They met in the same alley as last time and agreed that Patricia could drag Nell around to any place of her own choosing. They jumped on a train to Furong Ancient Town and let the majestic scenery inspire a moment’s awe and tranquility before sliding into a comfortable chair in a cafe nearby.

Patricia had an aura of restlessness about her, and Nell felt slow and dull in comparison. Her appetite had diminished over the years, she lamented to herself. Perhaps it was all just too late.

Nell glanced hurriedly at a thoughtful Patricia, who in turn sensed that it was desired that she opened up the conversation.

P: “Perhaps… I know what I’d like to do. Rather than discuss transcendentalism versus socialist theory, perhaps we should jump in and discuss reality itself, to… have…”

N: “We suffer immensely from the fact that neither skepticism nor optimism have put us in a better position. The fundamental problems still remain unresolved. Will we ever get to know why physical matter follows laws that we happen to be able to express through mathematics?”

P: “Yes, and likewise, is there just one objective reality? All this began with a rather harsh demand from the American conservative movement to relinquish the ‘socialist’ stance. This stance, they somewhat correctly recognise as a refutal of the idea of objective truth (which happens to support the ruling class). In particular, this was in relation to recognition of biological sexes.”

N: “Yes, the christian conservatives really have increased the counter pressure over years and years, but now it seems to have boiled over. USA will be facing changes. I really hope they work something out.”

Patricia wanted back to the core topic.

P: “Indeed, why is the world behaving in a rational way? It seems to be the central question.”

N: “Like when you see people walking in thin air between cliff edges. If you ask them if they believe in bridges, they just ask “what on earth for?”, and carry on.”

P: “Yes, exactly!”

N: “It is tempting, isn’t it? Idealism.”

P: “See this is what I find the hardest to swallow: I am just standing here considering something that I honestly (perhaps even objectively) find to be a conundrum. And someone jumps out from the shadows and says I operate under a bourgeois theory erected over a capitalist mode of production.”

Nell laughed.

N: “Look, dear Patricia, you need to learn to jump from ledge to ledge. You need to be able to speak like all of them. Right now, if you express understanding of viewpoint A, you are attacked by adherents of viewpoint B and vice versa. You need to be able to outpace them all.

First of all, we have to establish the playing field. Here, my notes:”

N: “With this summary in hand, the stage is set for a grand discussion. But take note here: You see how the philosopher elegantly splits aspects from entities, even though you and I would find that troublesome?”

P: “Sorry, too abstract. Come again?”

N: “Traditionally we say that the senses are passive and the thought process is active in ordering the sense impressions. But the sociologist (H & A) then says:”

The individual sees himself as passive and dependent, but society, though made up of individuals, is an active subject, even if a nonconscious one

[…]

In the bourgeois economic mode the activity of society is blind and concrete, that of individuals abstract and conscious.

N: “The activity… what does he mean?”

P: “You are about to explain it.”

N: “Aye. Okay, so in your mind, remember group work. Who comes up with the ideas?”

P: “Mostly it’s hard to point to anyone specific. Most members chime in.”

N: “Okay, so the activity of group work is both concrete and abstract. And in this case mostly conscious.”

P: “Right. Activity… the process that drives things forward. It may be different from the individual thinking. Since society is a constant refinement and exchange of ideas, it is hard to point to a place where the idea is created.”

N: “According to H & A. Unlike group work, however, the whole of society is blind. It operates without a clear direction, unplanned. If you zoom into a narrow scope like, say a particular trade or business, planning happens, but not across society as a whole.”

P: “You were about to say something about splitting entities and their aspects.”

N: “Yes. Sociologists have no qualms about seeing the thinking process as originating somewhere between the individual and society. Okay: So imagine that brains don’t do the actual thinking. Words do. So words are the drivers, so to speak, that makes an argument evolve step by step. We habitually look for a mind - one of a person - when we deal with arguments, namely the author of the argument. But where is the mind in a group discussion? We have to abandon the notion that there is an intelligence as a living, personal thing. “Activity” understands observations and concoct theory. And the activity is not ours. Look here:”

the world of objects to be judged is in large measure produced by an activity that is itself determined by the very ideas which help the individual to recognize that world and to grasp it conceptually.

N: “Marxism analyses ideas and consciousness from societal perspective. We think what we think because of circumstances which have evolved historically. H & A elaborates on this perspective. Remember the Marburg school of Neo-Kantianism?”

The false consciousness of the bourgeois savant in the liberal era comes to light in very diverse philosophical systems. It found an especially significant expression at the turn of the century in the Neo-Kantianism of the Marburg school. Particular traits in the theoretical activity of the specialist are here elevated to the rank of universal categories, of instances of the world-mind, the eternal “Logos.”

P: “Is that really true? They didn’t say World Mind, did they? They said a priori. And in particular it wasn’t a mind. It was inhuman sets of rules which come into existence as a body of laws. It changes over time with new discoveries developed into new theories. With the a priori, our own conception also changes, and thus our experience.”

Nell smiled and looked at this young woman who had needed an ocean to swim in for so long. She cavorted like a dolphin now.

N: “I know what you meant earlier. The dolphin, sorry, the a priori to the Marburg School is really just a less fanciful version of the socially preformed facts and concepts.”

P: “Yes, that’s what I mean, except the dolphin part.”

N: “But they are not saying the same thing! Sociologists will always look first to the current society to understand its thinking. But the traditional scientists will want as little biasing influence from society as possible. Yes, they both relegate the invisible hand of preformation to a realm we cannot access. And they both believe the origin of change comes from human culture, history and society. But the world to be understood arises elsewhere.”

Patricia leaned back. She understood the game, alright. But she had to practice.

P: “I get it! There’s always an excess piece on the board! Kant, Hegel, Marx, they all take turns in moving about the biggest piece of them all, which is not part of the rules of the game, but controls the entire board: The Explanation, the Big Why the world makes sense.”

N: “And with those words, I’d like to get out of this chair and walk around for a bit. Now I am the one who needs to look goofy for an hour or two.”

Patricia got up and hugged her.

She hugged Nell. And Nell was the idiot who obviously froze instead of relishing in the moment. But Patricia was running the program and didn’t notice a thing.

P: “Let’s walk around. This place is magnificent and such a great way to cool one’s head.”

They walked. Occasionally side by side.

•P•A•R•A•D•O•X•