what does dialectical mean?

[luka]

and i suppose lot of people would think of dialectics as basically mummy and daddy have a child

 

[other_life]

inasmuch as anything is dialectical that is a dialectic but it is of the most prosaic kind. dialectics are best used for poetry and polemic. a transgender woman is a poem and a penis penetrating an anus, below which are suspended testes, is a polemic

 

[other_life]

and frottage is collegiate mental/verbal sparring

 

[other_life]

heterosex conjoins complementary parts to (ideally) reproduce the similar; homosex solders opposites for the sheer production of its own bonds

 

[luka]

heterosex conjoins complementary parts to (ideally) reproduce the similar; homosex solders opposites for the sheer production of its own bonds

and a kind of changing same, or stasis

 

[other_life]

and a kind of changing same, or stasis

"I hear your suitor coming. I don't know anymore what to say to make him leave forever. He does not have the means, my daughter. And what would he have said, your father? I will speak to him. He will understand that I do not love him anymore. He will never believe it. He will guess from my glance, or from my breath. So much time to embody the solitude of paradise, and so many efforts to capture the purity of this boredom. How my carcass would have yawned, if so many things had not interfered! Such a life, such a life. Look! Again? My God, just how long is this going to last? Patience: everything begins again. There are days when I tell myself childhood must be like this - to live, and relive, in spite of outrageous fortune. Patience, mother. Patience daughter. Everything begins again. Nous somme ici, nous somme ici. Nous somme ici, nous somme ici..."

 

[luka]

what do you make of Stan other_life? in some ways he is similar to you but in other important ways he is very different. eg he refuses to engage with anything 'negative' so capitalism has to be wholly good and the path ahead only ever leads to utopia. also he cant read and you can read.
interesting comparison.

 

[luka]

but both of you feel like creatures that could only ever have been created alongside the internet.

 

[other_life]

if by stan you mean clinamenic, i don't like that when i am trying to play a game with words he is trying to communicate his ideas. they could not be more different.
and furthermore:

In the case of Judaism, the faith system would seem to have those letters of the name of God integrated into the system of gematria, perhaps with the numeral values - of the characters the name, and of the characters of the syncopated name - carry some significance, derived from the infinity organ of the system, the place too hallowed for the map to cover, or even try to cover

speculation on the Name of God is no idle thing

 

[luka]

do you think you wil have to make him your sworn enemy then? that would add some spice to the forum.

 

[luka]

you could be the vehicle of gods vengence perhaps?

 

[other_life]

i don't want that. i just want him to play ball when i want to write poems about sodomy in the dialectics thread. dissensus is not a salon

 

[other_life]

and also don't bring Judaism into this it's a different thing, it's a headache to talk about. take it to Bible Thread

 

[other_life]

the Name of God is unifying and clarifying; dialectics splits what was whole disables what once functioned and ambiguates what was once clear [this is its use for us as a weapon]

 

[luka]

The pindaric ode was traditionally deployed into three divisions or stages of
development: the strophe, the anti-strophe, and the epode; this disposition was
rendered by the English poet Ben Jonson as the turn, the counter-turn, and the stand.

 

[thirdform]

Do you think it works well with western science today? The being being a biological system?

There is no western science. There is science as a material expression of the productive forces and development of productivity of labour, and then there is scientism as a crude empiricist ideology which contains it in its own academic (nonclass) field.

 

[thirdform]

The being studied as a system, yes, but still to keep the ideas distinct from their unnamable stimuli, our worlds - if that preconscious state is what is assumed to be more essential.

@thirdform Any similarity here to the distinction between sharia and fiqh? I assume those are general terms employed across Islam, and I assume you would know more about this than I, regardless of whether they touch you or not.

(edit: assumptions can be wrong, of course.)

I struggle to think of a similar distinction in Christianity, but I get a similar vibe from Judaism and what I take to be its reverent avoidance of the name of God. Keeping some heart of the faith system preserved from the interference of interpretation, a way of working an unmappable zone into the map, and often sufficing to account for infinity

No, it's the pushing of religion to its absolute limit until it self-disintegrates. Feuerbach wasn't able to go far enough here. Eventually religion ends up at the stomach and sex. God is only ever ontological, not physicalist, and this is perfectly in line with most judeo-islamic beliefs.

In his criticism of Feuerbach, who he nevertheless considers to be the most serious of the “young Hegelians”, Marx notes that Feuerbach is the only one who actually manages to handle the master’s dialectics and his negation of negation; but he criticises teacher and student alike, because their purely abstract studies are based only on the overcoming of religion through (speculative) philosophy, only to end up again with the sublation of philosophy and the restoration of religion and theology. Historically, this means that the atheism of the emerging bourgeois class concludes its parable with a new victory of the religious: in 1844 one called oneself an atheist without fear, today no author dares to do so any more.
Feuerbach here, as Marx explains, follows Hegel: The latter is therefore responsible for the infertility of the bourgeois-critical method. Marx says on this point, while setting up a scheme that unfortunately will soon be interrupted: “Let us take a look at Hegel’s system. We must begin with his Phenomenology, which is the true birthplace and secret of the Hegelian philosophy.” The scheme works like this: “Phenomenology. A. Self-consciousness 1. Consciousness. […] 2. Self-consciousness. The truth of certainty of oneself.” We do not need to repeat the schematic and hard-to-digest development here. It becomes clear: For Marx, Hegel’s mistake is to place his enormous speculative construction on a strictly formal, i. e. abstract basis, that of “consciousness”. And as Marx will say so many times, one must proceed from being, not from the consciousness that the I has of itself. From the very beginning, Hegel is in the cage of the hollow dialogue between subject and object. His subject is the I, understood in the absolute sense, and his object, the first object, is for him the “certainty of its self”, as it is also called in other places. “Hegel commits a double error”, which “appears most clearly in the Phenomenology, which is the birthplace of Hegelian philosophy”.
As can be seen from all the meaningful and dense passages, Hegel’s mistake is to start from the thinking subject, the mind that thinks. In the afterword mentioned above, Marx speaks of inverting the Hegelian dialectic, which is upside down. Finally, all bourgeois thinkers who put the historical act of the capitalist class into words succumb to the same mistake. Their I, their human being, their subject, in which they find one and the same absolute expressed, are only a fleeting peculiarity of the bourgeois human being.

Il Programma Comunista – Commentary on the Manuscripts of 1844

The International Communist Party’s 1959 Commentary on Marx’s 1844 Paris Manuscripts. While the incorporation of their implications proved a challenge with which vulgar Marxism would gr…

libriincogniti.wordpress.com

 

[thirdform]

one of the reasons marxist ben watson is so angry with delezue and guatarri (delouse and gut-theory) is that he says by destroying the dialectic they invented the transexual

I don't agree. Deleuze and Guattari's crime was inventing the American queer.

 

[thirdform]

the transexual is to be aspired to as a higher stage in a very real sense for all men. the problem is then the neurosis about the cis woman, because the man, (or even transwoman) for that matter, is still seen as insufficiently redeemable.

Here is the problem with abandoning the dialectic. Heterosexuality is reinvented, even if one is subjectively gay. the ideal of the woman and feminin becomes beyond all reproach, and a theological sacramant.

 

[Clinamenic]

Really I'm only just starting to learn how to not overconceptualize things. Think its been a major block in my understanding of Marx, that I unknowingly insist on starting from consciousness.