An Emergent Order

T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
version said:
No, I don't. It seems like a lot of people learn about the stuff first then they subscribe to it and act on it.
Click to expand...

that's not how things work no.

what it is is people make use of past habits, rules, customes, theories etc, then use them in their understanding of the present, past and the future.

Only the actual recognition of truth comes later.

Which is why I said sooner or later Marxism will be relativised. It's by no means the end, the beginning more like.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
some notes on ideology I wrote for myself a few years ago:

even thus, the question of free will vs predestination makes no sense, because one does prior to knowing, it only makes sense in terms of a Godly authority. Oedipus and his father.

I.E: Luxemburg - one learns about taking power through the premature attempts, paris commune and Bolshevik revolution. but, without the enmeshing of this prematurity, power cannot never be acquired. No cold statistical bourgeois objective distance.

Luxemburg = position of woman, Burnstein = man. Burnstein is the obsessive neurotic. Luxemburg is the negative, Burnstein is the affirmation. Negative always pushes forward.

Flexibility = blade.

conspiracy to murder caesar = failure but precisely because Augustus = first caesar.

truth itself arises from misrecognition. Why did the Russian revolution happen? Precisely to progress to a pure capitalist counter-revolution.

Interpretation comes always too late, only when the event has lawfully repeated itself, or like a mechanical regularity (hegel.)

owl of minerva rises at dusk. All history and all recognised knowledge = hindsight.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
woman = the symptom of man. disabled = the symptom of the able bodied. The lack, the failure to be identical with itself. the negative which threatens and pushes forward.
why is there something rather than nothing is precisely a question that indicates that it a limit that reason has constructed itself = a symptom of enjoyment. knowledge is cruel.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
Benny Bunter said:
Yeah as long as you unflinchingly embrace it, it's worth it in the end.
Click to expand...

not that I'm going to beef with you but this is such a stalinist thing to say. there is no 'worth it in the end' for dialecticians, because an end is always a double negation as affirmation, call it a new beginning if you must, or a higher beginning. the concept is the same. In fact, this is why the ruling class cannot fully teach Darwin in their incubators of cultural propaganda. I'll leave you to dine with jugushvili and his friends from the seminary
 
G

germaphobian

Well-known member
thirdform said:
not that I'm going to beef with you but this is such a stalinist thing to say. there is no 'worth it in the end' for dialecticians, because an end is always a double negation as affirmation, call it a new beginning if you must, or a higher beginning. the concept is the same. In fact, this is why the ruling class cannot fully teach Darwin in their incubators of cultural propaganda. I'll leave you to dine with jugushvili and his friends from the seminary
Click to expand...

The problem is that dialectics as such, as I have tried to elaborate here, is entirely faulty framework.
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
version said:
No, I don't. It seems like a lot of people learn about the stuff first then they subscribe to it and act on it.
Click to expand...

In one point, however, the history of the development of society proves to be essentially different from that of nature. In nature — in so far as we ignore man’s reaction upon nature — there are only blind, unconscious agencies acting upon one another, out of whose interplay the general law comes into operation. Nothing of all that happens — whether in the innumerable apparent accidents observable upon the surface, or in the ultimate results which confirm the regularity inherent in these accidents — happens as a consciously desired aim. In the history of society, on the contrary, the actors are all endowed with consciousness, are men acting with deliberation or passion, working towards definite goals; nothing happens without a conscious purpose, without an intended aim. But this distinction, important as it is for historical investigation, particularly of single epochs and events, cannot alter the fact that the course of history is governed by inner general laws. For here, also, on the whole, in spite of the consciously desired aims of all individuals, accident apparently reigns on the surface. That which is willed happens but rarely; in the majority of instances the numerous desired ends cross and conflict with one another, or these ends themselves are from the outset incapable of realization, or the means of attaining them are insufficient. thus the conflicts of innumerable individual wills and individual actions in the domain of history produce a state of affairs entirely analogous to that prevailing in the realm of unconscious nature. The ends of the actions are intended, but the results which actually follow from these actions are not intended; or when they do seem to correspond to the end intended, they ultimately have consequences quite other than those intended. Historical events thus appear on the whole to be likewise governed by chance. But where on the surface accident holds sway, there actually it is always governed by inner, hidden laws, and it is only a matter of discovering these laws.
Click to expand...

When, therefore, it is a question of investigating the driving powers which — consciously or unconsciously, and indeed very often unconsciously — lie behind the motives of men who act in history and which constitute the real ultimate driving forces of history, then it is not a question so much of the motives of single individuals, however eminent, as of those motives which set in motion great masses, whole people, and again whole classes of the people in each people; and this, too, not merely for an instant, like the transient flaring up of a straw-fire which quickly dies down, but as a lasting action resulting in a great historical transformation. To ascertain the driving causes which here in the minds of acting masses and their leaders — to so-called great men — are reflected as conscious motives, clearly or unclearly, directly or in an ideological, even glorified, form — is the only path which can put us on the track of the laws holding sway both in history as a whole, and at particular periods and in particular lands. Everything which sets men in motion must go through their minds; but what form it will take in the mind will depend very much upon the circumstances. The workers have by no means become reconciled to capitalist machine industry, even though they no longer simply break the machines to pieces, as they still did in 1848 on the Rhine.

But while in all earlier periods the investigation of these driving causes of history was almost impossible — on account of the complicated and concealed interconnections between them and their effects — our present period has so far simplified these interconnections that the riddle could be solved. Since the establishment of large-scale industry — that is, at least since the European peace of 1815 — it has been no longer a secret to any man in England that the whole political struggle there pivoted on the claims to supremacy of two classes: the landed aristocracy and the bourgeoisie (middle class). In France, with the return of the Bourbons, the same fact was perceived, the historians of the Restoration period, from Thierry to Guisot, Mignet, and Thiers, speak of it everywhere as the key to the understanding of all French history since the Middle Ages. And since 1830, the working class, the proletariat, has been recognized in both countries as a third competitor for power. Conditions had become so simplified that one would have had to close one’s eyes deliberately not to see in the light of these three great classes and in the conflict of their interests the driving force of modern history — at least in the two most advanced countries.
Click to expand...


But precisely therein lay the true significance and the revolutionary character of the Hegelian philosophy (to which, as the close of the whole movement since Kant, we must here confine ourselves), that it once and for all dealt the death blow to the finality of all product of human thought and action. Truth, the cognition of which is the business of philosophy, was in the hands of Hegel no longer an aggregate of finished dogmatic statements, which, once discovered, had merely to be learned by heart. Truth lay now in the process of cognition itself, in the long historical development of science, which mounts from lower to ever higher levels of knowledge without ever reaching, by discovering so-called absolute truth, a point at which it can proceed no further, where it would have nothing more to do than to fold its hands and gaze with wonder at the absolute truth to which it had attained. And what holds good for the realm of philosophical knowledge holds good also for that of every other kind of knowledge and also for practical action. Just as knowledge is unable to reach a complete conclusion in a perfect, ideal condition of humanity, so is history unable to do so; a perfect society, a perfect “state”, are things which can only exist in imagination. On the contrary, all successive historical systems are only transitory stages in the endless course of development of human society from the lower to the higher. Each stage is necessary, and therefore justified for the time and conditions to which it owes its origin. But in the face of new, higher conditions which gradually develop in its own womb, it loses vitality and justification. It must give way to a higher stage which will also in its turn decay and perish. Just as the bourgeoisie by large-scale industry, competition, and the world market dissolves in practice all stable time-honored institutions, so this dialectical philosophy dissolves all conceptions of final, absolute truth and of absolute states of humanity corresponding to it. For it [dialectical philosophy], nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. And dialectical philosophy itself is nothing more than the mere reflection of this process in the thinking brain. It has, of course, also a conservative side; it recognizes that definite stages of knowledge and society are justified for their time and circumstances; but only so far. The conservatism of this mode of outlook is relative; its revolutionary character is absolute — the only absolute dialectical philosophy admits.
Click to expand...

 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
germaphobian said:
The problem is that dialectics as such, as I have tried to elaborate here, is entirely faulty framework.
Click to expand...

thinking is faulty is something @luka says, yes. but then both of you have to overcome thinking, which for some reason neither of you can do. so dialectics traps you in the cuckolded dilemma!
 
T

thirdform

pass the sick bucket
mixed_biscuits said:
Except mam has been singularly unable to explain the ideal from the material; the other way round is much easier.
Click to expand...

I was meditating on biscuits way of thinking today, it is actually proof that drugs are bad for you. he wants to run backwards in time and abolish the protestant heresy, everyone is waiting for him, as are the French people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top