On Dialectis

[Volkov]

It looks like Rosa got pretty evasive in regards to my last paragraph, of which is a crushing indictment of her utter lack of influence, ideas, program, method, principles, ideas, etc.   

Put up in theory and in practice or shut up completely, Rosa. 

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Once again, as predicted, Volkov you missed a golden opportunity to defend your 'beliefs', all the while showing that I am a threat to the 'theory' you have swallowed by making even this pathetic response (if I were no threat you'd ignore me):

Put up in theory and in practice or shut up completely, Rosa.

[Oh dear, it looks like Volkov accepts the 'either-or' of common sense....]

Since your brand of dialectical mysticism has presided over 120 years of almost total failure, you are in no position to tell me anything.

Defend your adherence to ruling-class mysticism, or abandon it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My next Essay, which finishes my long critique of the Hermetic doctrine that change is produced by 'internal contradictions', and that forces can model contradictions in nature and society, will be posted in the next day or so.

The first half was published a month ago here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_01.htm

where I try to answer the vexing question: how many dialecticians does it take to change a light-bulb (a conundrum that not even Volkov could answer)? I will post a link to the second half later.

Both are far too scary for Volkov to read, unless someone holds his hand....

[cmdrdeathguts]

Well, as I noted earlier, I am in good company here, since no one understand it, and that includes you.

Once more: prove me wrong.

Now you really are talking a fine piece of logic.  How exactly do you propose we prove that we understand something to you that you (by your own admission) don't understand?  Who will judge - some learned third party perhaps? but no! NOBODY understands it, according to you.  So, in a few simple steps of typical analytical solipsism, we arrive at "nobody understands dialectical materialism - because I say so!"  You sure do love presuming your conclusion, don't you?

What was it Karl Popper said about us not allowing any evidence to count against our beliefs?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CMDR:

How exactly do you propose we prove that we understand something to you that you (by your own admission) don't understand?

Well, I have to say I do not envy you your quandary: since Dialectical Materialism is based on a mystical theory (allegedly rotated 180 degrees, but I show that this makes no difference), which cannot be translated into the material language of the working class (where the word 'understand' has its natural home). Hence, you stand no chance at all.

Every attempt to do so can be shown to fail (how? Read my Essay Twelve).

So, I claim that not just myself, but no one understands this Hermetic theory -- nor could they, since it is not a materialist theory.

Now you can reject or accept that allegation; but then I will still make it, backed up by lengthy argument at my site.

And since no one here has been able to say what a 'dialectical contradiction' actually is, I rather think my claim has been given a signficant boost by the comrades at this site (and the same is true at RevLeft).

In the Essay that this thread is about, I consider and trash the best account that I know of (if you know of one better, let me know) that tries to spell out in detail what this mystical notion means.

What was it Karl Popper said about us not allowing any evidence to count against our beliefs?

I have to say, I am surprised you referred to that cold war warrior and his useless criterion in support of your drowning 'theory', but even if it were sound, I challenge you to show you understand what, say, 'dialectical contradictions' are (never mind your entire 'theory') by explaining (for the first time in human history --, so good luck!) what these mysterious beings really amount to.

Once more, I doubt you can, but you might know differently.

[Incidentally, one demonstrates an understanding of something in several ways, but the most immediate way for materialists in this instance is to use the language of the working class -- ordinary language -- since that is where the word 'understand' originates, and is at home. So, in this case, to show you understand dialectics (or even the meaningless term, 'dialectical contradiction'), you will need to translate it into, and expound it in, the vernacular. Short of that, unless you have an idiosyncratic grasp of the word 'understand', you will merely have shown that you do not.

This is not to put you down; no one has been able to do this --, nor can they.]