what does dialectical mean?

[other_life]

wooden trichotomies and liberal platitudes!
the dialectic is about bring a crisis to bear -inside- the twofoldedness of thought and the twofoldedness of all things [via uniqueness of the unity of H"], often (but not always) so that the one opposing pole overcomes the other, and yet both are changed in the encounter.
the peace of a mutually assimilating 'synthesis' is by no means guaranteed or even desirable in all cases [though it is said justice and love will meet, truth and peace will kiss].
it is about how opposites are mutually constitutive of each other [via -joining- property of unity of H"]

 

[other_life]

a dialectical encounter/a Moment in a dialectic is when an impoverished people in bondage come into a freedom and a prosperity, and -themselves- become ostentatious slavedrivers - an image of their oppressors, but transformed, on another level. an example of the dialectic is that 'the righteous' and 'the wicked' are the same man, but viewed from two sides.

 

[other_life]

a dialectic is -any- twofold and what we say about the dialectic to strain to define it is redundant or evades paying rent/getting at what a dialectic concretely looks like. the dialectic is pornography, obscene, i know it when i see it.

 

[Clinamenic]

a dialectic is -any- twofold and what we say about the dialectic to strain to define it is redundant or evades paying rent/getting at what a dialectic concretely looks like. the dialectic is pornography, obscene, i know it when i see it.

Are you Justin Murphy? Its been unclear to me ever since I encountered your presence here.

 

[luka]

absolutely not justin murphy god forbid. other life is a very famous musician from america.

 

[version]

After reading this thread, I think I was a bit harsh here and missed what he was doing;

... stuff like the bit at the start of Illusion of the End I mentioned in another thread where he suggests one thing then suggests the complete opposite does make me think of that Art Bollocks essay and the point about avoiding ever coming to a conclusion.

 

[other_life]

"14 May - Double and triple metaphors are no coincidence. They mean the intuition of the two and the three as spoken - they are incapable of modern thought, because the concept of the singular eludes them. They are convinced that one is an even number, so that regression is infinite." - Raul Ruiz, On Top of the Whale

 

[sus]

https://theinexactsciences.github.io/docs/Discursive%20Games,%20Discursive%20Warfare.pdf

 

[luka]

https://theinexactsciences.github.io/docs/Discursive%20Games,%20Discursive%20Warfare.pdf

unreadable

 

[linebaugh]

@Elvis

 

[thirdform]

explain what you mean when you use the word. dont quote a wikipedia entry. i want peoples personal and idiosyncratic interpretations.
its the most commonly used word on twitter but what do people really mean by it?

Without getting into the Hegelian version it's the style of reasoning which was used in old Aristotelian and scholastic philosophies. You have a phenomenon, its contradictions, then you arrive at the totality by understanding how such contradictions are generated.

This is different to the legal style of argument which is premise x amount = conclusion. It's more, what undergirds such premises?

 

[thirdform]

what i don't get is that theory and practice don't appear to be opposed

In Hegel's system the opposites are unified in their contradictoriness. This is why the synthesis as it were negates the binary opposition and results in a qualitative leap. Hence the negation of the prior negation.

 

[version]

I saw someone earlier claiming "the liberal mind" can't deal with dialectics because it's too steeped in brand affiliation to distinguish "connected to" from "supportive of".

 

[thirdform]

Like the dialogue between labor power and capitalists, where perhaps the better word is just dialogue. The tactics employed by one side partially shape and are partially shaped by the tactics employed by the other side.

It seems "dialectical" is often used to describe these situations, which don't seem to resemble the dialectical method as such.

Dialogue seems too voluntary. I'm not sure if you have read Banaji's article on the fictions of free labour. But it punctuates that assumption in a lot of Trotskyist marxism that capitalism solely can be said to be extant when there is nothing but free labour.

 

[thirdform]

In Hegel's system the opposites are unified in their contradictoriness. This is why the synthesis as it were negates the binary opposition and results in a qualitative leap. Hence the negation of the prior negation.

In fact, the thesis synthesis antithesis is not to be found in hegel's schema. That has more to do with Fichte. So to rib on d'laurent, all dialectical transformations possess a negative content in Hegel. That is what Adorno is trying to reclaim in that book. When you negate the already negated, you get a positive which then also acts as a negative in its very contradictoriness which then can also be subjected to another negation, which leads to another positive stage of development.

The way Mao put it was 1 divides into 2. Whilst I think that isn't fully correct, it can be right if we account for Mao's colossal error, namely that he wasn't able to realise that 2 multiplies into 1. So we are speaking of dual movement here.

 

[linebaugh]

I saw someone earlier claiming "the liberal mind" can't deal with dialectics because it's too steeped in brand affiliation to distinguish "connected to" from "supportive of".

Dont know entirely what Im getting at here but I was talking to a buddy about the difference between liberal affiliation to branding and conservative affiliation to ideologues recently. Which suggests some difference between the two as at a glance conservatives do seem less prone to the supporting-of/connected-to trap despite being as steadfastly invested in their ideologues as liberals are to branding.

 

[linebaugh]

thinking about it, its probably as simple as both are equally 'steeped in brand affiliation' but conservative investment in monad like ideologues gives them more flexibility to navigate contradictions, a piece of land to return to.

 

[version]

You have to take into account that basically every major brand in America favours liberals too. It's not like conservatives have much choice other than to flock to an ideologue. They don't even like Fox or the GOP these days.

 

[thirdform]

I saw someone earlier claiming "the liberal mind" can't deal with dialectics because it's too steeped in brand affiliation to distinguish "connected to" from "supportive of".

Liberalism is all ideology with no organisation. That's why it is so susceptible to branding.

 

[version]

Liberalism is all ideology with no organisation. That's why it is so susceptible to branding.

There was a follow up to the thing I mentioned above saying liberalism is partly a rejection of dialectics because "the liberal individual exists as an atom with agency not shaped by anything else".

They were attacking "self-identified communists who have adopted communism as a personal brand through liberal identification".