What on earth is the dialectic?

[118118]

Not that I know what quantum wave theory, but wasn't your proof of God rubbish - that A has some properties of our concept of B, so B exists, or my dinner being proof of the flying spaghetti monster. What did I not get.

Besides which 1. what is rational is truly real, 2. not that whatever exists is rational... ahh right so 3. soemthing irational like capital isn't real? Precisely.

2 would entail 3, 1 does not. You probably know that. I want to know why a group of people can claim to have proof of the existence of anything they want to invent. IYSWIM

 

[Fruitloop]

no they are ways of ordering the real but we can never have direct access to the real, therefore they will always be appearance.

Like your poster here (whose obviously spent alot of time reading Lacan or maybe Zizek) says;

This makes perfect sense.

It also seems to me that kyser and vimto are talking about exactly the same thing.

 

[kyser_soze]

This makes perfect sense.

It also seems to me that kyser and vimto are talking about exactly the same thing.

Well at least someone got it...

 

[phildwyer]

If the alienation of labour under capitalism is simply the original existential crisis in a different guise, what is the point of political praxis that aims to destroy this particular instance of alienation? Would it not simply be replaced by another permutation of the primal alienation of subject and object?

Well, this is the vital question. Historically, what you describe has invariably occured. Hegel would argue that this does not obviate the necessity, indeed the inevitability, of struggle against alienation. He would also claim, along with Marx, that alienation could and would be finally overcome in the immediate future. This claim obviously develops out of Messianic religion, and especially from the identification of Plato's *logos* with the Jewish *Messiah,* which is known as "Christianity." But in Messianic religion, the overthrow of alienation is not followed by a utopia, as in Marx, but by Armageddon. Which seems most likely to be true?

 

[phildwyer]

Trouble with Phil is he reacts to a positivist reading of Marx, by (re)conflating Marx with Hegel, and restoring the old religious baggage, which is unavoidable if you ignore Spinoza's radically atheistic departure from Enlightenment assumptions.

Phil - I agree with you that 'matter' has no sense outside of consciousness. But why does this mean matter and consciousness are ultimately identical (in God?) My argument is that ideas necessarily engender or encounter limits , thus disclosing the presence of an 'outside' (unknowable "in itself") but which generates an open-ended dialectic which gestures towards, but necessarily resists, totalisation.

Do you mean "totalisation" or "closure?" Anyway, having deduced the presence of the in-itself, the noumenal realm, there are two mistakes we must avoid. First, as you seem to suggest, the temptation to speculate about the nature of the noumenal, which is by defintion unknowable. But second, the temptation to *ignore* the noumenal, to pretend that it doesn't exist, or to behave as though its existence has no implications for the nature of our experience. It seems to me that this second constraint constitutes a logical form of closure to the dialectic. There is also of course a *temporal* form of closure in the end of an individual life and, on a macrocosmic level, in the no less inevitable extinction of the human race.

 

[phildwyer]

I want to know why a group of people can claim to have proof of the existence of anything they want to invent. IYSWIM

I'm not quite sure *why,* but I know that they *can,* because they *do.* Capital does not "exist," it is a humanly constructed idea, and yet the world behaves as though it does exist and has real power. It is proof of the determining power of ideas over "reality." If one kind of ideas can determine reality, so can others.

 

[slaar]

Is this entire thread produced from a random text generator?

 

[kyser_soze]

I'm not quite sure *why,* but I know that they *can,* because they *do.* Capital does not "exist," it is a humanly constructed idea, and yet the world behaves as though it does exist and has real power. It is proof of the determining power of ideas over "reality." If one kind of ideas can determine reality, so can others.

Isn't that rather the point tho - that Capital is an Idea made manifest? That in the ideal world of some Libertarian Communism would be an idea made manifest in reality?

Agree with your reply to Fruitloop as well, esp the last line...

 

[phildwyer]

Isn't that rather the point tho - that Capital is an Idea made manifest? That in the ideal world of some Libertarian Communism would be an idea made manifest in reality?

Agree with your reply to Fruitloop as well, esp the last line...

That's the general plan, yes. Not going too well at present, bit of a cock-up on the Soviet front. Marx's notion was that the modern form of the opposition between human life (labour-power) and alienated human life (capital) could, practically and in this world, be abolished because the two forces had coalesced into the social classes of bourgeoisie and proletariat. That situation no longer pertains; instead, the opposition between capital and labour-power has hardened, solidified and become (I would argue) to a large degree psychological.

 

[articul8]

second, the temptation to *ignore* the noumenal, to pretend that it doesn't exist, or to behave as though its existence has no implications for the nature of our experience. It seems to me that this second constraint constitutes a logical form of closure to the dialectic. There is also of course a *temporal* form of closure in the end of an individual life and, on a macrocosmic level, in the no less inevitable extinction of the human race.

absolute = death. Yes, Hegel got it right there. But this seems very unlike logical closure, and very much more like the disintegration of logic in toto .

.

 

[phildwyer]

absolute = death. Yes, Hegel got it right there. But this seems very unlike logical closure, and very much more like the disintegration of logic in toto .

Same thing innit.

 

[Fruitloop]

That's the general plan, yes. Not going too well at present, bit of a cock-up on the Soviet front. Marx's notion was that the modern form of the opposition between human life (labour-power) and alienated human life (capital) could, practically and in this world, be abolished because the two forces had coalesced into the social classes of bourgeoisie and proletariat. That situation no longer pertains; instead, the opposition between capital and labour-power has hardened, solidified and become (I would argue) to a large degree psychological.

Wasn't it always psychological? It seems to me that its inherently so in at least two ways; firstly if you accept that labour/capital is a manifestation of subject/object (which I'm still pretty dubious about), and secondly in that ideology and class conflict have always been two sides of the same coin.

 

[Binkie]

The idea of the dialectic is that new ideas emerge through the clash of existing ideas. If there is a resolution, it is only temporary and will in turn come into conflict with further opinions and observations.

This dynamic view of the development of ideas is contrasted with the static notion of eternal truths waiting to be discovered.

Dialectical Materialism takes this commonsense idea one step further by confirming that all these ideas originate in experience - in contrast to the old 'philosophical' or 'idealistic' view that says ideas originate either in some mysterious process of introspection or through 'ideal forms' that are supposed to be eternal. Only professional philosophers and idiots still take this view seriously.

 

[kyser_soze]

This dynamic view of the development of ideas is contrasted with the static notion of eternal truths waiting to be discovered.

Which is a dialectic in itself, no? History would tend to suggest that while universal 'truths' don't exist, there are patterns in human behaviour from the micro to macro levels that are repetitious. On a macro scale this would be minorities oppressing majorities through the control of whatever medium best expresses power at any given time (DRoK, Land ownership, Capital, Information), at the micro scale it can be evidenced in behaviours such as infidelity - these are not 'modern' inventions but behaviours that stretch back through our history and are almost universal in nature.

So maybe the synthesis of the two is that there are overriding patterns of human behaviours, but the method of expressing them alters according to context.

Sorry if that's all a bit 1st yr degree or whatever...

 

[Binkie]

Yes, the dialectic seems to permeate everything.

In my view it isn't a thing in itself - it's just a human discovery/view/meta-model about the common way many systems seem to work.

 

[articul8]

Same thing innit.

no not really - if you short-circuit logic by simply collapsing identity and non-identity into each other you end up with 'bad infinity'.

This is very different to project of achieving the reconciliation of identity and non-identity in whilst continuing to recognise, acknowledge and respect difference (or differance ).

ie. the dialectic is always a negative dialectic. It allows for no simple position of affirmation.

 

[Binkie]

Are phildwyer and articul8 serious?

 

[Fruitloop]

Oh yes.

 

[Binkie]

Bly.

 

[Binkie]

They sound like dark age mystics.

 

[Fruitloop]

Spot on!

 

[Fruitloop]

Coincidentally, as far as I can see, all of the interesting bits of the dialectic can also be found in the I-Ching, where they're expressed with much greater clarity.

 

[Binkie]

For example?

 

[kyser_soze]

Coincidentally, as far as I can see, all of the interesting bits of the dialectic can also be found in the I-Ching, where they're expressed with much greater clarity.

I'd be willing to put money on it that most of the major advances in Western European philosophy (with the possible exception of the notion of human rights, democracy etc) can be found in ancient Chinese history...I mean face it, they did have a coupla thousand years of high culture, philosophy etc on Europe...

 

[Fruitloop]

There's nothing new under the sun, after all.

The main ideas present in both are the notion that linear (i.e. quantitative) change reaches a point where it becomes a change in kind (qualitative); that it's possible to know about things by proceeding from an abstract totality to the salient features, rather than the 'ground-up' progression from the particular to the general (i.e. reductionism); and that the tension between apparently incommesurable aspects of existence is resolved in the production of a new category which synthesises the opposing features of the first two.

 

[Binkie]

Is there a good (i.e. clear, simple, short and accurate) summary of I-Ching anywhere? I had previously thought of it as just a set of cards or symbols you read to help you make decisions. i.e. superstitious magic.

 

[Fruitloop]

Most of the stuff revealed by a casual google seems hopelessly sunk in new-ageisms. I'll have a better look when I'm not at work.

If you read any classical Chinese literature/philosophy at all ever, then I'd recommend the Richard Wilhelm edition of the I-Ching. I guess I should point out that what I mean by this comparison isn't that the I-Ching has all the answers (although it's definitely a fascinating book), but that as far as I can see the insights of dialectical thinking are pretty unremarkable, philosophically speaking.

 

[Binkie]

Most of the stuff revealed by a casual google seems hopelessly sunk in new-ageisms. I'll have a better look when I'm not at work.

If you read any classical Chinese literature/philosophy at all ever, then I'd recommend the Richard Wilhelm edition of the I-Ching. I guess I should point out that what I mean by this comparison isn't that the I-Ching has all the answers (although it's definitely a fascinating book), but that as far as I can see the insights of dialectical thinking are pretty unremarkable, philosophically speaking.

I agree with that last bit. Commonsense really.

 

[kyser_soze]

Is there a good (i.e. clear, simple, short and accurate) summary of I-Ching anywhere? I had previously thought of it as just a set of cards or symbols you read to help you make decisions. i.e. superstitious magic.

I've read you can read it without all the superstitious stuff attached - I don't know exactly how as I've got only the merest skimming idea of i-Ching, but underneath a lot of the 'inner mystery' guff of Chinese philosophy is some serious hard math and thinking.

 

[Binkie]

Can't wait to have a go. Just ordered it from Amazon.