The Dialectic at Church

The dialectic-geist was brilliant in church the last time I went (it is 600 miles from where I write).  I had not been there or seen them for a long time, and added to that the exhaustion of the work has made me a little manic.  The context, Occupy, forced some new thinking on their part; that the rank and file were being set up by leadership pretending to be pacifist, but with clear terroristic rationalizations in previous writing--if not terror itself.  No blanket judgements, which is what Christianity is about: acceptance and support.

Geist and Dialectic themselves also forced some new thinking for them, and I felt uneasy as I was forcing liberalism on them (country folk), and then forced them to see a secular definition of Christ: Geist.  Also, the Dialectic is well-entrenched into both Catholic and Protestant thinking, existing as an philosophically athiest parallel--something they perfer not think about.  They rather see themselves as seperate from the "fray" of common reality, but, they being spiritual, are the common reality.  40% of people go to worship regularaly and 80% make it for important events.

With Geist, there is a secular mirror of themselves that they can pray for and act upon, even militantly, in the scope of society's realities.  With the Dialectic, the very thing that they hate but humor themselves about can be ground down, because there is on Dialect in Scripture, as Scriputure forbids the antagonistic anger that the Dialectic uses to disarm the abstract, which is Geist-speak for spiritual thinking.

The Dialectic is so entrenched in religion and education (a favored job for the spiritual) as the didactic (a more efficent form for the lower masses) that they must have felt new thinking emerging especially in the context of the innocent of occupy being manipulated by people clearly identifying themselves as Dialecticals -- or Daleks!

I may have to back off the thoughts next time I attend, I feel I may have done too much good, something always possible with the elderly who don't really need so much in terms of deeds, more in terms of thoughts and good feelings.  But, it is never too late for the Christian soldier to find a new weapon against the violent zealot.

Comparing the Western and Asian Dialectics

Comparing the Western and Asian Dialectic -- as I am phenomic (or phenomenological--a branch of experiential thinking), I believe that if Western society was "civilized" (a process) using the Dialectic (a process), then something similar happens everywhere else, such as in Asia (China) and India. As empires, it seems logical that they would be empirical--which is the West is Science as it developed from Aristotle's Syllogism.

My first reading this morning confirmed that Asian oligarchy is Confucian (as you would guess), but did not produce a direct dialectic. Searching using the dialectic's partner word, the didactic, I did find many sources, but, interestingly, the majority of them were focused on "Confucianism for women."

Further, the family/communal trait of the typical Asian village that is universally attributed to Confucianism does not differentiate from Buddhism in current studies, which suggests to me that Asian village life is not necessarily related to Confucianism but has deeper roots that are not understood by Western writers.

However, in the end, Confucianist influence is no different that Socrates' and Plato's Dialectic; In the end, both are about government control. Just as with Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the influence of Confucius was such that a Chinese emperor had carve the core "Five Classics" in stone to prevent them from being maligned by politicians and scholars (same thing in ancient Asia) who would bribe official librarians to alter texts to help them alter the social structures.

As Confucius is associated with the creation of "civil service exams" (that were based on his philosophy) it might be suggested that he was purely didactic in his educational approach, which would put the Asian civilization development process at about the stage of the Christian Reformation--about a 2,000 year difference! Perhaps in Asia the "debate was over" and the social structure had settled into a mode of "respect for superiors" (which I differentiate from elders as superior suggests politics and elders family).

While Confucius seems to be ahead of Greek oligarchs in reaching didactic control, it is interesting that the Asian and Greek philosophers were near-contemporaries. (It is also interesting that the Buddha was also a near-contemporary, suggesting the possibility of communication between East and West that occurred somewhat "below the historical radar.")

The purpose of the comparison is to use each of the philosophies as templates to lay over the other to attempt to remove extraneous ethnicity-related traits so as to "boil down" a core philosophic process that is universally used to "civilize society." While the Greek oligarchs used the Dialectic, the Dialectic in Plato's example may not be different from Confucius' question/answer mode, where students would be satisfied with "the master's" intuitive answers, and then meditate upon them as homework. In Plato's dialectical interactions, the master was always right in the end, as he determined, through introversion, what was real, or his forms, by deliberately ignoring reality. Aristotle took acceptance to this (in his competing Lyceum) to initiate empirical science which is based on a concept of matter and utilizes observation and experimentation. (I have not yet discovered the Asian equivalent or parallel of empirical science.)

So far, the comparison has been useful; for instance, the use of empirical to describe Aristotle's science (which may really be Hypocrites') does not seem coincidential, it really could be "empire-oriented science," as we can easily see that the Confucian oligarchy exists solely to promote the ruling empire and to reinforce with didactic education whose leadership (of scholar-philosophers) is carefully filtered with "civil service exams." But putting the poets in control, Confucius was far ahead of Plato who foretold a day when all the leaders would be philosophers. Ironically, Plato reached his goal with the purely-didactic Marxist empire that, of course, swallowed Asia with Maoism that dislodged Confucianism after so many centuries.

Using Korea (Southern) as an example, Western oligarchy triumphed over Confusicanist through capital rather than communism (thanks to the Korean War) by displacing a single 1500-year-long Confucian dynasty. It is through Korea that we can compare the two Asian philosophies, oligarchic Confucianism and democratic Buddhism. From my reading about Korea, it seems that levels are family respect exceed both Confucius and the Buddha suggesting a "human" phenomena, or perhaps a "phenomic" philosophy that is purely natural, and hence ignored by the synthesis of both the Dialectic and Confucianism.

This suggests that Confucius, thus, only altered (or perverted) the ancient Asian morality for the benefit of the aristocracy, and, if he did, then there may be a parallel (though unique) Western natural morality that has been suppressed by the Dialectic (whose purpose was to likewise benefit the aristocracy of Sparta). If so, then that natural morality might be wrapped in the Pre-Indo-European (PIE) concept of "Menos," which initiated this learning thread nearly two years ago with my interest in the parallel evolution of thought, mental abilities, and language. Since neither Confucius nor the Dialectic are associated with evolution, then perhaps we have a "model" for the evolutionary fork called "de-evolution" (or devo) if such a phenomena can be described as a "model."

OpEdNews rejection: Anti-Dialectical writing is taking hits from the "Left"

I honestly believe that I am hitting a nerve at the very core of "civilized" thinking by extending my empathy writing to something the unemphatic can comprehend: the evil that is the Dialectic.

---

OpEdNews rejection letter from "Anon1020."

Perhaps unfortunately for your article, I have read much of the material upon which you based your article, and while their is a kernell of truth in some statements you write, as one would expect when you work from Wikipedia footnotes and other secondary sources, most of your article is incomprehensible or mere gobbly-gook.  The presumption that the Soviet Union was communist, without more, or your failure to address the concept of "praxis," within the Marxist view of philosophy, or to distinguish from the beginning that Plato fathered the idealist line of philosophy and Aristotle the materialist line, all demonstrate the weakness of the overall work.

That you attempted such a massive undertaking is admirable, but you will need to read and understand the subjects of your criticism to do it properly.  Take a look at Volume III of Marx's Das Kapital.  When you can read, if that is the proper word for volume III, and understand that volume, you may be ready to undertake a critical review of the history of the dialectic and Western philosophy.

---

My response to the OpEdNews rejection asking for more "world-view" information (and protecting my research) which, has been, so far, ignored.

Dear "Anon1020,"

You wrote: "The presumption that the Soviet Union was communist" (among other things) "demonstrate(s) the weakness of the overall work."

You will have to explain this one because all my reading indicates that it dogmatically followed Marx and Engels, and further, Trotsky, the "real

communist" to many, sided with Plato and his Academy by attacking the "abstract" that he found in Aristotle's (Lyceum) syllogism as much as any

Hegellite as being "vulgar."  (Hegel changed before he died to Geist.)

USSR spies, for instance, were party electorate who had to take four more months at the Marx/Engels Institute to assure that they were in alignment with the "Material Dialectic" as was English traitor Kim Philby as he learned it in Cambridge or Oxford and at CP meetings.

As I said I would be too happy to see your explanation because I must have a hundred citations by now that support the possibility of a remarkable direct line from Plato to Hegel to the USSR, and possibly China through Mao.  Also, what Plato (and especially Aristotle) said is largely conjecture

because the material was largely fictional (in the sense that Plato's dialogues were) or, worse, destroyed by the endless wars and other tragedies over the 2500 years since to be "interperted" by Roman Church or Reformationist clerics.

This is why I believe psychological recreation of the dialectic model (especially including the "material" and "historical" dialectics of Marx and Engles) with comparison to the dialectic/didactic development of other Civilizations such as China or the Hindu states is the reliable socially-scientific approach this topic--which is why I used Occupy.  No musty books, but actual real-time, immediately supportable evidence.

I think that we may be confusing "idealistic" (Plato and communism) and "Utopian" which may be attributed to Aristotle--but falsely, I think.  "Touchy-feely" approaches might be more linked to Hypocrites whom Aristotle only extended with Syllogism (as rudimentary empiricism with relational tables) using Hypocrites' psychological/psychiatric biles/temperaments personality model (which survived in some parts until the 1970s).

I would appreciate your comments (and to know who you are).  I say this because I actually think that you are arguing the same points from different angles simply because so many people have written so many opposing views.  If Marx's Das Kapital is significantly different than Engel's Anti-Duhring (which I have read) then Marx and Engels, themselves, were not on the same page, which is, of course, impossible.

My sources are all primary, especially Trotsky and the Hegel experts. (You may have read it too quickly.) What you saw (on the wiki-sphere) were to my annotated bibliographies; I was having trouble with the links and I am "parking" the document on the Beta Wikiversity. (I am going to solve that problem with "markdown" text management.)

Finally, I strongly hope you respond because I want to use your material as a critical response to my writing, but I cannot not do so fairly (to you) without more background on your world-views, experiences, etc,

Genuine regards, John

Farewell letter to John Penley

The critical inquiry into the occupy movement began with the hypothesis that "there is a copy of the problem in the solution."  A copy of the problem was indeed found, and it is the Dialectic. Occupy's John Penley assisted greatly identifying real-world examples of the problem in the highly-paranoid "Hedges faction" of Occupy. 

There should be no doubt that you contributed greatly (in a positive way) to the Dialectic VS Geist discussion (that describes antagonism leading to synthesis as the death of spirit and abstraction).  My inquiry was initated by a post of yours complaining about the dishonesty and divisiveness of the Occupy Wall Street leadership (Occupy is NOT a leaderless group).  This led me to Fithian's leadership training video and an occupier who very clearly linked it to the dialectic process.  With the, well, abstracted knowledge, I have been able to "sniff out" the formation process of Plato's "Republic" simply by a dialecitian's attack of a well-modeled abstraction (usually my own).

Old-school of protesting relies on recruiting numbers of bodies to assault high-powered meetings, such as the DNC, many of them admittedly "loosely wrapped." The problem is that mental deficiencies are at the root of the dialectic; Plato, for one, only believed what he saw in his head; he was disconnected from surrounding reality, opposed abstraction, and thus helped invent synthesis as a substitute for reality.  With the simply abstraction VS antagonism test, a dialectic can be exposed nearly instantly because he or she has no alternate stratagem to accomplish synthesis.  Often the antagonism is veiled, as it was historically during Plato's time, or now as part of experimental (or CBT) psychology.  Nonetheless, we know many of the attributes; we have just had difficulty centralizing (or abstracting) a model so as to exclude the part of protest that negates progress.

In short, I see that a disproportionate number of your "FaceBook friends" are dialectical (though not you, of course) probably because you need bodies for your continued anti-war efforts.  Further, there is a tendency to unfairly smear Obama, when in fact there are many opportunities to point out his weakness in ways that a) give Republicans reason to vote for him (DEA and capital bail-outs) and b) give him a good idea of where we want him to go.

The power of the dialectic for me is that it extends my Empathy Model, my life-work, out of my own mind and into the real world of the unempathic.  The empathy approach is only useful for empathic people, though, as the unempathic can't possibly conceive of what it is as they lack the necessary working neurology.  To them empathy is something to exploit either to get people to feel sorry for them and give them resources, or to leverage as part of a confidence scheme or outright ambush.  But, they definitely know what the dialectic is; that is their common tool, and they can now be addressed about empathy issues in ways that they can comprehend. (Invariably the run away, but watch your back(!), and it may be better to deal with them outright.)

The dialectic discussion gives a central point for an all-encompassing abstraction with which to model politics.  (This, alone, is a good reason for dialecticticians to attack abstraction.)  Dialectics also closely connects to the didactic method, and the two comprise nearly all instructional education (as seminars and rote learning), and most of psychology as well (as cognitive behavior therapy that is empirically derived).  Since this discussion expresses the same (whole system) modeling goals as the empathy model, the singular goal should be empathy (which we find in Geist).  So, if we implement empathy into protesting, the political model is not focus entirely on fighting the war machine (by going to prison), or focusing too closely on specific other causes (with the hopes of small victories while we wait for class warfare).  

With a well-abstracted model, a very small group can apply highly-moral actions against those who want to destroy all that is nice and natural. The reason this can succeed is that most people--as normal people--are receptive to empathic ideas even at a sub-language level, such as through body-language, and that the effect will spontaneously spread.  "Spreading the word" overtly should, then, lead to very quick change, especially if the group is able to adapt quickly to changes in the hearts of those in power, such as Nancy Pelozi's support for medical marijuana.  As things are, Pelozi's conversion will be ignored because, as one of your allies said, "all dems are warmonger-ers."

Shifting further to the empathy component (in that a successful group would have to be all-empathic), our social abilities (especially of love and the abilities of beauty) are evolutionary--Darwin said that.  What that means is that nature is central to the effort, and from support for nature, the industrial complex you are attacking will fall.  My Rattlesnake Rebellion model suggests taxation on corporate size, which would break up all the biggest corporations into smaller pieces (that would be more responsive and efficient).  Further, the size issue with respect to low empathy at the high levels of control, suggests that the only way to break the war monopoly is to break up the nation in to semi-autonomous states.  (This latter idea makes the most sense, but is invariably ignored showing the effects of the dialectic on political minds of otherwise sensible people.)

Needless to say, because I recognize the totality of dialectical control, I don't expect this message to you to have any immediate impact, but I am absolutely confident in its "correctness."  This confidence is supported by an old-school German who instantly recognized my writing about Hegel's Dialectic as describing the very worst thing that has happened to his country--Adolf Hitler's Nazism.  He also independently recognizes it in Occupy, my primary source of evidence.

Finally occupying the hypothesis, the dialectic, and closure:
First copy comes out, and was submitted to OpEdNews (which told me I don't understand communism, and has yet to reply about updates).


The critical inquiry "working hypothesis" is that there is "a copy of the problem in every solution." By studying the Occupy movement using FB, the problem, or "bit string," has been named: The Dialectic. The Dialectic is the "process of Plato," the original oligarch (anti-democratic) philosopher, but so is Western Civilization itself Plato's process... This is a complex topic, but not excessively so, just un-intuitive as it is hard to accept that the process of Civilization has been implanted itself behaviorally in nearly all of our minds. My work is pretty much done here with my writing on the Dialectic that shows how revolution tends to be even more Dialectical than the capital structure it seeks to replace--and hence Occupy's often presaged failure.

The writing is "parked" here until I can find a more "prestigious" place for it:http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:John_Bessa/Dialectic

Note: GS, below, is in/from Germany, Hegel's home and the land of "Geist," so his comments are especially relevant.  (He is also an excellent "old-school film" and "rangefinder" photographer.)

György Stiffel 

Puuuh, John, a heavy reading for a not native speaker. But your thesis about dialectic is right (somehow). Hegel and his followers are idiots (sorry) they are whispering in the dark of their theorem. 

The Occupy movement is a (another) fashistoid movement. All these leaders aim to get real political power to suppress the people and force them to accept theit leadership (like Adolf). The theorems of good old Plato were made for his class only - you certainly know that the ancient Greek society was only possible on the platform of slavery. So every kind of Hegelianism is based on a mystical philosophy without any gnosis. Read Karl Popper! The only thing the civilized man can do in this days is to be humane to his own kind and the whole creation. Forget power, greed and any kind of creed (salvation from above). My 2 cts. Amen

15 hours ago · 

Occupy Inflation/Deflation

Gary Goodman writes:

Deflation grinds everything to a halt, while debts remain in place and grow, people subject to bankruptcies and foreclosures. Creditors seize property, including public property of cities, etc.

He writes that "deflation grinds everything to a halt." Not entirely to a halt, as people have to eat and their hunger will drive agricultural restoration and reformation -- and food will get better! Schools can become constructive shortening time to PhD graduation to the time that the student wants it to be.

Deflation is a vastly safer alternative to violent revolution, which is the only other option, as debts can be forgiven, foreclosure outlawed, and factories given to the workers to fulfill local needs--railroads can be restored. They way many talk about the dangers of debt, China can seize tye US anytime it wants--which won't happen, obviously. So having read "obviously," a readers mind might move towards "rational" explanations of why China will not/cannot foreclose. This will not explain how it works, or how it CAN work, but will rationalize on behalf of it negating the simple fact that it does not work in that we are "cooking" our planet because of economic growth. So, in fact, a reader might be (a minor) part of the problem.

In simple math, growth is decline, and therefore, decline is growth, the return to the natural human minus all the defects (such as central domination), but keeping all the benefits, especially health and medicine. Underlying the problem is mental health, in that the sick are promoted to positions of control in ways that are supported by everybody, including the religions (prayer can fix anything) and the rights people (we are empowering the sick).

My signifcant recent writing shows, or really discovered, that the "method" of Western Civilization (our banking system), which is the Dialectic, was in fact restored to its Platonic and "spiritless" (or Geist) state by Marx and Engels, which suggests that globalism was "supercharged" with surplus communism made available by the "fall of the wall." Of course, it is the professors who teach the economists, and of course counsel the president, so they are an unquestionable source of dialectic thinking, but one has to look at the waste in (so called) China, to see the true effects of economic insanity to fully comprehend what is called "antithesis" (or anti-thought, anti-abstraction or even anti-God) to see the full effects of the dialectic tripartite.

• John Bessa think about it, deflation is a safe alternative to violent revolution -- as Penley is preparing for!
  

  April 27 at 10:15am · 
• 
  

  Gary Goodman 

  General inflation -- of both wages and prices --- allows gen population to pay off aggregate private sector debt with cheaper money.
  
  Inflation is friend of the debtor. Who hates inflation? Bankers, going back to Gold std and McKinley vs Bryan.
  
  Not about one individual debtor, but aggregate debt of US private sector to banks is 300% of GDP, instead of 50%.
  
  Deflation grinds everything to a halt, while debts remain in place and grow, people subject to bankruptcies and foreclosures. Creditors seize property, including public property of cities, etc.

  
  

  April 29 at 4:32am ·  ·  1
  
  
  John Bessa 
  

  You write that "deflation grinds everything to a halt." --  Not entirely to a halt, as people have to eat and their hunger will drive agricultural restoration and reformation -- and food will get better! Schools can become constructive shortening time to PhD graduation to the time that the student wants it to be.
  
  Deflation is a vastly safer alternative to violent revolution, which is the only other option, as debts can be forgiven, foreclosure outlawed, and factories given to the workers to fulfill local needs--railroads can be restored. They way you talk, China can seize us anytime they want--which won't happen, obviously. So having said "obviously" your mind will move towards "rational" explanations of why China will not/cannot foreclose. This will not explain how it works, or how it CAN work, but will rationalize on behalf of it negating the simple fact that it does not work in that we are "cooking" our planet because of economic growth. So, in fact, you are (a minor) part of the problem.
  
  In simple math, growth is decline, and therefore, decline is growth, the return to the natural human minus all the defects (such as central domination), but keeping all the benefits, especially health and medicine. Underlying the problem is mental health, in that the sick are promoted to positions of control in ways that are supported by everybody, including the religions (prayer can fix anything) and the rights people (we are empowering the sick).
  
  My recent writing shows, or really discovered, that the "method" of Western Civilization (our banking system), which is the Dialectic, was in fact restored to its Platonic and "spiritless" (or Geist) state by Marx and Engels, which suggests that globalism was "supercharged" with surplus communism made available by the "fall of the wall." Of course, it is the professors who teach the economists, and, of course, counsel the president, so they are a likely source of dialectic thinking, but you have to look at the waste in (so called) China, to see the true effects of economic insanity to fully comprehend what is called "antithesis" (or anti-thought, anti-abstraction or even anti-God) to see the full effects of the dialectic tripartite.

Occupy Hegel

Note: At this point the word dialectic as ringing in my ears in the early AM like from a dream as the phrase "aspergers empire" had many years before.  I knew I was onto something, and I did the first google search.


The first serious writing about the dialectic is by Raapana and Friedrich and they strongly suggest understanding Hegel's dialectic solely so that we all can communicate and come to agreement with out the conflict of "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis," and perhaps most important, come to conclusions that are not pre-determined; in other words, come up with something new. 

From: Raapana and Friedrich, http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html

Singly an important issue to me, is that existentialism is being used as a rationalization for poor Occupy behavior, such as heroin overdoses in camps. In the end, existentialism conflicts with Rogerian "experience" as does Vieneese constructivism; experience is nearly purely "new world" (suggesting aboriginal guidance) and the others are Socratic old-school.

While I find workable solutions in many of my mentors (nearly all of whom are humanistic), we really do need new ideas because the basis of all "restorative" thought is aboriginal, and, quite to our surprise, the First Nations are not necessarily "stepping up to the plate" in ways that we would expect, such as their continued reliance on casinos for sustenance.