what does dialectical mean?

T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
craner said:
I don't think you're a lost cause, but we are not going to make it tonight.

One day you will escape the dungeon of theory and emerge into the air of the real world.

It is going to be amazing.

But not yet.
Click to expand...

like I said, I'm in the real world, you're writing book reviews for Dorien Linsky. get a life!
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
version said:
The thought of Craner turning Third into a Neocon is terrifying.
Click to expand...

It can't happen. neoconservatism and its accompanying new atheism ideology is dead. look at germaphobian's existential crisis about russia going to nuke glorious Europa, even though he clings to the skirts of that very same unfaithful Europa.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
version said:
The thought of Craner turning Third into a Neocon is terrifying.
Click to expand...

If I was ever going to become a conservative it would be the medieval kind, and that's even more dead than neoconservatism.

neoconservatism is just jerk rice of the real thing, This is what I tried to tell biscuits. he should spend his life in a monestary.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
version said:
Craner doesn't believe in the dialectic because he's a Deleuzian. He's even grown his nails out.
Click to expand...

convergence of anarchism and the IDF.

Hate to say that the ICP predicted this in 1953, but they did. thems are the facts.

But it is also clear – and here the anarchists do not understand, and the more or less anarchoid groups wrinkle their noses – that as long as the old mode of production has forces at its disposal to defend it, not only within the given territory but also outside it, the new State form will need bodies of armed men and a bureaucracy.
An anarchoid tendency appears in these curious words: «the power of the armed masses is no longer a State in the usual sense of the word»! Here, over Marxism, liberalism and libertarianism clasp hands in a romantic embrace.
Click to expand...

 
luka

luka

Well-known member
hes virurently anti. the teams are very clear cut. im very anti. death to the dialectic!
 
V

version

Well-known member
The whole work of metaphysics, the entire project of civilization in the West was to separate, at every opportunity, the “human” from the “non-human,” “consciousness” from the “world,” “knowledge” from “power,” “work” from “existence,” “form” from “content,” “art” from “life,” “being” from its “determinations,” “contemplation” from “action,” etc. — we put quotation marks because none of these things exists as such before it’s been separated from its contrary and thereby produced as such. Once this separation is carried out, and each of these unilateralities is produced, an institution will be assigned the task of maintaining them in their separation. The museal institution and its auxiliary, art criticism, for example, guaranteed on the one hand the existence of art as art, and on the other that of the prosaic world as prosaic world. A certain desolation ensued. Aesthetics then arose as an attempt to animate that desolation, to reunify everything the West had separated, but to reunify it externally, as separated.
Click to expand...

Hmm.
 
dilbert1

dilbert1

Well-known member
I used to puzzle over this piece so much. I credit it with introducing me to Simmel s essay on sociability which I still find fascinating. The bit about German idealism’s anti-plebian counterrevolutionary thrust is fun if a little cheaply scandalous. But the first sentence in your quote gives up the ghost that the authors have no truck with “dialectics,” that’s just more Western metaphysics (of course at the end they’ll still wink at Marx if they can make him rhyme with Agamben via Aby Warburg). This critique about dualisms they advance in different places comes from Reiner Schürmann’s reading of Heidegger which I own and have been meaning to read for years. I still find the general thrust of the essay raises interesting questions, even if it is a very one-sided and perhaps even intellectually dishonest position being sketched. Is Schiller virtually a fascist? It might still be an open question!
 
V

version

Well-known member
First things which came to mind for me were D&G's focus on what something does, and Sontag attacking the form/content distinction in Against Interpretation. Got the Situationists in there too in the art/life split. Hint of the Gnostics in the idea of everything being artificially fragmented and trapped in separation too.
 
dilbert1

dilbert1

Well-known member
Its a complicated question, these big conceptual antinomies. From what I know D&G’s approach, and possibly the Situationists’ via indirect influence of Kojeve, is very much informed by Heidegger’s. Tiqqun are Heidegerrian anarchists par excellence, following Agamben and Schürmann. I would ask whether these things are now (in modernity or whatever) forever irrevocably non-identical? If so, what can we say about their relationship, and what problems does this pose to us as such? Or do we see their ‘splitting’ as tasking us with a deconstructive restoration, an attempt at returning beyond these hegemonic epochal principles in crisis to a unification?
 
other_life

other_life

bioconfused
but precisely!
as i understand it: dialectical thinking describes "unity" as syntheses and unifications, also describes how "the diverse" must be thought precisely together to be thought at all - synthesised, inevitably yoked by the rubric-metaconcept "thought as such". dialectics thinks "one" and "many" as mutually reversible, together irreducible, mutually extinguishable and also co-constitutive. dialectics can conceive the imaginary not merely a phantom, as actually and really consequential. dialectics: the soluble maker of thought's sundry antinomies - the none-more psychedelic.
 
other_life

other_life

bioconfused
dialectics - mongering thought's promiscuity with itself (if thought is thought distinguished into a procession of levels: ratiocination-imagination-intuition)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top