Re: [workshop_fg] muddle (Georges') again

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

Hi lists,

I have three remarks only to rich Georges' below.

1.

First , G. in his list of Dialectic(al) items below starting from

Socrates, misses to remind Heraclitus, who preceded Socrates

in searching an element of unicity a synthesis) in the multiplicity

of Reality. This is but a minor sin. The major G.'s sin is but his

missing any Metanomski's "Dialectics" from that list, so that the

main question -- What does Georges' Dialectics stand for --

remains once more unanswered.

2.

Second, about Hegel's (dialectical) thinking, let me quote from

Paul Frejo "Summary of Hegel's Philosophy of Mind," freed in

Jud Evans'  Athenaeum Reading Room at

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm :

QUOTE

==============================

"2. There are degrees of reality within various phenomena. This is the origin of Hegel's idea that there can be degrees of truth in propositions. There are material phenomena and there are mental phenomena. Phenomena of mind also partially hide and partially reveal the truth. The study of phenomena is called, phenomenology, and Hegel focuses on mental phenomena, hence the title, PHENOMENOLOGY OF MIND.

OVERVIEW
1. The PHENOMENOLOGY OF MIND is a study of appearances, images and illusions throughout the history of human consciousness. More specifically, Hegel presents the evolution of consciousness."

[...]

2. There are degrees of reality within various phenomena. This is the origin of Hegel's idea that there can be degrees of truth in propositions. There are material phenomena and there are mental phenomena. Phenomena of mind also partially hide and partially reveal the truth. The study of phenomena is called, phenomenology, and Hegel focuses on mental phenomena, hence the title, PHENOMENOLOGY OF MIND.

OVERVIEW

1. The PHENOMENOLOGY OF MIND is a study of appearances, images and illusions throughout the history of human consciousness. More specifically, Hegel presents the evolution of consciousness.

[...]

15. Discovering the natural limits of Empirical consciousness, we arrive at a more holistic vision. We break out of the passivity of mere observation. Our subjectivity is just as valid as our objectivity, so Empirical psychology is not the final understanding of people.

[...]

4. For Hegel, as for Aristotle, there is a hierarchy of the Arts, where music and literature play the highest roles, because of their close resemblance with consciousness itself. Literature reveals the Word itself, the thought, the idea, exquisitely, subtly, over the long period of time of reading. Not just ideas, but clear ideas, personalities, relationships, conflicts, and even sacred conflicts and sacred ideas, over the medium of literature. It is through this medium, sacred literature, that humanity discovers the highest religious consciousness, the REVEALED RELIGION CONSCIOUSNESS. In this moment of consciousness, beyond natural religion, beyond artistic religion, the Word is uppermost, Morality is uppermost, Love is uppermost, with its promise of harmony, resolution, synthesis, cooperation and a positive feeling far beyond peaceful coexistence.

IV. THE PHILOSOPHER
1. With this last stage in evolution, one might think Hegel would complete his study, since Christianity, the apex of Revealed Religion by its own self-opinion, has been deduced and that is that.

2. But this is the point where Hegel confused his followers, and split them into Left and Right wings. Hegel saw an even higher consciousness than Revealed Religion Consciousness, and so, to some extent, transcended religion, which convinced some novices that he was an atheist, and convinced others that he had a higher vision of Christ than the average minister.

[...]

9. One may object that the Stoic and the Skeptic were also philosophers, and they are set much lower on his list. Hegel's answer is that the Stoics and Skeptics were mainly interested in explaining their own self consciousness. The religious consciousness is higher precisely because it focuses on the entire society with a certain tenderness and wisdom, tolerance and social understanding. Philosophical consciousness builds upon this social leadership only by providing its intellectual component. And when the love of the religious consciousness joins the analysis of the philosophical consciousness, the highest consciousness, ABSOLUTE CONSCIOUSNESS, is the shining result.

10. With Absolute Consciousness one may approach heaven. Love, Harmony, Wisdom, Social responsibility, experience, all converge in one consciousness, where one can glimpse the End of Time, meaning, the dimension beyond mere appearances, the dimension beyond phenomena. The goal of the Phenomenology is reached, then, in the transcendence of phenomena and the attainment of Noumena, Geist, Spirit, the Absolute. And what is that Absolute? It's conscious Love.

===================

ENDQUOTE

That's about Hegel.  Who -- even in Frejo's "Summary" -- adds :

============

QUOTE

"8. But it is one thing to have community spirit, and quite another thing to be excellent at it. To be excellent, one must be able to communicate to others the details of one's consciousness, and explain to children the reasons for State decisions. One has to be more than an example at this level. To be a superior social leader one must also be able to explain one's actions and motives and visions in detail, yet in simple terms. To do this one must once again rise to a higher level of consciousness, the PHILOSOPHICAL CONSCIOUSNESS.

====================

ENDQUOTE

[Emphasis (Bold) added]

Let's agree, that of "Being able to explaining one's actions and

motives and details, yet in simple terms", does not appear to be

Georges' very specialty.

3.

Third and last -- but not least -- point.

Georges describes Hegel as the devil, below:

> "Not only moronic, but noxious:
> via Engels, Lenin and Mao

Hegel presided the extermination of 100 million people."

Here, the polar dipole looks like presenting Hegel's Dialectics

as one of its poles, that of murdering the world -- and G.'s

Relativistic Dialectic as the other pole, that of rescuing it.

In fact, G. rejects any reference to Hegel as if it were the

absolute evil.

Nice -- but Georges goes on to replace [Hegel's] "Dogmatic

Logics" (say, his rich understanding of it) with his "Fuzzy

Logics", this way

> G.:
> Dialectic starts by replacing
> dogmatic Logic's
> exclusive OR with a fuzzy
> AND:

But G. does not apply Fuzzy Logics to Hegel's Dialectics.

Here below, Rich Georges  looks like stating:  EITHER

Hegel's Dialectics OR Relativistic Dialectics:something

else but the fuzzy AND - AND he pretends to advocate.

Is this enough to conclude that Georges preaches one thing

and practises another?  There is nothing new under the sun.

Hoping this helps,  regards,

antonio

At 16:50 +0200 21-10-2005, Georges Metanomski wrote:

> 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
> =======