Finally, this effort is feeling conclusive, which I hoped for from the outset 2+ yrs ago. With the discovery of the socialist emergence from the "Jewish settlements in the Pale," the pure negativity of academic oligarchy the possibility of scientific rehabilitation in an aboriginal context. Cultural "fleshing" will continue with reprints of currently-relevant recently-historical experiences, often gangster, while "the Pale" experience is solidified upto present revolutionary efforts. The hope is to create a hinge with which to restore revolution as evolution after the excessively long period of oligarchic occupation -since 500BC.

Then, probably, the entire blog will be consolidated and "put to rest" with the first wikified writing about the occupy dialectic two years ago.

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

No comments:

Post a Comment