Antonio:
I've considered Georges' "Relativistic Dialectics" three
chapters, starting of course from the "Introduction"[A], taken
as the explanation that would give the remaining discourse
an understandable meaning.
Let me but say first of all that I have been already questioning
Georges about the meaning of the term "Dialectics" which I
owe to Hegel's "Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis" reasoning[B],
and yet I've got no explanation from Georges of why he heads
his treatise with that word[C].
================================================
[A]: Reading is a tough, but sometimes can be useful. A fellow
knowing to read would notice that it's not question of
introduction to RD, but to a Part of RD "RELATIVITY IN PHYSICS"
consisting of Chapters: "Introduction", "Galileo and Newton",
"Aether and Dogmatic Thinking" and, still in editing,
"Special and General Relativity" and "Quantum Field Theory".
RD does not need introductions, but foundations, which are there
for years:
"Foundations in Physics", "Foundations in Ontology",
"Model of Mind", "Historical Foundations"
of http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/metanomskiindex.htm
================================================
[C]:Unblushing lie.
At times I still thought it worth while to discuss with Antonio,
I explained it twenty times and, anyway, it's there since years, in
"Foundations in Physics":
[polar dipole is a fundamental structure of human existence
and cognition.
Still, POLARITY and (POLAR) DIPOLE do not always sound well:
they seem to imply a `hard` scientific or technological context.
In the `soft` human context we will usually replace them with
better sounding, more `human` synonyms, respectively with
DIALECTIC and (DIALECTIC) DICHOTOMY. Thus "Dialectic" will be
for us synonym of "Polarity", "Dialectic Dichotomy" - synonym
of "Polar Dipole", "Term of Dialectic Dichotomy" - synonym
of "Pole of Polar Dipole".
Let us note that "dichotomy" is often confused in kitchen
language with "antinomy" denoting logical contradiction
between two statements. Dichotomy is not restricted to
statements, but encompasses all phenomena and its terms
are not contradictory, but complementary. Compass needle
is not an antinomy of contradictory poles, but a dipole
(dichotomy) composed of two complementary poles (terms).]
================================================
[B]: Poor Antonio, never heard of anything. If he knew how
to read, a simple click on Google would tell him that
"dialectic" is a rather general term pertinent to such
things as:
Socratic Dialectic
Dialectical Reasoning in Aristotle
Buddhist Dialectic
Sartre's Dialectic
Dialectical Biology
Dialectical Anthropology
Dialectical Psychology
Dialectical Sociology
Dialectical Ethic
Dialectical Behaviourism
Dialectic Inquiry in Methodology of Science
Dialectical Phenomenology
Dialectical Materialism
Dialectical Hedonism
Dialectical Objectivism
and finally Dialectical Metaphysics with the great guru
Hegel who justified it as follows:
"Whatever we assert about the Absolute, our assertion will
not be adequate and will call for negation. When we say
that Absolute is a Pure Being we do not attribute anything
to it, our statement is equivalent with saying that
Absolute is Nothingness. Thesis "Absolute is Being" leads
to antithesis "Absolute is Nothingness" and to synthesis
that Absolute is some synthesis of the two."
Andree Breton, or Salvadore Dali would probably say that
Absolute is a very small bird. We say that not a single
term of the argument has any meaning at all and that the
whole assertion is pure meaningless bullshit.
So, poor Antonio has chosen for Master the most monumental
conceited idiot of the history and, no wonder, his assertions
are full of moronic hiccoughs of this Master.
Not only moronic, but noxious: via Engels, Lenin and Mao
Hegel presided the extermination of 100 million people.
================================================
This is not to discuss with Antonio, but to clarify his
usual nasty muddle for people who could be sullied by it.
For us, as a thumb rule, Dialectic starts by replacing dogmatic
Logic's exclusive OR with a fuzzy AND:
For dogmatic Logic Light is EITHER continuous wave OR discrete
photon. For RD Light is wave AND photon.
But that's just a start. Then come new, unheard of, ways of
reasoning, like the reasoning by analogy which resulted in
E=MC^2 (see the chapter in RD site).
Georges
================================================