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, itbrings, 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 ajourney 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 inall 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. Self-hood, 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 kindof dogmatism now aware and ashamed of itself. Classic kind of bad conscious?!Old Engelsian, introduced into positivist-empiricist tradition with thedevice 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 itsown 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 arguewith 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 hisfeet!) 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 dataspread 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 comefrom 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 ofviolent 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 forcecalled 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 fact-building 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 self-image and claims of things to be money, or if we look at it from the sideof 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 Judo-Christian 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 evolvedand 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 onlystands 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 upona 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 seein it and force on it, in order to be part of their community. Price is whata 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 twopoles 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 theedifice- 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

duality which knowledge is build and suspend in them!3 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.]

4 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 ofScience-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 toa 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 andcalculating experimentation? Is science the knowledge of production, the knowledge of cutting and carving the productive way of life throughand 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 wereinventing 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, likephilosophy 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 andpleasures 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 roofto 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 comparisonto 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 tofeel 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 allknowledge 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 boththeist 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 theperspective 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 snatchand 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 differentintention 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 ofideology for the man, guiding, orienting him in the world and shaping itfor 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 itthat 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. Itbegs 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 sensorydevices. 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 isobjective 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 ofthe 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 imagesand 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 underclass, 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!

2.3 The World of Abstract, The World of Real, The World of Man!2.3.1 The real? The abstract? Price and Value!2.3.2 Science? Ideology?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!