Thread: A Dialectical "Theory of Everything"

Results 1 to 20 of 547

  1. #1
    Join Date Jan 2011
    Posts 225
    Organisation
    Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.], joined on July 4th, 2012
    Rep Power 0

    Default A Dialectical "Theory of Everything"

    RevLeft Sciences & Environments Section Participants,

    Marx wrote, in 1858, to Engels: "I am, by the way, discovering some nice arguments. E.g. I have completely demolished the theory of profit as hitherto propounded. What was of great use to me as regards method of treatment was Hegel’s Logic at which I had taken another look by mere accident, Freiligrath having found and made me a present of several volumes of Hegel, originally the property of Bakunin. If ever the time comes when such work is again possible, I should very much like to write 2 or 3 sheets making accessible to the common reader the rational aspect of the method which Hegel not only discovered but also mystified." [Marx to Engels, 16 January 1858]

    Marx wrote again, in 1868, that he wished to write a book on dialectics, stating that "the true laws of dialectics are to be found already in Hegel, in a mystic form, however. The problem is to divest them of this form." [Marx to Dietzgen, 09 May 1868].

    Marx wrote, yet again, in 1875, seven years later, and eight years before his death, in 1883, that once he had finished with the 'Economics', he intended to write on the subject of dialectics [Marx to Dietzgen, Dec. 1875].


    In the event, Marx did not live to write his "Dialectics".


    However, at long last, a collective author, "F.E.D." [Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica], may have taken the first giant step toward filling the gap that Marx's early demise, and Engel's incomplete "Dialectics of Nature" manuscript, have left open ever since.



    A new book has just been released by Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.], entitled --

    A Dialectical "Theory of Everything" -- Meta-Genealogies of the Universe and of Its Sub-Universes: A Graphical Manifesto.

    -- and is available via the adventures-in-dialectics.org and the dialectics.org websites --


    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Welcome.html

    http://www.adventures-in-dialectics....tics-entry.htm


    Texts preparatory to this book are available for free download via the dialectics.org website, especially from its "Primer" Page --

    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Primer.html



    I could be wrong on this one, of course, but I think this work may accomplish, for Platonian, Hegelian, and [especially] Marxian Dialectic, +, at long last, what Boole did for Aristotelian syllogistic, +, formal logic with his 1847 "The Mathematical Analysis of Logic", and with his 1854 "Investigation of the Laws of Thought"!



    F.E.D. is also the group that -- using its new "mathematics of dialectics" -- discovered, via a model of the historical dialectic of the human-social relations of production, the "Generalized Equity" // ''Citizen Stewardship Equity / "Citizen Externality Equity" / "Citizen Birthright Equity" conception of the new social relationship of human-societal self-reproduction that could succeed the presently-dominant social relation of production -- the [State-]Capital / Wage-labor-relation -- in the constitution of "Democratic-Communist Society" as a comprehensive Political-Economic Democracy, as described in the Theory section of the equitism.org website.

    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Equitism-entry.htm

    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Theory/Theory.htm

    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/The...cDemocracy.htm

    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Ame...overLetter.pdf

    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Ame...mentXXVIII.pdf





    Here's the text from the front and back "flaps" of the "dust cover" jacket [modified for this list's typography] --



    "A Dialectical "Theory of Everything" -- Meta-Genealogies of the Universe and of Its Sub-Universes: A Graphical Manifesto.


    Volume 0: Foundations [Edition 0 – December 2010, from F.E.D. Press]

    This initial volume, Volume 0, sets forth the foundations of F.E.D.'s dialectical-mathematical "model of everything".

    Synthesizing ancient themes of dialectic, <<autokinesis>>, and 'self-refluxivity' ['karmicity'], with modern themes of logical and set-theoretical paradox as "self-reflexivity", and of integro-differential equation "nonlinearity", evoked via both occidental and oriental sources from antiquity, and via modern developments in natural/social science, and in mathematics, this initial volume lays out foundations for a unified theory of dialectic.

    Foundations presented include a unified theory, by way of convergent immanent critiques, of the traditions of Platonian and Hegelian dialectic, and the consequent discovery, for the first time in human history, of a rich and versatile 'mathematics of dialectic'.


    This new 'mathematics of dialectic' is utilized to derive a seventeen-symbol equation, which models, qualitatively [via ontological categories], the dialectical self-evolutions, and 'self-meta-evolutions', of our <<kosmos>> as a totality, which also predicts a next major self-development of this <<kosmos>>, and which summarizes the dialectical "theory of everything" that gives this work its title.

    A dialectical, 'ideo-ontological' categorial progression of systems of generally 'qualo-quantitative', dialectical arithmetics, are modeled, using the second system in that progression, its first explicitly dialectical system, starting from "[FONT=Arial Black]N[/FONT]atural Numbers", or [FONT=Arial Black]N[/FONT], arithmetic, as purely-quantitative [implicitly, 'pre-vestigially' <<aufheben>>-dialectical via its Peano successor-function] first system.

    The second system is a 'purely-qualitative' [purely ontological], "non-standard model" of "standard" [FONT=Arial Black]N[/FONT] arithmetic [i.e., the first four, "first order" Peano Postulates hold for this system as well as for the [FONT=Arial Black]N[/FONT] system], with a 'contra-Boolean' algebra, founded upon a hitherto-unnoticed, strong negation of Boole's "Fundamental Law of [formal-logical] Thought".

    The third system of dialectical arithmetic in this progression is a dialectical synthesis -- a "complex unity" -- of the second with the first system, hence is a 'qualo-quantitative' arithmetic, combining the [ontological] ideogramic 'qualifiers' of the second arithmetic with the [implicitly ontological, or metrical] quantifiers of the first, [FONT=Arial Black]N[/FONT] arithmetic. This order of dialectical arithmetics progresses onward from there.



    Volume 1: Geneses [forthcoming, from F.E.D. Press]

    Volume 1 recounts the genesis of the new dialectical mathematics in detail.



    Volume 2: Dialectical 'Meta-Models' of the 'Human Phenome' [forthcoming, from F.E.D. Press]

    Volume 2 presents 'psycho-historical dialectical meta-models' , expressed via the new dialectical mathematics, which zoom-in on human-social constructions, including a 'meta-model' of the genesis of written language, a 'meta-model' of the development of ancient Mediterranean philosophy, and a 'meta-model' of the development of the "standard" arithmetics, starting from the [FONT=Arial Black]N[/FONT] arithmetic as "arche'".



    Volume 3: The Dialectic of Nature [forthcoming, from F.E.D. Press]

    Volume 3 explores 'self-meta-evolutions' of human society, modeled via the new dialectical mathematics, as processes of later natural history, including those of the human-social relations, and of the human-social forces, of human-societal self-reproduction.

    It also addresses the parallel development of related human thought-modes, including an historical-dialectical mathematical 'meta-model' of the 'dialectic of the dialectic itself', as well as detailing the development of the "Theory of Everything", "Dialectic of Nature Equation" 'meta-model' of the <<kosmos>> as a whole."



    Regards,

    Miguel





    F.E.D. definitions of special terms applied in the texts above --



    <<arche'>>
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...rche/Arche.htm

    arithmetics, non-standard
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see page A-33 in --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...%20A-1_OCR.pdf

    arithmetics, standard
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see page A-33 in --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...%20A-1_OCR.pdf

    <<auto-kinesis>>
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...-24JAN2010.pdf

    [state-]capital-relation / wage-labor-relation, as social relation of production
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    Citizen Externality Equity Rights
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Mission/Mission.htm

    Citizen Stewardship Equity Rights
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Mission/Mission.htm


    complex unity
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    contra-Boolean algebra
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see pages 12 through 19 in --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...UL2008_OCR.pdf

    democratic
    -communist society
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/The...cDemocracy.htm

    dialectical arithmetic
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...act1-1_OCR.pdf

    dialectical categorial progression
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    dialectical mathematics
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...act1-1_OCR.pdf


    dialectic of the dialectic itself
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see p. d-6 in --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Glossary_files/D.I.,Postscripts,Glossary%20of%20Phono-%5BNeo-%5DGrams,%5BD%5D_OCR.pdf

    dialectical synthesis
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    dialectical [sub-]totality
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    equitism
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see pages B-32 through B-37 in --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...%20v.2_OCR.pdf
    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Mission/Mission.htm

    Generalized Equity
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see pages B-32 through B-37 in --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...%20v.2_OCR.pdf
    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Mission/Mission.htm


    historical dialectics
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...Dialectics.htm

    human phenome
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...choHistory.htm

    human-social
    [self-]forces of human-societal self-re-production
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Theory/HeartSoulOfMarxianTheory/HeartSoulOfMarxianTheory.htm

    human-social relations of human-societal self-re-production
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Theory/HeartSoulOfMarxianTheory/HeartSoulOfMarxianTheory.htm

    ideogram
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    ideogramic
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    ideo-ontological
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    immanent critique
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/ImmanentCritique/ImmanentCritique.htm

    integro
    -differential equations
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    mathematics of dialectics
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...act1-1_OCR.pdf


    meta-genealogy
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/MetaGenealogy/MetaGenealogy.htm

    meta-model, dialectical
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    nonlinearity, of [integro-]differential equations
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...22JFEB2010.pdf
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...,12DEC2010.pdf

    non-standard model
    [of the "Natural" Numbers]
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see page A-33 in --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...aBrief_OCR.pdf

    ontological category
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-.../Onto/Onto.htm

    paradox
    , logical
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...FEA0E1%7E1.PDF

    paradox
    , set-theoretical

    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...,11JUN2011.pdf

    Peano Postulates
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see pages A-33 in --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...%20A-1_OCR.pdf

    political-economic democracy
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see pages B-32 through B-37 in --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...%20v.2_OCR.pdf
    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/The...cDemocracy.htm
    http://www.equitism.org/Equitism/Mission/Mission.htm


    psychohistorical dialectics
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-...Dialectics.htm

    purely-ontological
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    purely-qualitative
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    purely-quantitative
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    qualifiers
    , metrical, arithmetical
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    qualifiers
    , ontological, arithmetical
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    quantifiers, metrical, arithmetical
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    quantifiers
    , ontological, arithmetical
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    qualo-quantitative, quanto-qualitative
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    self
    -development, dialectical
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    self
    -evolution, dialectical
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    self-meta-evolution, dialectical
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    self-reflexivity
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...,14JUN2011.pdf

    self-refluxivity, karmicity
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...FED_LE%7E3.PDF

    strong negation
    [of Boole's "Fundamental Law of Thought", or "Law of Duality"]
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see pages A-36 through A-43 in --
    http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics...%20A-1_OCR.pdf

    sub-universes
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive

    systems
    -progression, dialectical
    http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/MetaSystematicDialectics/MetaSystematicDialectics.htm

    "theories of everything", dialectical
    no definition for this term is as yet available in the Clarifications Archive


    Last edited by Miguel Detonnaciones; 8th August 2011 at 16:42.
  2. #2
    Join Date Sep 2010
    Location North America West Coast
    Posts 1,670
    Organisation
    Misanthropic Humanitarians
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    in b4 Rosa.
  3. #3
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Miguel:

    Marx wrote, in 1858, to Engels: "I am, by the way, discovering some nice arguments. E.g. I have completely demolished the theory of profit as hitherto propounded. What was of great use to me as regards method of treatment was Hegel’s Logic at which I had taken another look by mere accident, Freiligrath having found and made me a present of several volumes of Hegel, originally the property of Bakunin. If ever the time comes when such work is again possible, I should very much like to write 2 or 3 sheets making accessible to the common reader the rational aspect of the method which Hegel not only discovered but also mystified." [Marx to Engels, 16 January 1858]

    Marx wrote again, in 1868, that he wished to write a book on dialectics, stating that "the true laws of dialectics are to be found already in Hegel, in a mystic form, however. The problem is to divest them of this form." [Marx to Dietzgen, 09 May 1868].

    Marx wrote, yet again, in 1875, seven years later, and eight years before his death, in 1883, that once he had finished with the 'Economics', he intended to write on the subject of dialectics [Marx to Dietzgen, Dec. 1875].

    In the event, Marx did not live to write his "Dialectics".
    From this we may conclude the following:

    1. Marx was not such an avid fan of Hegel; he did not even possess his own copy of the latter's 'Logic'.

    2. Marx did not write this summary of the 'dialectic method', but he did spend a whole year on that execrable book 'Herr Vogt'. So, obviously, this 'method' was way below in importance to his completion of 'Herr Vogt' (a book so bad, the Marx Internet Archive' will not post it on-line).

    3. Marx did in fact publish a summary of 'the dialectic method'; here it is:

    "After a quotation from the preface to my 'Criticism of Political Economy,' Berlin, 1859, pp. IV-VII, where I discuss the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on:

    'The one thing which is of moment to Marx, is to find the law of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned; and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and mutual connexion within a given historical period. Of still greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their development, i.e., of their transition from one form into another, from one series of connexions into a different one. This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx only troubles himself about one thing: to show, by rigid scientific investigation, the necessity of successive determinate orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting-points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and the necessity of another order into which the first must inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or unconscious of it. Marx treats the social movement as a process of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. ... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. For this inquiry, the one thing of moment is, that both facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form, each with respect to the other, different momenta of an evolution; but most important of all is the rigid analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolution present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether they are applied to the present or the past. This Marx directly denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist. On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has laws of its own.... As soon as society has outlived a given period of development, and is passing over from one given stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The old economists misunderstood the nature of economic laws when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under quite different laws in consequence of the different structure of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their individual organs, of the different conditions in which those organs function, &c. Marx, e.g., denies that the law of population is the same at all times and in all places. He asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has its own law of population. ... With the varying degree of development of productive power, social conditions and the laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the task of following and explaining from this point of view the economic system established by the sway of capital, he is only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that every accurate investigation into economic life must have. The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, development, death of a given social organism and its replacement by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point of fact, Marx's book has.'

    "Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?" [Marx (1976) Capital Volume One, pp.101-02. Bold emphases added.]
    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx...1867-c1/p3.htm

    In the above passage not a single Hegelian concept is to be found -- no "contradictions", no change of "quantity into quality", no "negation of the negation", no "unity and identity of opposites", no "interconnected Totality" --, and yet Marx calls this the "dialectic method", and says of it that it is "my method". So, Marx's "method" has had Hegel completely excised --, except for the odd phrase or two here and there with which he merely "coquetted".

    Miguel:

    A new book has just been released by Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica [F.E.D.], entitled --

    A Dialectical "Theory of Everything" -- Meta-Genealogies of the Universe and of Its Sub-Universes: A Graphical Manifesto.

    Available via the "adventures-in-dialectics" org website.
    This is unfortunate, since I have just shown that all such 'theories' are non-sensical:

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...28&postcount=1

    Synthesizing ancient themes of dialectic, "autokinesis", and 'self-refluxivity' ['karmicity'], with modern themes of logical and set-theoretical paradox as "self-reflexivity", and of integro-differential equation "nonlinearity", evoked via both occidental and oriental sources from antiquity, and via modern developments in natural/social science, and in mathematics, this initial volume lays out foundations for a unified theory of dialectic.

    Foundations presented include a unified theory of the traditions of Platonian and Hegelian dialectic, and the discovery, for the first time in human history, of a rich and versatile 'mathematics of dialectic'.

    This new 'mathematics of dialectic' is utilized to derive a seventeen-symbol equation, which models, qualitatively [via ontological categories], the dialectical self-evolutions, and 'self-meta-evolutions', of our "kosmos" as a totality, which also predicts a next major self-development of this "kosmos", and which summarizes the dialectical "theory of everything" that gives this work its title.

    A dialectical, 'ideo-ontological' categorial progression of systems of generally 'qualo-quantitative', dialectical arithmetics, are modeled, using the second system in that progression, its first explicitly dialectical system, starting from "Natural Numbers", or N, arithmetic, as purely-quantitative [implicitly, 'pre-vestigially <<aufheben>>-dialectical via its Peano successor-function] first system.

    The second system is a 'purely-qualitative' [purely ontological],
    "non-standard model" of "standard" N arithmetic [i.e., the first four, "first order" Peano Postulates hold for this system as well as for the N system], with a 'contra-Boolean' algebra, founded upon a hitherto-unnoticed, strong negation of Boole's "Fundamental Law of [formal-logical] Thought".
    This looks like an exercise in theoretical-jargon-name-dropping simply to impress naive readers. Either that, or it is just good old fashioned grand-standing.

    Clearly, no attempt is going to be made to address the serious logical blunders that this theory has inherited from Hegel (and that is probably because the authors have not spotted them):

    http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...96&postcount=2

    Volume 1: Geneses [forthcoming, from F.E.D. Press]

    Volume 1 recounts the genesis of the new dialectical mathematics in detail.

    Volume 2: Dialectical 'Meta-Models' of the 'Human Phenome' [forthcoming, from F.E.D. Press]

    Volume 2 presents 'psycho-historical dialectical meta-models' , expressed via the new dialectical mathematics, which zoom-in on human-social constructions, including a 'meta-model' of the genesis of written language, a 'meta-model' of the development of ancient Mediterranean philosophy, and a 'meta-model' of the development of the "standard" arithmetics, starting from the N arithmetic as "arche'".

    Volume 3: The Dialectic of Nature [forthcoming, from F.E.D. Press]

    Volume 3 explores 'self-meta-evolutions' of human society, modeled via the new dialectical mathematics, as processes of later natural history, including those of the human-social relations, and of the human-social forces, of human-societal self-reproduction.

    It also addresses the parallel development of related human thought-modes, including an historical-dialectical mathematical 'meta-model' of the 'dialectic of the dialectic itself', as well as detailing the development of the "Theory of Everything", "Dialectic of Nature Equation" 'meta-model' of the <<kosmos>> as a whole."
    Sounds impressive, until you recall that this theory has presided over 150 years of almost total failure. In that case, it is even worse than Ptolemaic Astronomy.

    So, this looks like a monumental waste of effort devoted to something even worse than the medieval picture of an earth-centred universe.

    In short, this project looks about as uselful (and relevant) as Thomas Aquinas's attempt to make Aristotle compatible with Christianity.
    Last edited by Rosa Lichtenstein; 6th February 2011 at 20:09.
  4. #4
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Amphyctionis:

    in b4 Rosa.
    You need to get out more...
  5. #5
    Join Date Sep 2010
    Location North America West Coast
    Posts 1,670
    Organisation
    Misanthropic Humanitarians
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I'm just trying to catch up to your post count (without dedicating my entire online activity to dialectical materialism of course) .
  6. #6
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Amphictionis:

    I'm just trying to catch up to your post count (without dedicating my entire online activity to dialectical materialism of course).
    And good luck with that one...
  7. #7
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,908
    Rep Power 60

    Default

    A few years back I made a point of creating an all-inclusive depiction of societal reality, based on the premise that all civilizations produce a surplus. This surplus, then, will either go "upwards" into the ownership and administration of the society's assets and resources, or else will be consumed in pleasure and pleasure-related activities. The "middle path" is labor itself -- in times of hardship there is no surplus so labor is then purely self-sustaining.


    [24] G.U.T.S.U.C. Lite

    http://postimage.org/image/19my5qxdw/


    [12] G.U.T.S.U.C.

    http://postimage.org/image/194apk0w4/


    [2] G.U.T.S.U.C., Simplified

    http://postimage.org/image/34ml2e61w/
  8. #8
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Ok, but what has that got to do with this thread?
  9. #9
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,908
    Rep Power 60

    Default


    Ok, but what has that got to do with this thread?

    It's an all-inclusive depiction of societal reality, so in that sense could be thought of as a "theory of everything".
  10. #10
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Yes I got that, but I couldn't see in what way it was 'dialectical'.

    After all, to saddle it with this concept would be the kiss of death for your theory, wouldn't it?

    Perhaps that's why you kept that word under wraps?

    A sort of guilty secret, or skeleton in the cupboard...
  11. #11
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,908
    Rep Power 60

    Default


    Yes I got that, but I couldn't see in what way it was 'dialectical'.

    Never said it was.



    After all, to saddle it with this concept would be the kiss of death for your theory, wouldn't it?

    Weeeeellllllllllll, if you cut me some slack, it's more like a *framework* rather than a theory proper....



    Perhaps that's why you kept that word under wraps?

    A sort of guilty secret, or skeleton in the cupboard...

    Don't *you* have a flair for the obsessive-dramatic...!
  12. #12
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    C:

    Never said it was.
    Well, that's why I asked "What's it doing in this thread?"

    Weeeeellllllllllll, if you cut me some slack, it's more like a *framework* rather than a theory proper....
    You can have as much slack as a dozen Rosa's can cut you over a wet weekend, and then some. Just as long as you leave the 'D' word out.

    Don't *you* have a flair for the obsessive-dramatic...!
    I'm about as 'obssessed' as Marx was over ending capitalism.
  13. #13
    Join Date Feb 2010
    Location The dirty South
    Posts 2,340
    Organisation
    STFU, GTFO, lulz, WTF, LMAO
    Rep Power 40

    Default

    I think it's worth noting that dialectics has never been officially sanctioned within the sciences. To give one example, physicists are still puzzling over the particle/wave problem of light, when a dialectical explanation or theory could be offered and tested for. Unfortunately, this will not do, as that would violate the law of non-contradiction, and scientists tend to shy away from such radical skepticism.

    But in all honesty, has dialectics ever really been tested as a theory except within the sphere of politics?
  14. #14
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,908
    Rep Power 60

    Default


    Hey, I can understand your crusade, really.... I've run into those types whose heads are practically cleaved in two because of the mental habits they've adopted....

    I see dialectics as simply being a valid cognitive tool, *as an option* -- my framework(s) would be other options as well -- whatever works....

    Since we're all chummy and shit now, feel free to take a look at some of my other works:


    Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu

    tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu
    postimage.org/ckaihatsu
    Last edited by ckaihatsu; 6th February 2011 at 01:25. Reason: activated links
  15. #15
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    EL_V:

    I think it's worth noting that dialectics has never been officially sanctioned within the sciences. To give one example, physicists are still puzzling over the particle/wave problem of light, when a dialectical explanation or theory could be offered and tested for. Unfortunately, this will not do, as that would violate the law of non-contradiction, and scientists tend to shy away from such radical skepticism
    As I have pointed out before on this particular topic:

    For example, dialecticians often argue that the wave-particle duality of light, for example, confirms the thesis that nature is fundamentally dialectical; in this case, light is supposed to be a Unity of Opposites, wave and particle. Precisely how they are a unity (i.e., how it could be true that matter at this level is fundamentally particulate and fundamentally non-particulate all at once) is of course left entirely obscure. Exactly how this phenomenon helps account for the material world is even less clear.

    Even though all dialecticians refer to this 'contradiction', not one has yet explained how and why it is a contradiction, nor less how and why it is a 'dialectical contradiction' (even if we knew what these were).

    Consider these two propositions:

    Q1: Light is a wave.

    Q2: Light is particulate.

    Now, Q1 would contradict Q2 if the following were the case:

    Q3: No wave can be particulate.

    Q4: Light must be one or the other, wave or particle.

    [Q4 is required or Q1 and Q2 would merely be inconsistent.]

    But is Q3 true? Surely not, for if physicists are correct, light is both!

    However, independently of that, there are plenty of examples of waves in nature which are particulate; e.g., sound waves, water waves and Mexican waves. So, Q3 is in fact false!

    Moreover, Q4 could be false, too. Light could turn out to be something else about which we do not yet have a concept. That, of course, would make Q1 and Q2 merely inconsistent. Do 'dialectical logicians' know what to do with 'dialectical inconsistencies'?

    But, even if in some way this were a contradiction, it does nothing to explain change -- unless we are supposed to accept the idea that the fact that light is a particle changes it into a wave, and/or vice versa. Are we meant to conclude that these two states/processes are 'struggling' with one another? But what is the point of that? What role does this particular 'contradiction' play either in DM or in Physics? At best it seems to be merely ornamental.

    [DM = Dialectical Materialism.]

    At worst, of course, all the problems we met earlier in connection with the DM-'theory' of change would apply here too.

    Now, if we put to one side the 'solution' to this puzzle offered by, say, Superstring Theory, there are in fact more than a handful of Physicists -- with, it seems, a more robust commitment to scientific realism than the average dialectician can muster -- who believe that this 'paradox' can be resolved within a realist picture of nature. [Evidence can be found at my site.] Whether or not they are correct need not detain us since DM-theorists (if consistent) ought to advise these rather rash realists not to bother trying to solve this riddle. This is because dialectics has already provided us with an a priori solution: since nature is fundamentally contradictory there is in fact no solution --, which paradoxical state of affairs should, of course, simply be "grasped".

    As we have seen several times, dialecticians are in a bind here, for they cannot, on the basis of their theory, tell the difference between 'contradictions' that supposedly reflect nature and contradictions that are the product of a defective theory, the retention of which would hold up the progress of science.

    This is just one more example,.

    So, if we listen to DM-fans, it could permanently halt the development of physics.
  16. #16
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    C:

    I see dialectics as simply being a valid cognitive tool, *as an option* -- my framework(s) would be other options as well -- whatever works
    How can it be valid if it's based on a series of crass logical blunders Hegel inflicted on humanity?

    Since we're all chummy and shit now, feel free to take a look at some of my other works:

    Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
    Will do.
  17. #17
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Impressive artwork, C! I'll look some more tomorrow.

    [Not too sure of some of the captions though.]
  18. #18
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,908
    Rep Power 60

    Default


    Impressive artwork, C! I'll look some more tomorrow.

    Why thank you -- feel free to critique away on the substance of any/all of it....



    [Not too sure of some of the captions though.]

    Holy shit -- are you like the cosmic arbiter of the entire RevLeft moral universe, or what -- ?!




    Photos are cool, of course, but they left the shutter open a little *too* long and those annoying, sleep-inducing photo captions got in somehow...(!)
  19. #19
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    C:

    or what
    Correct.
  20. #20
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 12,908
    Rep Power 60

    Default


    Holy shit -- are you like the cosmic arbiter of the entire RevLeft moral universe, or what -- ?!


    Masterfully ambiguous.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 25th November 2010, 09:54
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 4th October 2009, 22:20
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 16th September 2009, 05:08

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts