular two questions: (1) the question of Essence as part of "Objective Logic because it decribes the process whereby knowledge proceeds unconsciously as if determined by objective law" but you say "whether conscious or unconscious, reflection belongs to subjectivity". I think both the first two questions bear on the same issue. "Knowledge", "theory" etc., are categories of the "subjective" in an obvious sense. But of course, the process of acquiring knowledge is not necessarily the subject of consciousness or control. (c.f. Vygotsky on the issue of people learning to understand, reflect on and control what they are already (mentally) doing). Almost all great scientific discoveries have been achieved more or less to the surprise of their makers. The history of science is not made consciously, even though (as Engels says) it "all passes through our brains". For example, the struggle between two rival theories usually takes place in a social medium. Once having seized upon a scientific Notion, there begins some kind of deliberative logical-scientific process, of reasoning from premise to conclusion. This is the "Subjective Logic". I will amend this part of my article (essence1.htm) to try to make this point clearer. (2) The question of the relation of the Science of Logic (1812, 1813 & 1816) to the Shorter Logic, as I understand it, continuously revised till his death in 1830. This is really a question for the "professional" Hegel scholar, not me. I use both books; each has strengths in different areas. I think Hegel himself grappled with the impenetrable nature of the Science of Logic and attempted in the Shorter Logic to make it easier to understand. There are some translation and terminology problems which complicate things. I believe "Semblance" and "Illusory Being" are the same, for instance. I think that to the extent that it is possible to "perfect" a philosophical "system", it is the Science of Logic. But such a "prefection" is impossible. I suppose I regard the Larger as the definitive work, and turn to the Shorter for better explanation. But always, the issue is to grasp the method, which is sometimes clearer here, sometimes there. ============================================================================== To Lau Kam To: on Sartre's 'Critique of Dialectical Reason' Again Thank you for directing me to Sartre's "Critique of Dialectical Reason". This book is all about the dialectic of human relations, from individual-to-individual through groups to states and classes, from people joining a bus queue to the storming of the Bastille and the Third Republic. A treatment of dialectics which takes human organisation as its object and spans the laws of movement over this whole range strikes me as profoundly valuable. Unfortunately, I find the book almost unreadable. Doubtless it could not be any harder to penetrate than Hegel's Logic, but I approached Hegel's Logic with a conviction that the enormous effort that was going to be required to "conquer" it was bound to be rewarded, because of the legacy of Hegel's Logic contained in the work of the great Marxists. While Sartre clearly has standing as one of the foremost Marxists of our times, my very first forray into this book showed that Sartre's view of the relation of dialectical logic to human knowledge and Nature is sharply at odds with that of Marx and Engels. Sartre makes the kind of cutting criticism of Engels' "popularisation" of dialectics which is actually not difficult to do, but I cannot accept the position Sartre defends in that, which appears to me, from a superficial reading, as nearer to Kant than Marx. Nevertheless, others may be more highly motivated and more learned than me and may perhaps extract from 'Critique of Dialectical Resaon' some important observations on how to approach the building of a dialectical (understanding) of political and organisational practice and its relation to the overthrow of capitalism. I found the glossary attached to the book a useful summary of the concepts Sartre deals with, including: ----------------------- multiplicity a collection of individuals, however related series an ensemble each of whose members is determined by the others in alterity (separation) collective a passive structure of the practico-inert (embodiment of past praxis) corresponding to a series gathering a series which is capable of constituting a group fused group a newly-formed group, directly opposed to seriality, and unstructured group an ensemble each of whose members is determined by the others in reciprocity pledged group a group which develops from a fused group through an organised distribution of rights and duties enforced by a pledge institution a group which develops from a pledged group through the ossification of its structures and the emergence of sovereignty and seriality within it class the developing totalisation of three types of ensemble: institutionalised groups, pledged groups, and series. ------------------ I suppose we have here the whole science of 'sociology' and the vast array of theories of sociology that have been around in recent decades, most of which seem to have been diverted into the positivist and Kantian, but certainly not Marxist direction. I feel somewhat over-awed at the prospect of approaching this subject, which, in the first instance, I saw just as the "dialectics of organisation". At this time, I am not quite sure how to proceed. I have made the mistake before of "biting off more than I can chew". But at the same time, I feel the state of theory in this area is quite unsatisfactory, although there is plenty of "wisdom" around! Lau - you are obviously a very learned person! Have you any suggestion to make? What is your asssessment of Sartre's "Critique of Dialectical Reason"? Andy