Quantitative versus qualitative change

[cpuproc68]

Rapid quantitative change is qualitative change.

[cpuproc68]

My concept of qualitative change is one of the great philosophical achievements of this century.

[cpuproc68]

My concept redefines the problem of qualitative change in a very strong way.

[cpuproc68]

So qualitative change is just a form of quantitative change.

[cpuproc68]

The transformation of water into ice is the most classic example of qualitative change.

[cpuproc68]

The second law of Marx's dialectics is the law of the transformation of quantity into quality. If, for example, we gradually heat water by one degree, at some point it will turn into steam, and this is a qualitative, not quantitative, change. As my analysis shows, this law is incorrect. In fact, this transformation of water into steam is also a quantitative change, only a very rapid one, occurring suddenly through a quantitative leap. Let's look again at diagram 1.

[Walker]

The transformation of water into ice is the most classic example of qualitative change.

It's also a quantitative change. Same mass, different volume, both objectively measurable.

[Walker]

Qualitative and quantitative are concepts.

- Defining Quality drove Pirsig coo-coo, and he was a genius.
- Quantitative is a number signifying a particular amount.

Quality and quantity are eachother by the nature of distinction which they share. We know distinction primarily through thought and memory for even the ever present now of the senses are compared through memory and thought.

While quality is measured on a relative scale, quantity is measured on an absolute scale. For example, the quality of a person is based on subjective criteria, but the quantity of the person is measured in numbers, which is called objectifying a person, e.g., 36-24-36.

[cpuproc68]

It's also a quantitative change.

Of course, you are right.

[Eodnhoj7]

- Defining Quality drove Pirsig coo-coo, and he was a genius.
- Quantitative is a number signifying a particular amount.

Quality and quantity are eachother by the nature of distinction which they share. We know distinction primarily through thought and memory for even the ever present now of the senses are compared through memory and thought.

While quality is measured on a relative scale, quantity is measured on an absolute scale. For example, the quality of a person is based on subjective criteria, but the quantity of the person is measured in numbers, which is called objectifying a person, e.g., 36-24-36.

Last time I checked all numbers exist relative to eachother.

The number line proves number as relational.

[Walker]

Not absolutely. Numbers also exist in relationship to objects.
Ten fingers, base ten. Not base, continuum.

If you count every grain of sand in the Sahara, after first defining its boundaries, you will have a changeable, absolute and quantifiable number in relation to objects.

This is why if you take three apples from nature's bounty of ten you will only be eating three apples, unless you share, or try to take all of nature.

That's likely because we're mere mortals, which either has something to do with fishes and bread, or else man does not live by bread alone and has not yet begun to realize the full meaning of being a human, or even the full meaning of another's mind-portal access, and is thus limited by non-absolute qualitative boundaries that can change, such as the four minute mile. Obviously.

Naturally, this raises a variety of questions, depending on the filters of consciousness. Where oh where does one go for answers?

[cpuproc68]

Marx's second law of dialectics is therefore incorrect.

[cpuproc68]

Marx had more misconceptions.

[cpuproc68]

One of his mistakes was the concept of a utopian state system.

[cpuproc68]

Which had disastrous practical consequences.