2.

3 The World of Abstract, The World of Real, The World of

Man!

One sort of objection to Marx, or to his exposition of capital, could be

put in such words: Marx analyses of capital follows a conceptual path, it
brings, or makes, out of value-relation, as its point of departure, a
web of abstracts which are woven together as if by trickery of dialectic
than any meticulous observation of real world. Abstracts comes before
facts and real world data either is absent from the course of analysis, or
is there very sparsely, only to serve the abstracts. Marx capital is more a
journey in the world of abstract! It is more like ideology than
science!1
1

See Conceptual Arabesques?! [This foot note was fated into a sketch, a longer
piece, which I've it unfinished! The phrase Conceptual Arabesques is from
Engels Anit-During. Marx and Engels, despite their shared Feuerbachian point of
departure, German Ideology, embarked in tow different tracks. Marx went to the
field of political economy which directly dealing with social life and its
complexities, made him return back to Hegel, though unannounced and
surreptitiously. Engels, was preoccupied with philosophy of nature, which had
become natural sciences. Probably this occupation, helped him to stay more true
to Feuerbachian break, going into materialism road which was indeed an
empiricist and positivist terrain. While Marx worked out his way in the meaner of
Science of Concept, Engels reached to a destination which was non-Hegelain in
all its intentions, forms, and content. What was left with Engels from his
Hegelian heritage, was a mere diabetic, cut off from system, turned into a
schematic, logic-like, formal device, ready to be sold to positivist-empiricist
tradition, which could serve for them as a new methodology and an overarching,
ordering perspective which was an apparent need for it. It was a paradigm shift,
and methodical fashion made avail to all field of science. The Engels
achievement become the rallying point in Marxist thought, or what became know
under this label. Marx, was adopted and interpreted, among others by Engels,
Plekhanov, Kautsky, Lenin in Engelsian fashion of a shared dialectic of Nature
and History, which was worked out as a new metaphysics with its own tables of
Judgment and tables of Categories. The tradition of scientific socialism.come to
shape. But apart a dialectical gloss there was not too big a difference between
Marxism and 19th Century positivism. When a century later, political strength
went out from under the feet of scientific socialism, there was no wonder that it
suffered a such more shattering entomological impact. Positivism had really

In previous section, I did stretch Marx's abstractions even thinner and

pushed them far further from what he probably intended. I stretched his
re-construction of political economy in a longer trajectory. I speculated
about value-relation, apparently the bottom-line of all other
abstractions, as constituting the prime reality, the power house, of all
present configurations of social life. I mentioned that free and equal
individuals, the social individual, the individual who has torn
himself loose from the umbilical cord of his natural species-connection
with other man could be seen as ultimate product, and the bearer, of
this relation. That, this is the value relation which make these
individuals, even their emotions, and their relation to the self. Selfhood, has had become the site and stronghold of value-relations itself.
All this could make me one who is caught in that Marxian web of
abstracts. I see, I got more fasten in it now, perhaps as a side effect of
trying to run away from the constrain of Marxism! In other words, the
web of abstracts, is no more and no less, than the spatial structures,
the interiors, of present from of social life, made visible. This
interior, this spatial structures, is the layering bounders that this form
return into itself, gathers its strength, rearrange, define and defend its
own space if the face of what is called time. It is a living form, with its
own spatial inner space, with could be make visible, and then
intelligible, not from without and at the surface, but from within its
layering depth, in a science of concept which is its own reality, in a
web of abstracts which finds as much support in reality as it give
support to it. It is reality from inside out. As it stands, I do not intend to
moved on with new and new paradigmatic shifts, but dialectical gloss had held
it back in Scientific Socialism. Marxist consciousness became the worse kind
of dogmatism now aware and ashamed of itself. Classic kind of bad
conscious?!Old Engelsian, introduced into positivist-empiricist tradition with the
device of dietetic, were in hurry to acknowledge non-validity of their special
device, mark the structures of their Historical Materialism as dogmatic
metaphysics, and turn back against Marx work which was now revealed to them
as a fancy dialectical play, a conceptual arabesques, devoid of reality and not
standing to any sound standards of modern science. Something that During had
done a century before them! He was who that stigmatized Das Kapital as
conceptual arabesque, not accounting for what he too, in his own style framed
to be the reality. History repeat itself, second time as mere farce!]

set myself free from this Marxian web of abstracts, because I can't! It is
the structure, the labyrinth of reality, which before any attempt to
escape, to get free, has to be make more visible and keeps in lights of its
own visibility. One can veil this reality out of his view, but can not
escape from it. Then, I've to try to keep my vision clear from the sort of
above mentioned objection when they come along. I do not like to argue
with this objection, if I can manage to locate it on the way and steer my
vision clear of it. We know, that in any encounter like this, where
encounter is not located in a delinted discourse of experimental science,
but the encounter touch on the discourses engage in opening or
blocking different perspective into social-life, here, argumentation can
easily run its course, lose its breath and vigor, then we eventually hits
the bottom-rocks: our social taste and social preferences. However
elastic and historical these rocks happen to be, they are there. It is on
them which one could stand and make his judgments, argue back and
forth, even without so much the need for an over-worldly apparatus of
reason, or this worldly machinery of science to hang form it. (Is it not
what Marx calls ideology? Not a perverted, a false science, but a
disposition to power, which make the rock-bottom of valuation ad
judgments? But as he warned, the only problem is that, that the
prevailing ideology, is disguised, transparent and does not appear as
ideology! It make itself that rock-bottom which everybody standing on
it, assured and with no urge to look and find out what is really under his
feet!) Anyway, as far as the above mention objection is concerned, the
whole edifice of it rest on two pillars, or two pairs: the real, the abstract,
the Science, the Ideology! I'd like to weight each pair in its common
sense import, in their formal bearings, to see if they can stand their own
weights? To see, by the way of questioning them, if is it possible to
bring some wisdom out of them?
2.3.1 The real? The abstract? Price and Value!

What is real, and what is abstract? The distinction between these two is
not merely a matter of physicality, or sensuous corporeality. We are in
the sphere of social relations and more precisely in the field of political
economy. Here both the real and the abstract could be devoid from

corporeality, or any sensuous existence. Here both the real and the
abstract have to be grasp by some other faculty than mere senses and
sheer sensual experience. The real and abstract in the sphere of social
life, both assume a form of extra-sensual and other-worldly things. At
best they can take the shape of signs and speak their own semiotic
language. The real, the abstract, what they are, or what they could be,
and what they can tell us in this field of our interest, namely political
economy? In this field, we have prices and value, a pair on their own.
Are real and abstract distinction and their inner relations applicable to
them? Probably they are. Is so, which one from the pair of price and
value, we have to designate as real and which as the abstract one?
Compare with value, prices show a more figurative, and then a more
sensible existence. Prices are very much tangible signs. Besides,
prices could be very much comparable, they are numerical and by this,
they are tangible, observable, and verifiable things. Prices and their
unceasing fluctuations, could provide us with an ocean of facts and data
spread in space and time. Prices are information out there. They
surely have a lot to tell us about the history and actual movements of
markets, commodities and if we like even the capitalism itself. Prices
seems very real indeed. In contrast with prices, where is value to be
found? Not so much in the specific frames of times and spaces. Not in
the shape of directly observable and verifiable facts and data. Value
does not give any information of itself, either. Value, if has any real
existence, tends to hide itself. Is value just a specter, with its spooky
dance, in the back and behind the prices? A shadowy existence? An
imaginary and hypothetical one? Or, is it something like a force, say,
like gravity which make itself felt, observed and measured not directly,
but through its effects? Value does not yield itself to any sounds
observation more than forces do. How could one be sure that value, as
Marx believed in it, has its own separable, independent and special
substance, its own graviton, the real, verifiable particle which carry
the force and is not just a hypothetical reality, or an assumption to
arrange and to classify the wild facts? An ordering category? It is
mainly the reality of prices which hint to value. Could, then, prices
claim a monopoly of realm of real, and value to be exiled to the misty

sphere of abstracts, as a non-real ordering assumption?

But, are prices really real?! Are not prices only alien ghosts which come
from nowhere, attach themselves to innocent things, take hold of them
and force them to all kind of spooky dance, and in times to some sort of
violent convulsion which is not related at all to their own substance?
Are not prices abstract things, in the sense that they have not any reality,
substance, which is their own, and are precarious, accidental, arbitrary?!
Could it be that value, be it that autonomous necessary social labor
time spent in producing things, as Marx and classical political
economy pictured it, or a kind of autonomous force, independent form
of social power, whatever this force-power which manifest itself in its
effects would be, is the real one and prices are to be seen just as some
form, some surface effect of that reality? Are prices the effect of a force
called value?
Perhaps, the question is altogether, something else. Prices are not parts,
ingredients, or characteristics of things by themselves. Price is what we
find in things or we attribute to them. We, a kind of, super-impose a
price on a thing. Price could be not of things themselves, but of our
vision of them. If so, how, why, under the spell of whom, it happen to
us that we are seeing prices in things? How did we all human became
endowed with such a common delusional, schizophrenic vision,
traumatized to see in things what it is not in them and of them? How,
why, by whom, we made to see and find the price, an observable, a factbuilding and data rendering and information providing form, which is
takes hold of, innocent things and bring them to a uniform shape?
Is it our vision who attribute prices to things? Price could not exist
without money. Nobody could see prices in things if there was not
money. Price is only the money-from of the things, the uniform shape
which only the existence of money could give to them. Our common
vision could not impose or see a uniform shape in things, if things
themselves did not reflect it to us. Money acts like light, reflect itself in
all things. But things, too, reflect their image in money. Prices are selfimage and claims of things to be money, or if we look at it from the side
of money, prices are obedience of all things to the command and the
claim of money upon them. It is not our delusional vision which see the

things in the form of prices, it is money which give them this form, this
observable and verifiable reality. Should, then, money be designated as
ultimate reality? The reality giving existence which give reality to
everything else? This kind of reality, once upon a time, was discovered
and formulated in the form of Christian God, by theological thought.
The kind of reality which did not direct access and grip on it, it has to
reveal itself to them in its wonder-working, like money giving spirit to
spiritless things! But is money real, more than, say, the Christian God?
Is it really anything else more than a common promise of obedience on
the part of things, and the unique claim to, and commanding of, this
obedience in the part of money? An oath of obedience on the one side
and concentrated power of that oath to excommunicate and to punish
things which fail to subscribe to that oath. It all looks more like a kind
of Hegelian reflective logic which are not nothings more the misty, airy,
intangible abstracts which exert their power in real things, to human
things or thing which enter to human world. As was the fate of JudoChristian God which as he detached himself from the real things
acquired more power to command over real things. There was a time
that silver and gold considered as money. Money had a tangible body,
or had a real thing to be incarnated in it. Those times have passed, and
from present perspective, looks like the pagan phase of money faith or
faith in money. Money has left the bodies, even its paper form is
disappearing. It had become mere digits, residing in magnetic or
electronic arranged states of ones and zeros, traveling all the time in
wires or in air waves. Money is a pure promise and command residing
in thin air! Could we imagine anything more intangible, more abstract,
more unreal than money? It did not matter what we think and can
imagine. It did not matter how Christian God was imagined and
perceived, real or abstract, an existence without body and pure soul.
The Spirit. What mattered was that he had an undisputed and very real
governess, it defined all the goodness which there was and there could
be in the world. So is money! The true substitute, and somehow evolved
and worldly form of Christian God?! Was not Marx right in his insight
which found the world of commodities a deeply religious world?
Things in their isolation, neither have price, nor value to speak of it.

Value and price, take hold of things as soon as they come out of their
isolation and begin to relate to each other in a community of things, as
commodities and in exchange. Remember Marx wooden table, when he
describes fetishism, or fetish-like character of commodities: It not only
stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other
commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain
grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than it were to begin dancing of its
own free will". Prices seems to be the idea evolving from head of a
thing, when encountering others things, entering and acting in their
community. Price is self-image, as the self esteem of a thing which put
itself on an equal footing with other things and weight itself in relation
to them. In this regard, prices is subjective, a self-image of oneself in
relation to others. It could be true or not true, having reality or being
unreal, could be realized or destroyed as it is with all other
subjectivities. On the other hand value seems as what others, force upon
a thing for it to be. It could differ widely or narrowly form the self
esteem of a thing. Thing has to adapt its self image after what others see
in it and force on it, in order to be part of their community. Price is what
a thing thinks it is, value is what other make it to be. Is value the
objective and price the subjective one? Does all objectivity lies in value
which allow the subjectivity of prices arises and hangs around it?!
The real and the abstract! They are not a mere simple pair. They are two
poles which condition each other. They form a duality frame with no
easy way out of it. Whatever one turn the poles around, on its head or
its feet, depending from which pole one looks and locates the other
one, the frame stands and one's view is imprisoned in it. There is one
interesting question here. If we have to pursue knowledge in such a
duality frame, and indeed there is no shortage of them in no field or at
any level of knowledge2 - idea and matter, soul and body, metaphysics
2

This pair, abstract and real, here considered in their purely formal relations, could
stand for other couples too; which indeed will make a very long list: name and
thing, idea and matter, spirit and nature, thinking and being, form and physics,
essence and appearance, soul and body, and so on. Every one could represent the
others as far as they all make two poles, which one pole is projected on the other,
poles could swap, flip-flop, push and pull, making a field for hanging or picking
the fruit of knowledge from them. They make a long assortment of frames of

and physics, laws and nature and so on - then, would not we be better
off to adapt a perspective which attempts to find the falsity of real, and
the reality-building power of abstracts?! Could we look at abstracts as
socially constructed structures, frame-works which always preceded the
edifice- if not in time, but in space (or borrowing from Saussure's
linguistics: not diachronic movement through time-, but
synchronic,- ordering in space,) if not historically but structurally,
abstracts which mediate and shape in their own turn, our connection to
real? Was it not pretty much what Marx was doing after his famous act
of turning Hegel on it feet, or one can say, carrying Hegel's head on his
own shoulders3 and walking with guidance of it through labyrinth of
political economy?
2.3.2 Science? Ideology?

The other pair: science and ideology4. What could stand as the wisdom
3

duality which knowledge is build and suspend in them!

See Reversion of A Reversion! [Another footnote which had become an
unfinished sketch about Marx relation to Historical Materialism: How Marx
abandons the theses of German Ideology, rather uncritically, in the course of his
critique of political economy, when he gives up the Feurebachian departure from
Hegel that so called materialism trail- and adopting the Hegelian Science of
Concept - the so called Hegel's rejected idealism, his system- in making his
science of political economy, based on the model.]
Taking these two terms in their metaphysical imports, leads to a whole range of
absurdities. Probably, more than previous pair. But, it is my intention to follow
them in these imports. Was the distinction between Science and Ideology,
stretched to opposite poles, a Marxist construct? Was it borrowed from Positivists,
Comte and Mill? Finding and following the history of these two terms, no doubt,
would be a more fruitful approach, even when one tries to find their metaphysical
nonsense. There has been a war of legitimacy and reshaping cognitive
authority, in the making of modern scientific culture. Where the battle grounds of
Science-Contra-Ideology, where drawn and in which field the battles were fought,
such a history will give us a better pictures of how all it is related to the more
ongoing war of cognitive authority and make-up of scientific culture. Related to
a such wider context, at least one point could be asserted. That, if Marxism was
not the inventor, or co-inevntor, of Science-Contra-Ideology, it was more than
eager to adapt this theme, make it one of its own, a sign of its own identity. Irony
is that Science-Contra-Ideology, was used in the making of Marxism to inject into
it a more vigor ideological cementation and functionality. Then, it seems, that

behind this divide? The battle between science and ideology, we do not
forget, was pictured as epoch-making, enduring and world-changing
one, and not only by Marxist tradition. How distinctions between these
two are made and how it is blown out in an outright opposition? How
are we supposed to recognize these two from each other, how to
understand their difference, and their supposed opposition?
Could we be justified to consider ideology and science as two different
forms of knowledge knowledge itself as that great cultural edifice of
relations of sings, language constructs, rituals and 'arts' which man
recognize with and in them himself, his social relations, and his
relations with his word, the world in which he acts and produce his
living? Then, what could make ideology and science two different
forms of knowledge? Is it the separable fields in which they are
constructed on and they act upon, is it their separate and distinct
territories? Is ideology, say, that from of knowledge which mainly
appeals to modes of social living, to its intensities, to its fears and
desires; the form of knowledge which for individual mainly arise from
and relate to affections more to the heart if we like, as it has been put
beside the head, the two being the seats of two different sets of
faculties?! Is ideology a social construct which is build upon affection,
shaping, inducing and governing them in individuals, bringing them,
molding them, and enacting them, into the greater social body? Is
ideology the relation of individual to self, as it informed in him from
the side of social power? Is ideology something like that mythical
knowledge with its rituals in the ancient world, or something like
religion at least that part of it which is not totally theological but
mythical and ritual side of it, or something like what came out in recent
time, those motley myth-political forms of knowledge which are
entangled with social and political upheaval and movement, those
which we are used to mark with terms like Catholicism,
Protestantism, nationalism, liberalism, humanism,
communism, socialism, fascism and so on? Such picture of
science and ideology has their richer meanings in the making and the history
of Marxism tradition. Outside this tradition, they tend, at least when encounter
each other, more and more, sound like some tasteless metaphysical terms. As we
will see in the following exposition!.

ideology anchor it tightly to relation of man to man, a cultural construct

which is entangled directly with social power and its from. It is what
informs and confine individual into social body and social power.
Now, If we put ideology on the side of power and affections, the realm
of relation of man to man, what remains for science, and scientific
knowledge to be anchored to it? Is science that form of knowledge
which is mainly engaged in the production of material life, the
knowledge of knowing and taming nature and its forces, the knowledge
which set in motion and arise from the human cunning in building
tools, positing tools between his own body-mind and the rest of nature;
is it that wisdom and its constructs which brought about the art of
measurement, counting, comparing, meticulous observation, erring and
calculating experimentation? Is science the knowledge of production,
the knowledge of cutting and carving the productive way of life through
and against nature, the knowledge which technology is its embodiment?
Looking at things in this way5, seeing ideology anchored around fears
5

Such a picture of knowledge, resists and defies monotheism - both theism and
atheism branch of it! It do not give in to single seat of cognitive authority. In
this view, forces have to speak for themselves, even when they are in retreat,
defeated and exiled to Hades! It is a regression into Paganism. This divided
picture of knowledge which only war and strife give to it its unity, could at most
and with some qualifications, belong to the ages of a very crude 'paganism' and
probably only to the Greeks world. It could be a picture from then, when 'Sophia'
had not as yet been abstracted and separated from persona of 'Sophie'- the men of
wisdom who were in possession, and making a profession of it, the men who were
inventing and elaborating the art of reasoning, among other the way of turning
bad into good and good into bad with the magic of their art.(Aristophanes Birds
and its portrait of Socrates.) It was before Plato, and his Socrates begun to extract
the 'Sophia' from the head of 'Sophie' and crafting it in the shape of above-worldly
'forms, and before Aristotle do the same with the art of reasoning, giving it an
independent metaphysical from. Anyway, it is long before Jewish God, its
conversation to Christianity, and his acts in employing reason and philosophy at
its own service, using them to convey his command into the scattered and
runaway forms of knowledge. At some point all knowledge became knowledge
of God, probably first in the Islamic world, which draw on Aristotle, Plato and
Greek philosophy to Give some rational shape to this knowledge, and then in
Christendom who take over from Islam. Is not Is unity of knowledge as its inner
motif and its organizing force a Christian imposition, the presence or shadow of
God in it?

and desires of social life and its modes of valuations, and science into
the practicality of production of material life - this two from of
knowledge become distinct and separate. There would not be such a
grandiose opposition or epoch-making battles, life or death war,
between this two forms. Each of them has been confined to its own
territory, at most there would be the fights for drawing and redrawing
territorial lines, skirmishes and them retreats to the sphere in which one
has been hold as sovereign! In this picture, knowledge of man of
himself is, and remains, always ideological, and his knowledge of the
world that he is acting upon it is practical. Two separate forms which
remain afar and apart, as much as the fields they are erected upon, the
field of social life acting upon itself and the field of producing of
material life despite all the constrains which they impose on each other,
and some patterns of their interdependence, are distinct and apart. It is
always the matter of social power itself and the way of engaging it
productions of material life which are distinctive territories. Looking in
this light, there is not so much competition between ideology and
science to be turn into an outright and through going opposition of
them. There are intervening, skirmishes, border disputes, but other
constructs, politics, arts, or self-appointed arbitrators of knowledge, like
philosophy and reason, calls upon to rule and keeping them in their due
places. Knowledge of man of himself is always a sort of ideology and
science proper is exiled to his technological intervention in nature. It
make the science or sciences of man an utter nonsense. Then, putting it
all into a rhetorical tone, ideology is the knowledge which life has of
itself, an inward from of knowledge, and science is the knowledge of
the dead matter which life acts upon it from outside. We have different
forms of knowledge, not opposite ones. If one like to be consistent in
this view, the sciences of man of himself is to start with are in
ideological shapes, because it is an inner knowledge entangled with
affections. And it always be, unless man start to act upon himself as
dead matter, turn himself into a syntactical living which is brought
under mold of modulus psychological states of fear and desire, pain and
pleasures induced and controlled as bio-chemical processes!6 Anyway it
6

If we put a few developments side by side, probably the prospects in which a

seems that it has been the way which science has mange to cut its way
in the sphere of life.
To phantom science and ideology not as distinctive, but as opposite
forms of knowledge, the forms that could not stand side by side but
competes and fights against each other in order to monopolize and to
govern the whole sphere of knowledge, for this, two premises seems to
be required. First: One has to posit both of them into the one and same
indistinct territory. Second, knowledge has to have only one unique roof
to be gathered under, or a unique throne to be seat on it; it has to have
the unique temple of its sovereignty. In other words, first, in comparison
to our previous picture, that two distinct relations - the relation of man
and to man and the relation of man to world those two has to be
reduced to only one. Sphere of life and sphere of dead matter have to
collapse into each other, making just one territory. Life and dead matter,
has to lose their distinction, to be shattered down on the same ground,
to a kind of undifferentiated matter, being, idea or what else one
synthetic man replacing the present one which has as yet a foot hold in natural
life, would not be mere figments of science-fiction. First we have the value
relation which has released individual from corporeal and local social bonds.
Alongside it, the traditional and natural senses of reality has been shattered; the
boundaries which separate real from virtual are constantly redrawn. People tend to
feel more at home in cyber-spaces like Facebook, Internet casino, than in their
home or local pub. Private psyche can be modulated and stimulated,
psychological states could be not only induced, but transposed and transferred,
chemically, electrically with chemical drugs, and information technology.
Neurosciences, along genetic engineering of synthetic life, are just under way.
Tuning the free individual into a syntactic kind of man, seem as much
imaginable as the changing the form of social life which that this man is its
ultimate bearer and product. Man in not so far away from the phase of
technological production of himself, or put it more rightly technology is not too
far away of technological production on man. If man stay bind to this process, as
he is, it has a better chance to draw everything in a scientific-technological
conclusion. Before man could gain mastery over its social life and the form of it,
the force of science will take over to replace him with a totally fitting,
scientifically tailored man. The Promethean dream, the dominance and the rule of
science will be realized. knowing is always is dismantling and destroying and
remaking a thing.. It could be the story of life too? What would be science and
ideology in such a science-fiction future? Two different kind of wiring of robotic
brain?!

choose to be the identical territory of knowledge. Second: Knowledge,

instead of, say, being diffused and scattered in non-place of language,
cultural constructs and social intercourse, (medium of social
intercourse?) it has to have its own unique and specific host. One
territory, one throne, one king! Knowledge, too, has to be imagined and
constructed as a kingly, or Godly sphere7. To satisfy, or to presuppose
these premises, apparently it would suffice that, instead of having
7

This picture of knowledge, in its materialistic narrations and constructs, is not so

much different from that image of it which is inherent in, and was handed down
by, religion - at least in the Judo-Christian-Islamic form of religion. The host of all
knowledge is God, a seat which is located outside the world. Knowledge is
knowledge from above and from without, it is using Russel's term, knowledge
of external world, which the know-er stand outside and above of it.(External
World?! Is it not, at the face of it, the most strange of all metaphysical
presupposition? External? To what? To knowledge?! How there could be a
world, an object, a thing outside, external to knowledge which
knowledge is at the same aware of it?! Is not the awareness of a thing the act of
coming forth of that thing in the sphere of knowledge, coming into its light,
entering the world of knowledge and finding a place in its interiority? External to
know-er? How know-er could stand outside of the world of knowledge and be a
know-er? Know-er, become a know-er only as a citizen of the world of
knowledge. How know-er could know anything about something that has not
come, however vague, into the realm of knowledge, the realm which the know-er
himself is part of it, live in it, or at least has, or could have, access to it? To
become a know-er, he has somehow to eat, or being feed, of the tree of
knowledge! Even the boundaries between existence and non-existence, being and
non-being, matter and nothingness, are boundaries which are drawn within the
sphere of knowledge; there remain nothing out of the realm of knowledge which
know-er could be aware of. One can assuredly asserts that the Metaphysics does
not start with Socratic-Platonic forms, tables of categories, syllogism, drawing
some parallel abstracts in the extension of thought about the extension of
physics. Metaphysics begins with the blindness to materiality of thought
extension itself, the construction, sustenance, reproduction of that plane which
forms, logos, concepts, God, table of categories, reason, all that vast,
shifting and changing metaphysical edifice, are build out of and upon it, the plane
which is carried in social discourses and out of power relation; the plane that
becomes invisible and veiled to metaphysical thought, and thus make it
metaphysical. Metaphysics is blindness to materiality of the constructed world of
knowledge; it is not having concept, abstract, a priori, but forgetting about
the materality of the plane or say the extend, of their production and their

different accounts for relation of man to man, and of man's relation to

the world, to constitute one single account: man and the world, or more
properly, the account of the mind and the world. World, being, or the
matter or the idea, whatever one choose to be its primary substance, it
as a whole is the common and the same territory of knowledge and
mind is the roof, the place that knowledge of that object is put together.
Man and the world, which stands aside from each other, is posited as
enacting, as something inbuilt into social power. The only truth about external
world is that silent, made unspeakable secret of modern scientific culture in its
acceptance of the force of knowledge as an untouchable, unreachable, out of
control social force which acting upon social life as external, unaccountable
force. Social life has really become external to its own force of knowledge!)
The perspective of external world - and not man's world - and the form of
distanciation which is inbuilt in this perspective, is the common ground for both
theist and atheist, idealist and materialist. There is no change of perspective in
shifting from theism to atheism, from idealism to materialism in this regards.
Knowledge has learned , or was forced to dispense with God, but not with God's
view, which gradually was assigned to man, which was being erected in its place.
Two stories could be telling in this process of substitution of God with man, and
preserving the former perspective for the latter. Story of being and story of
space:
Being for Medieval theological thinking, was not something shared between
God and its creation. They had two different kind of being, which between them
there was an abyss that man himself could not ever bridge over it. Being of God
and his doll, the man, differed at the ontological level. Created being, man, which
has its own being and spoke its own language, could not know the creator being,
the God, except in allegorical and figurative forms, in the forms of its own
language which always fails short of pantomiming the being of God. Reason, too,
as a faculty of man and its language, was of no avail in this task of knowing God.
The only source of knowing God was his choosing to reveal himself to man, the
revelations, which Gods appears himself to man in that figurative and allegorical
language which man could understand. It was a God saved made unassailable by
man's cunning and wisdom. But for being saved he was turned into a God of fear
than the God of Reason. It was the price. As story goes, it was Ibn-Rushd, with
redounded helps from Aristotle, that did manage to collapse those two forms of
beings into each other and constructing only one kind of being, shared between
God an it creature, and accessible to the reach of reason. Dun Scout adapted this
invention into Christian theology which was destined to play a great role in what
came later with the advent of scientific culture. Being of God and being of man
was the same sort, with the difference in size, not in quality but in quantity so to

basis of knowledge which is constructed as internal states of an

external world, as reflections of external truths in man's head.
This way, we have reached to a different picture of knowledge. Here the
perspective of life acting upon itself and acting upon dead matter,
cutting its way into its world and turning back into and empowering
itself, is lost. Our observer and know-er has acquired the Godly eyes,
stepping outside and above the distinction of life and dead matter, he
reflects upon the one and the same identical territory. Now stage seems
to be more and less ready for the grandiose battles and epoch-making
wars of Science and Ideology. They both presuppose and relate to same
identical ground, both has become reflections of the know-er, from and
into the same things. In this import, Science and Ideology, could not be
speak. God was big omniscient form of being and man the small and limited one.
But from here what could hinder the latter in not making its mind the reflective
host of the former, swallowing it to accommodate, or ascribing to it ever growing
capacity which, who knows, someday may reach the limit of an omniscience
which God himself was not able to even dream of? What counts is that man snatch
and preserve the perspective of God. Man taking his outside view preserving all
the perspective and structures of that Godly, alien, doll making knowledge and
dispensing with God himself. Theism an atheism in this regard are two faces of
the same coin.
The space story, too, is interesting. Apart from Bible, Euclid's Element is said
had become the most revered book among Christian thinkers from beginning of
scientific epoch- from the end of Medieval times, on. Euclid geometry transgress
of line of divide, across all the faiths of Christianity, referred to by Catholics and
Reformist alike, and unlike Aristotle or Plato there was not any dispute about
Euclid. The second article of faith, or the strength of practical sciences?! At any
rate, Euclidean geometry with its elements of point, line, plane, made possible to
project space as kind of relations between pints, referable from each other,
measurable and capable to be connected with lines in all directions, and at the
same time a kind of space which one stand outside of it and super-impose on it its
science of measurements. Geometry with all the mixed mathematics which
accompanied it, coupled among other things with the new geographical
discoveries, gave rise to a new industry: making globes and geometrical model of
universe. Now everyone was able to hover above the globe or stand outside the
observable space and have a God-like view of them. The God of revelation was
not needed anymore, now had the eyes and was able to read his mind too! Every
honest person could agree upon this point. The King is dead. Long live the
King! Out of theological context, the scientific revolution was a palace coup!

other than two aspect or two forms of this kind of above of life
reflections. But, both forms of reflections could not be right at the same
time. They are not stands on different ground, they do not have different
intention and different perspectives. They are reflecting on the same
thing from the same perspective. There is a conflict, a war, and one of
them has to give way to the other. Let's have a few glimpses of their
play. What is the difference? What is at stake?
Could we mark Ideology as man's image of the world, an image which
mind acquires of the world and enacts it as a guide which with it he
orients himself in his world? Science, too, could be characterized as
man's image making art, Science too provides the mind with a set of
images of the world. Science could replicate, or replace the functions of
ideology for the man, guiding, orienting him in the world and shaping it
for him. Then, if we have two images, or two sets of images, from the
same world which do not correspond, where and how we have to locate
the source and the turns of their divergence? Divergence arises in
image-making or lies in the images? How the divergence and
conflict between images, which seems to constitute the core of
distinction between Ideology and Science, has to be account for?
Divergence probably begins in the image-making processes. Could be it
that when an inner psychological state comes in the way, when
affections, hate, love, fear, perceived interests acts like reflective
surface, or intervene in the working of supposedly disinterested
reflective faculties, then the image-making divert toward Ideology? In
contrast, have we to mark Science as the psychology- affection, interest
independent image-making apparatus, reflecting thing on a blank
surface, reflecting things as they are for themselves? Or, in terms of
the products, is those affection-affected images the ones with
Ideological taint, and those affection-immune images the ones with
Scientific character?! Here we are once again heading back towards the
traps of our first picture of knowledge- lets call it the pagan picture. It
begs the question: how Science could manage to overcome the life bias
of interest, how it kills affections and raise itself above all the
constrains of life?! In this jargon, how Science could avoid, or step
aside, from the Ideology? But lets avoid the pagan trap. We accept the

pretension of Science that it has an inbuilt capacity to stand above

affection and govern them, or to reduce and use them as its own sensory
devices. But, getting rid of affection reducing them to their sensory
functions, by whatever magic, would not threaten to collapse Science
into a sort of all-embracing, universal Ideology? Probably a reverse
Ideology, the perspective of thing of living? The image of dead matter
from living one? Fetishism in full swing?! Ideology of Science, or
Science replacing Ideology, hardly could become anything than
fetishism.
Fetishism, or not, we were after to find those turns of divergence which
possibly make Science into an opposite form of Ideology. Is it so that
Ideology could occur when subjectivity is not simply involved, but
prevails in image-making to the end, without stopping in the way and
retouching image according to its object? Is it that we have to mark
Ideology as subjective knowledge and Science objective one? Is
division between Ideology and Science a repetition of subjective and
objective divide? But, again what is subjectivity, which is the subject
and which has to be designate as object in that relation of the mind and
the world? Is subjectivity referring to an active and intentional relation
between idea or here the mind as that host of it- and the matter? In
this regard is not Science the more pro-active one, and the more
intentional one of the Ideology-Science pair? Is not that the bulk of
Science's activity consist of imposing its measuring devices and
implementing its measurements on all objects which come in its way?
Besides, the mind which is apparently the host of all subjectivity, could
not be seen as an object of the matter which acts subject on the mind as
it object? Is it not the story retold from the side of matter, the story
which Science itself, getting rid of life or standing above its biased and
confining perspective, tries badly to invent and to imitate? The game of
subject and object could not have any fixed roles, the roles could be
swapped in place, object could become the subject of its own subject
turning it into object, and such games is capable to be continued to the
limits of outright absurdity. Science is as much subjective as Ideology is
objective in the game of subjectivity!
Is it faith and its interference which makes the point of divergence?

Again, what is faith and how it interferes? Is it faith the acceptance of

already produced images of the world, preserving and defending them
in the face of new ones, or the ones that deemed biased, accidental and
arbitrary? Knowledge if anything, is as accumulative endeavor. Every
layer of it is built upon other layers of it and every bit of it is relies on
other bits. The presence always gasped in conjuring the images carried
along from the past. To know is at the same time the act of re-cognition,
identifying unknown in terms of the knowns. In this sense there is no
talk of knowledge without a kind of faith, an inherited faith or believe,
whether it is to be hold weakly or strongly, skeptically or assuredly.
Then, what about faith in science, accepting and defending its images of
the man and his world, in the face of possible effort challenging its
independent authority and its above life perspective? Could not we
mark faith in science, a strong form of faith, or the strongly hold faith,
compare with now retreating, and weakly held faith in religion,
morality, or Ideology ?
Is divergence and opposition arise from the involvement of
conscience, say, bad conscience tend to produce Ideological images
and good conscience Scientific ones? What would be conscience
itself in this supposed production line? A foreman, or a police-man
who discipline and suppress the rebellious affections? In Schopenhauer
account pain and pleasures, suppress all others, and keep the activity of
the mind accountable to the body. But, his account reach to the will,
not these higher constructs, Science and Ideology. In this higher form,
the foreman or police-man, could only brought in from the outside.
What is this external police man which stand above pain and pleasures?
In whom accounts works this foreman? God, devil, tribe, upper or under
class, society, machinery of science, this or that ideological
formation? How this foreman, or repressive layer is erected, who is
maintaining it? From where the valuation comes out, who rules the
good as good and bad as bad? Are we in the realm of morality? Is
morality what that stands above the Science-Ideology divide and push
them into opposition and state of permanent war? Is Science and
Ideology relate to two different sets of morals? In this case does not
Science become a special kind of Ideology, as well biased and tainted

with morality? Is Ideology the vehicle of false conscience and

Science the bearer of true one? How truths are make? From where,
and how, does falsity and truth comes about?
2.3.3 Representation; the Making of Truths!
2.3.4 The Factory of Reason; The Labor of Thought!
2.3. 5The Factory of Reason; The Labor of Thought!