About the Dialectic

I believe that this writing is unique in that it is a non-theoretical approach to the Dialectic -- in some cases, it is not even an approach to the Dialectic, but focuses on (related) metacognition and the (embedded failure associated with) radicalism and revolution. The Dialectic came incidentally as part of an inquiry into the types of problems the Occupy movement would have called . A blog is an appropriate presentation because the inquiry was a rush to a conclusion, like with a crime investigation; I only added small notes to the original entries that I shared with the FaceBook group of the same name. FaceBook was the only source until I started looking for outlets; then my rejections, which were many, became sources.

I wrote a paper from the experiences (that is the best-supported paper I have written), Dialectic, and it was specifically this paper that received so much abuse. It remains a work in progress (to make it more applicable), but the core material is cast in concrete. The paper is temporarily here: Dialectic: Occupy critical inquiry.

All through the inquiry, I was looking for a conclusion and closure, but the inquiry remains a work in progress. At times, it feels as if it has concluded, and has a work-in-progress feeling that comes from a tendency to find similar dialectics (with didactics) in other places and cultures, as there is no reason to believe that "the West" has a uniquely twisted dominance (from phenomenology).

As the Dialectic is cognitive (as the Socratic method is the basis for Conitive Behavioral Therapy, or CBT), and Didactic teaching is behavioral (as it includes the "punishment" of poor grades and sometimes even beatings), then this writing has wide implications--especially if you are "phenomic" as I am.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Change.org demonstrates how progress gets subverted every time!


Change.org, far more than any other entity, defines "the problem within the solution" that (I believe) keeps us in the "squirrel cage" of zero-progress.  

Thus it fits the original "inquiry question" about Occupy's purposes and effects on the world, but now from the perspective of capitalist materialism, rather than Marx's material dialectic, and Hegel's and Trotsky's anti-abstract, anti-science approach which dominated my research.  I was initially disappointed that I could not could not show the dialectic as a phenomena by finding it on both the left and right-- now I can!

Thus, Change.org presents an unusual opportunity; corporations, as capital families, are highly private, but, because Change.org apparently leveraged a deception (identifying it as being Socratic) is continually forced to expose itself and its use of the dialectic method as I believe that all corporations use it.  Change.org feels compelled to expose not just its operations, but the individual minds of its important staff--such as its president's and those of high-ranking staff members --they make their thoughts, and lies, public nearly everyday.  

In short (I think) I will keep editing this page as I learn more about them.  Supporting material is presently stored on Facebook as "Boycott Change.org  (CLICK)" -- perhaps I should call it "Occupy Change.org" -- perhaps I should!  I am also certain this will attract attention to the importance of the "current dialectic" which is my one effort that seems to be largely ignored.

My recent writing about "defective domination" as evolutionary decline (on Op-Ed-News CLICK) has gotten good reviews, and nothing but nothing defines defective dominance better than Change.org's CEO/founder Ben Rattay -- he, and his crew, are permanently on my radar for psych-social real-time material as they never stop contradicting themselves.

My short history w/ Change.org is based purely on "petition signer safety:"

I accidentally signed a petition and immediately asked them to remove my name (Sat). Monday, they replied that "that they apologize" that "that option is not available." To me this is entirely a safety issue, but for most, the problem of Change.org is that it leveraged progressive activists as a non-profit to position itself for multi-million dollar investments from "venture capital angel investors."

Others have attempted to remove their names for much the same reasons, and some have been threatened by the target recipients when the lists were delivered (mine has not yet been delivered).

CEO and founder Rattay admits that progress was never the goal, profits were. He defines defective dominance by a) defining a fraction of a cent of profit as more important than a person's safety, and misleading the public about it . 

The organizations who use Change.org, such as Amnesty International, will not stop using it despite its being purely mercenary. This, in my view puts them in the same psychological and social categories that I am grouping as "defective dominance." Going further with this, Change.org needs to be stopped as it, more than any other entity, defines "the problem within the solution" that defines the critical inquiry into the dialectic that is occupy critical inquiry.

Reference material:
Click on images for sources


Admitted deception by CEO Rattay: 
  • "Change.org did not plan to reach out to its base of progressive users about the change" to a non-progressive business model
  • "Rattray has also recently been meeting with a number of well-known venture capital firms"
  • "Nothing big was ever achieved by taking the safe option" while talking about firings based on the shift from progressive to profit



Clay Johnson, an author and expert on using social media for fundraising, said he had “huge problems” with the Change.org model. “It’s dangerous to monetize ‘change’ because there’s an economic incentive to sensationalize."



Daily Kos author: "The only way this works for them financially is if they start hiring campaigners to run conservative campaigns working counter to everything we believe." (Acutally, Daily Kos seems suspicously pro-gun, hmmm...)


Ben Rattray (Change.org CEO) said his firm is profitable and hopes to bring in tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue within a few years" making "money by running campaigns for advocacy groups such as Amnesty International"

Change.org creator Ben Rattray self-describes: I had "no real ambitions beyond a career in investment banking"


Ben Rattray (Change.org CEO) said his firm is profitable and hopes to bring in tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue within a few years" making "money by running campaigns for advocacy groups such as Amnesty International"


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)