thirdform

pass the sick bucket
I've always been drawn to sophistication, such as I imagine it. Hence the French, the cultivated post-african repetitions, banal politesse to which I am addicted. Etiquette.

But my point is that the Germans are sophisticated. Do you listen to a lot of French music? I doubt it cos its rubbish and pervy.
 

luka

Well-known member
who is going to explain this

What is generally considered unique to Mao is his complete rejection of
the third term of the dialectic, reinterpreting it instead as a proliferation of local
contradictions. The only resolution possible is the antithesis destroying the thesis, setting
itself up as the new thesis; there is no synthesis whatsoever. In a much later interview,

Mao would explicitly reject the Hegelian notion of “the negation of the negation” or the
synthesis as entirely unrealistic: he consistently privileges the antithesis, which
irreversibly demolishes that which it reacts against.
 

luka

Well-known member
explain it


121
His frequent references to “the dialectic” might appear problematic, even dated, because
in its Hegelian and Marxist articulations, it is—unlike irony—a triadic movement, with

the “synthetic” moment representing a stable negation of both thesis and antithesis.

based on a dialectical model of representation must necessarily confront the charge
of seeking moments of stability that will harmonize tensions, and ultimately gather up all
differences and disjunctions into an all-embracing totality.

Since “dialectic” is a term that

he repeatedly uses, it is important to clarify its numerical
value: in other words, to check whether it is an antagonistic dualism or a tripled

unity. In his letter, he is unequivocal about his interpretation of the

dialectic as an unresolved dualism closely aligned with irony:
I'd have to contest the disqualification of dialectic by reference to an implied
trivalent synthesis, since activation of consciousness by the contraventions of
attention precisely will not come to stable focus between cynical expedient and

mortified division, at least as I understand the use of a term like irony as

intrinsically unhypostatic and incapable of self-support. (43)



There is no stable middle ground where contradictory movements can be reconciled:
both irony and dialectic are thus not geared towards resolution, but generate zones of

being and knowledge for which unresolved tensions are the very condition of

possibility.21
 

william kent

Well-known member
It's pretty self-explanatory, isn't it? I mean, some of it seems needlessly fiddly, but the gist of it is that Mao wasn't interested in synthesis, only thesis and antithesis and the latter bulldozing the former, i.e. you have something, you come up with a response, the response destroys and replaces it and the process continues. There's no question of the two meshing and stabilising, one must always destroy the other.
 

luka

Well-known member
It's pretty self-explanatory, isn't it? I mean, some of it seems needlessly fiddly, but the gist of it is that Mao wasn't interested in synthesis, only thesis and antithesis and the latter bulldozing the former, i.e. you have something, you come up with a response, the response destroys and replaces it and the process continues. There's no question of the two meshing and stabilising, one must always destroy the other.
i reckon they're all wrong. i reckon dialectics is total bollocks.
 

martin

----
I'd have to contest the disqualification of dialectic by reference to an implied
trivalent synthesis,


Derrida literally choking laughing, pocketing philosophy students'lunch money.
 

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
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've concluded it's much much much worse than this, Deleuze and Guattari invented Keir Starmer. Tell Watson to write an article about this revelation please.
 

william kent

Well-known member
This thread's maddening. It's answered multiple times on the first page, but it just keeps going with everyone claiming nobody's answered as more and more variations of the same answer stack up.

greg-wallace-inside-the-factory.gif
 

germaphobian

Well-known member
Luke should know this as there's never been a Luka-Craner synthesis.

Speaking as an outsider, I have this theory that Anglos have done themselves a lot of favours with not dabbling in dialectics and all sorts of other eschatological, all-encompasing nonsense ideas of similar nature. All that stuff it's pretty much an radioactive poison that rots your brain; so it's kind of funny to see that continetal ideas are being perceived as a form of sophistication in England - FrEnCh aRe CLeveR - an all that. No, they are not, it's all bunch of foolishness for weak and impressionable minds.
I'm not Christian myself, but I still insist, if you want to leap into Oneness - then go there. All the other stuff is just nonesense.
 
Top