h a l f b a k e r yA few slices short of a loaf.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
*cont'd from my previous notes*
In another way of speaking, Materialist Dialectics is the study of, and the science of, contradictions, and of development/ change
When using this law in every day life, I find it easiest to ask myself when confronting/analyzing any given thing/ system/ phenomenon/ person/
idea/ process, ^where are some contradictions, or points of tension/opposition/mutually opposing sides or needs or properties? Which ones are the likely sources of movement for the particular system that I am analyzing at this current moment in time, given its external relationships to other things around it and connected to it?
(ie, an atom is defined by the unity of electrons and protons, a human economy is defined by the unity of production and consumption, a war is defined by a unity of opposing sides engaged in direct or otherwise civilizational confrontation, a living cell is defined by a unity of anabolism and catabolism, a wager laborer (in the scope of class analysis and class struggle) is defined by a unity of their human metabolic needs and the reality that they do not own their own means of production and thus must sell their labor power to someone who does (a capitalist), etc)
Which side will prevail in this temporary unity of opposing forces? If either? How long will the equilibrium of this contradiction last, if possible to understand? What are outside conditions and internal dynamics that are shaping and defining this contradiction? Can this unity of opposing sides be intervened in, and if so, what outcome would result for the overall system? Can new contradictions be introduced to disrupt/overtake the pre existing one(s)?
Just some food for thought for now, more to come in the future, specifically, in addition to the above, my understanding/sharing of notes of study on the Chinese Marxist Leninist Materialist Dialectical understanding of contradictions and their general properties and categorizations of resolution scenarios
3. the law of negation states that once a (any contradiction) is resolved/negated, a new one will immediately emerge to take the place of the previous one (again, in Materialist Dialectics, the viewpoint is fluid and is always relative/ie, the materialist dialectical method all depends upon which viewpoint of which subject we are analyzing, ontologically speaking, everything has its own viewpoint/ frame of reference to be taken into analytical consideration), either from within the dialectical subject, or from outside of it; as well as that whenever a dialectical negation* occurs, there will always be properties/ qualities/ characteristics inherited in the new subject from Both sides of the previous contradiction (the prevailing side as well as the negated side), this is called the property of inheritance in Vietnamese ML Materialist Dialectics
*the materialist dialectical definition of dialectical negation refers to a negation wherein some thing or phenomena/quality or aspect of a thing or phenomena, stops existing the way that it currently does and becomes something new, something other than what it was previously in time (this is as opposed to the previous European philosophical non dialectical conception of ^terminal negation^, which essentially states that once things or aspects disappear/ end, they are totally gone and have no impact on what comes after, which ultimately sees all processes as disconnected and misunderstands the dialectical relationship between rupture and continuity that the present has with the past that Materialist Dialectics centers in its methodological framework); spoiler alert: all negations are dialectical negations, this is just the proper, materialist way to understand the *end* of something as really just the end of a certain phase of a bigger, longer overall process (whatever is being analyzed), rather than metaphysical way of not seeing the continuing development and mutual impacts of a system or its relational components which occur after something is done/ dies/ ends/ terminates
Thus, whenever change occurs (changes occurs through the collective and successive resolutions of contradictions), there is always some kind of continuity to the past, as well as elements of the new.
Whenever another negation occurs after the first negation (from any frame of reference), the resulting dialectical subject will, in some way, reflect the earlier, first form prior to both negations, but also different, on a *higher* level (Marx and Engels referred to this as what in English translates to Sublation: which refers to the situation of simultaneously negating/getting rid of, transcending, synthesizing, retaining/ *bringing forward* the differences between two opposing forces/sides, into a new, higher form, the German word is Aufheben); the generalized way to understand this motion is that this collective process of undergoing two rounds of dialectical negations will cause a dialectical subject to have gone through a *spiral like* shape of development
So basically, change is happening all the time, and change happens in spirals (Lenin said this too!*)
Very basic example: 1 the dialectical subject (car), currently in a state of having the qualities of newness, shininess, being un broken, fully functional/ suitable for current needs in its current form, usable, etc, gets into an accident with another car (first contradiction) 2 our car emerges from this mutual impact in a new state reflecting the nature of the relationship it had to the contradicting subject (broken due to the second car hitting it; first negation) 3 after getting shipped to the scrap yard, the damaged former car is now processed into raw materials and now has the form of simple raw sheet metal (second negation/ negation of negation), this is no longer a car, having been dialectically negated and transformed into raw material, but now can be said, after having gone through another negation after the first negation of its previous identity, to have acquired a unity of characteristics of some of those of its first form (in stage 1 it was previously a car with the qualities of newness, shininess, suitability/ usability for its current form), but now in a *higher* state, or retained, but with differences, in its current state (in stage 3 it is now a sheet of metal, not a car any more, but now once again, can be understood as having the qualities of newness, shininess, suitability/usability for its current form, but it is also no longer a car, it is the same as the past but different at the same time, this shiny new, undamaged sheet metal will now go own to experience further mutual impacts and develop in other ways into other things, and so on, etc
*pretty much word for word on the last part
The point of this law is to see all things as not having distinct, metaphysically disconnected *beginnings and ends* but rather, as all being temporary diverse processes, which themselves, are mere phases and moments embedded within larger processes, which are always changing, even after one phase is *done*
What does it all mean?
Well, I like to think of them as having differences uses in practice and analysis:
Axiom: per dialectical materialism, every thing changes all the time
But what does this change look like? How does this change happen? When does it happen? Does it follow a pattern?
That is what these laws are useful for (to me, anyways)
*law of quantity/quality shows us ^when^ change happens (change does not happen all at once, it occurs as quality shifts happen, only after the sufficient amount of quantity shifts have accumulated)
This shows us the *architecture* of change, or the *shape* that the process of change/development takes through the diverse forms of matter that exist
Another way I see it is that this law helps us answer *when* change occurs
*law of contradictions shows us ^why^ change happens, more specifically the source of change in any system or thing, (change/ development is driven by contradictions present within and between all things, which are temporary unities of opposing forces)
Another way I see it is that this law helps us answer *where* change comes from, or more specifically, helps us locate the originating point of motion and change in a given system
This laws also helps us understand where the identity of thing comes from (its external and internal relationships, yes, but ultimately, the primary contradiction defining the thing or system at the current phase of development that is in is the source of the identity of said thing)
Of course, what the primary contradiction is at any given time is fluid and not fixed, and can change
Of course, any system or thing is composed of multiple contradictions, but there is always one contradiction which takes precedence over all the other when it comes to which one defines the system at its current stage and form (this is 101 from Mao Zedong Thought as well as Ho Chi Minh Thought)
*law of negation of negation shows us ^what shape the path of change/ development takes^, which is that of a spiral (after 2 rounds of negations, the dialectical subject now resembles its initial form, but on a ^higher* level); ie, because development occurs from contradictions which are resolved through negations, and then further successive negations after re emergence of contradiction, which causes all processes to not only engage in perpetual development, but due to the property of inheritance in dialectical negation (after a contradiction is negated, the result will have impacts/ characteristics from the negated side, as well as the prevailing side), change/ development does not occur through a linear process, but rather one that goes through zigs and zags, inheriting and approximating old forms and characteristics, but with new traits and under new conditions as well, hence the Vietnamese summarization of ^the new grows out of the old^
Another way I see this law, which is admittedly more immediately abstract in its capacity for practical application, is that it provides a ^blueprint^ for the general pattern of change (which is in twists and turns, not a straightforward teleological ^line^, in the form of a spiral, a nonlinear path of cyclic like circumscriptions of past trajectorial segments, but forward in time, always undergoing new additions and modifications alongside the old aspects
One way that the Vietnamese Marxist Leninist understanding illuminates about the application of this law is that, due to the property of inheritance, all emerging phenomena at the end of contradiction being resolved will inherit properties from both past sides of the previous contradiction, as well as due to a corollary of the law of negation of negation being that essentially, negations of contradictions can never be un done, due to the irreversible nature of the flow of time, but change continues onwards (not forward, that would be ontologically Euro centric, just onwards) through further negations of past negations; one should ^keep what is beneficial that is inherited from the past, and negate that which is not beneficial from the past^, this law reminds us to recognize the active agency that humans have in intervening in the natural, objective, and ongoing process of dialectical negation, and making it work to benefit ourselves and the world collectively; because of the property of inheritance of the law of negation, there will always be suitable things to keep and retain from previous contradictions and mutual impacts in the world, and because of the law of negation in general, negations can also be made to negate the unsuitable things retained from previous contradictions: understanding this principle gives us a guideline on how to go about leveraging the Laws of Change to bring about the change that benefits us humans as a whole (revolutionary science), which is also what Materialist Dialectics is
It is The science of studying and understanding the Laws of Change and utilizing them consciously to improve the world and our relations with the world and each other for the betterment of all humans (and all other*than*human*relatives, too!) (scientific revolutionary praxis)
So, there you have it, Materialist Dialectics in a nutshell. Essentially, the universal truths that all things are connected, all things are defined by their relationships, the change that all things undergo is driven by internal and external mutual impacts, coupled with the 3 universal dialectical laws of change, and these above 6 universal materialist dialectical category pairs.
That is the revolutionary scientific methodology. I only did not include the epistemology of Marxist Leninist Dialectical Materialism, this will come further down the line
I will be sharing more of my notes and fruits of my study of materialist dialectics, specifically with regards to the further philosophical category pairs not included here, as well as ways of grouping and classifying the universal relationships in materialist dialectics
I encourage you all to use these principles and methodological tools in your every day life, get some practice, use this methodology to locate contradictions and start solving problems for yourself and others. Spread this knowledge, the way our comrades throughout time and space did for me (again, shout out to our Vietnamese comrades)
The best thing about these categories and laws is that, because they are universal, they can be applied any situation, events in your interpersonal life, in the political processes and phenomena occurring around you, to labor processes, to technology, to other more particular sciences (hard and soft), to sports, to the food you eat, to the political economy we are embedded in, to social injustice around you, to movement and political formation and organization/ mobilization too.
Organizers, thinkers, doers, theoreticians, educators, agitators, activists, practitioners of praxis, students of any and all kinds, and those who want to see, and build a better world, all can benefit from this methodological and philosophical weaponry. After all, this world is currently being consumed by class contradictions emanating from the most gruesome empire to have ever existed. The whole world is quite literally at stake, not just humanity. We are most certainly in need of the right tools at this current conjuncture. Not just for our personal lives, but for the next seven generations, for our positionality in what is a still-saveable planet under what is an irredeemable political economic system.
Peace to comrades, love to all relatives,
All the power to all the peoples
[link]
|
| |
How exactly does this equate with a more inventive way of making toast while descending on a parachute down a mine shaft? |
|
| |
Hm on that particular hypothetical example, I would say that the desire to make toast may be contradicted, or in opposition to, the limited spatial conditions that the subject has while descending down the mineshaft, particularly depending on external conditions which may negate the ability to fulfill that desire (ie lack of light, lack of adequate materials, lack of preparation, lack of sanitation methods, lack of disposal, etc). This could be an example of identifying the primary contradiction of the situation (that is, the central unity of opposites which defines your situation descending down a mineshaft, whilst trying to prepare food suitable for human metabolic consumption, such a sandwich), an example of the law of quantity and quality here would be, once a certain quantity of height has been descended in your parachute/ vehicle that you’re being lowered down by, your journey will acquire the “quality” of being “complete”, therefore negating the central antagonism between the need to prepare a sandwich, and descending into a mineshaft, since now the spatial destination has been reached, laying the premise for further mutual impacts to occur with both your sandwich (if still made but uneaten), and our putative mine explorer in this thought experiment. A way to think about this using the law of negation might be like 1 human subject wants to make a sandwich, but needs to also do so while descending down into a mineshaft (first contradiction) 2 the human either overcomes the obstacles during the journey and successfully completes the task of inventively making (and eating) the sandwich, or cannot do so, and therefore must “wait for a better time” once the objective conditions are sufficient (time, materials, light, labor availability) (first negation) 3 then, once the sandwich has been eaten, now the subject must complete the journey of getting to the floor level of the mineshaft, or if the sandwich has not yet been eaten, once the descent has been completed, they can now continue with their task of sandwich-making (second negation) the step 3 (second negation) has the subject’s situation now “resembling” the initial step 1 (the state they were in in first contradiction), but on a “higher stage” now (the person started off with an not-done task to complete, namely, the not yet made sandwich, and now ended up with another not-done task to complete at the end of this particular process, namely, being done with the task of descending into a mine, and finishing one’s sandwich, now being tasked with physically exploring the mine and entering it to retrieve or achieve what one came there for in the first place (new contradiction). That’s at least my interpretation and application of it |
|
| |
What makes you think it's a hypothetical example? |
|
| |
This idea looks A1 (heh, callback to US MinOf(mis)Ed) sauce, on account of completely missing the point of the HB. |
|
| |
//What makes you think it's a hypothetical example?// |
|
| |
Vernon has met his match. |
|
| |
I want to wade into this to see wtf, but I... holy crap. |
|
| |
Can you give us a Readers Digest Condensed version? I gotta go back to work. |
|
| |
long story short-materialist dialectics is the science of universal relationships and change: it simply states that all things are connected and are defined by their relationships, and all things are changing all the time due to mutual impacts.
Thank you all for the feedback and attention |
|
| |
Well, at least it's not in other: general |
|
| |
//This idea looks A1// Those were and remain my thoughts, as confirmed by its answer to my parachute question. ie a complete inability to respond with any level of humour or invention ie a bot answer. |
|
| |
There are problems with making toast while falling down a mineshaft. These include the mineshaft's size, cleanliness, difficulty bringing necessary items along, and the lack of mineshaft trash cans into which one may place refuse, the ability to simply drop stuff notwithstanding. Extra words that don't add anything to the conversation, but sound good to people who demand they be present. When attempting to prepare food while falling down a mineshaft, you may finish making it on the way down and your work will be finished. More extra words. |
|
| |
You may have trouble doing this. You may be able to complete the process and then eat what you made. This is not a contradiction, but I like the word "contradiction". We can break this into steps by adding words. Having descended, with or without food and having eaten or not, you may be tasked with exploring the mine. |
|
| |
//materialist dialectics is the science of universal relationships and change: it simply states that all things are connected and are defined by their relationships, and all things are changing all the time due to mutual impacts. Thank you all for the feedback and attention// |
|
| |
materialist dialectics is the art of using long words in predictable patterns to describe what everyone knows in such a convoluted way that eventually doublethink can be achieved. Its opponents are simple words put into sentences which each directly express a single thought, these sentences being put into paragraphs with break the thoughts into useful groups of thoughts or ideas, and these paragraphs being grouped thematically into essays, stories and other methods of conveying information. The advantage and disadvantage of this "plain speech" is that you can't say "Let's all start hating the Tibetans and the Uyghurs" without coming out and saying it. |
|
| |
You can't say "The law of the unity of opposites is the fundamental law of the universe. This law operates universally, whether in the natural world, in human society, or in man’s thinking. Between the opposites in a contradiction there is at once unity and struggle, and it is this that impels things to move and change. Contradictions exist everywhere, but they differ in accordance with the different nature of different things. In any given thing, the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary and transitory, and hence relative, whereas the struggle of opposites is absolute" |
|
| |
"The most basic rule of existence is that everything is made of conflicting forces that are permanently locked together. This isn't just a political or social theory; we're telling you this is a universal law, like gravity, that applies to nature, to society, and even to how you think. It is the 'struggle' between these opposing forces that drives all history and progress. Therefore, you must understand that any period of peace, stability, compromise, or 'unity' is always just a brief, temporary phase. The only permanent, inevitable, and absolute reality is conflict and 'struggle.' Because struggle is the engine of the universe, engaging in constant political struggle is not a disruptive choice—it is the only way to be on the right side of history and in sync with the laws of nature itself." |
|
| |
Deprived of obtuse language, you have to outright admit that you're conflating the physical repulsion between two electrical fields and your political agenda. Not as a metaphor but actually believe they are the same thing. Deprived of obtuse language, you are unable to fill pages with justification for the people in charge to do whatever it is they want to do this week. |
|
| |
//problems with making toast ... include ... the lack of ... trash cans into which one may place refuse// |
|
| |
Not once in my life have I been foiled in my toast-making intent by the lack of a trash can. |
|
| |
“Ash is a goddam robot” Alien, Ridley Scott. |
|
| |
Science as a Weapon: How Fake Physics and Forced Confessions Fueled China's Cultural Revolution |
|
| |
During the turbulent ten years of the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), China's leader, Mao Zedong, sought to purge the country of any ideas that challenged his rule. This campaign wasn't just about political rivals; it extended into the specialized fields of science and philosophy. To achieve his goals, the Communist Party promoted a confusing mix of political dogma and quasi-physics jargon. Respected academics were forced to publicly support these bizarre theories, giving them a fake appearance of legitimacy. This strategy of weaponizing science was crucial for pushing the Revolution's agenda forward, creating a powerful illusion of progress that masked the chaos and destruction actually unfolding across the nation. |
|
| |
The Philosophy That Became Law |
|
| |
At the center of this campaign was a specific philosophy: dialectical materialism. As interpreted by Mao, this was the idea that all reality is purely material and that everything in the universe—from atoms to societies—is in a constant state of change driven by struggle and contradiction. For Mao, this wasn't just a theory; it was the supreme and universal law of nature. His writings on the subject were treated as the ultimate scientific truth, more accurate than any experiment or observation. This meant that any scientific theory that seemed to contradict Mao's philosophy had to be wrong. Science was no longer about discovering reality; it was about proving that Mao's ideology was correct. |
|
| |
Attacking "Bourgeois" Science |
|
| |
The main targets of this ideological war were Western scientific breakthroughs, particularly Albert Einstein's theory of relativity and the Big Bang theory. These ideas were officially condemned as "bourgeois"—a term for anything associated with the capitalist West—and "idealist," meaning they were based on abstract thought rather than concrete, material reality. |
|
| |
The attacks were not based on scientific evidence but on twisted philosophical arguments. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity describes concepts like curved spacetime and the unity of space and time. Because these things could not be physically seen or touched, they were labeled "idealist fantasies" that denied the solid, material world. The Party claimed relativity promoted a "metaphysical" worldview, which suggested a static, unchanging universe. This directly clashed with Mao's core belief that constant struggle and change were fundamental laws of nature. |
|
| |
Similarly, the Big Bang theory, which states that the universe began from a single point, was attacked for being too similar to a religious creation story. An idea that left any room for a divine creator was unacceptable to the officially atheist state. It was rejected not for its scientific flaws, but because it didn't fit the rigid political narrative. |
|
| |
The most tragic part of this story is how China's own scientists and intellectuals were used to validate the attacks. These experts were subjected to terrifying public humiliation sessions known as "struggle sessions." A renowned physicist could be dragged before a screaming crowd, forced to wear a dunce cap, and confess to being a "reactionary academic authority." |
|
| |
Under immense psychological pressure and fearing for their lives and families, these academics had little choice but to surrender their integrity. They were not simply silenced; they were forced to become active participants in the lie. They had to write articles and give speeches "critiquing" their own life's work, using the Party's approved jargon to denounce established science. A physicist might be forced to argue that quantum uncertainty was an "idealist" notion because it challenged the predictable, materialist view of the world. |
|
| |
Propaganda and the Illusion of Truth |
|
| |
These forced confessions were a powerful propaganda tool. They were printed in state-controlled newspapers and broadcast over the radio as "proof" that the nation's best minds had finally rejected corrupt Western ideas and embraced the "superior science" of Mao Zedong Thought. |
|
| |
This created a distorted reality. While the Cultural Revolution was causing schools to close, factories to stall, and society to descend into violence, the government's propaganda machine, armed with these "academic" endorsements, told a story of profound intellectual achievement. The confusing and technical-sounding jargon made it difficult for ordinary citizens to challenge these claims. After all, if the experts themselves agreed that relativity was wrong, who could argue otherwise? |
|
| |
The ultimate purpose of this deception was political control. By framing scientific debate as a struggle between "proletarian truth" and "bourgeois lies," the Party could eliminate any form of dissent. To question the bizarre critiques of modern physics was to question Mao himself—a crime that could lead to prison, labor camps, or death. This fake science gave the Revolution a veneer of intellectual respectability and helped justify its radical and often brutal policies. |
|
| |
In conclusion, the use of quasi-physics jargon during the Cultural Revolution is a stark example of how science can be twisted to serve a political ideology. It was a period when truth was not discovered but dictated, and where intellectual freedom was replaced with forced loyalty. The story of the coerced academics is a somber reminder that a society that forces its experts to lie is not only committing an act of intellectual dishonesty but is also paving the way for immense human suffering. |
|
| |
And there are people who want to bring the joys of the cultural revolution to a school near you, and already have to a much weaker extent. See also the long march through the institutions. |
|
| |
I asked ChatGPT to summarise all of this using hendiatris - it summarized as follows |
|
| |
"Contradiction, Motion, Transformation" |
|
| |
I count a victory over AI. |
|
| |