Re: RES: [workshop_fg] Le Zero et l'Infini

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

At 15:00 -0300 31-10-2005, Paulo Cancio de Souza wrote, in

reply to Georges:

> It is not possible to   obtain synthesis from opposite propositions.
> But I still have some resistance in accepting that it is completely
> useless. What I imagine is something like :
>
>
> Proposition 1         Proposition 2    Situation   Synthethis
>
>    A                            B                1          F(A,B,1)
>
>    A                            B                2          F(A,B,2)
>
>
> Synthesis relative to situation. I Believe that synthesis
> considering absolute were responsible for the inquisition principle
> you mentioned. (I wish you could point to some examples)
>
> F(     )  may be equal to A  or to B or to something different.
>
>
> It is good that you are back . I hope you stay longer this time.
>

> Paulo

>

Paulo,

I see the dialectics process as below:

Thesis 1             Antithesis 1           Synthesis 1

   A1             B1                       C1 (A1,B,1)  ***

The A1 - B1 confrontation-discussion-debate (i.e., Dialectical

Relationship) does produce some shared result, doesn't it?  if

we agree that speaking together has to have some meaning.

That is:

Once a shared "Synthesis 1" has been obtained eventually as

the result of an A1-B1 dialectical discussion, it becomes the

new Thesis (A2) within a further dialectics process, where a

new B2 should be welcome, leading to a Synthesis 2 (A2,B2)

and so on until Synthesis n (An,Bn).  ("n" like "infinite")

This implies that no Synthesis has to be taken as "absolute",

or finite, even! but as temporary only, to wit., relative.

I mean, what is responsible for any "inquisition principle", it

is no Absolute Synthesis - which doesn't exist really - but

the idiot Absolute Thinkers who took a situation as "absolute".

Example: if  President Bush takes J.C., puts him upon a flag

and goes to kill "the absolute bastards" all over the world, who

is responsible for the killing is not just J.C., but President Bush.

The same (absolute) situation seems to have happened with

Hegel and the Nazi, who put him upon a flag leading to the

Jews' holocaust.

It looks very much like "absolute" asininity, IMHO, charging

Hegel for the holocaust instead of the idiotic absolute thinkers

of any time.

regards,

antonio

*** more on the A,B->C formula of Dialectics at

http://www.flexible-learning.org/eng/einstein.htm

(next to be revised because of some useless references inside)

> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: [workshop_fg(at)yahoogroups.com] Em nome de Georges
> Metanomski
> Enviada em: terça-feira, 25 de outubro de 2005 14:34
> Para: epistemology(at)yahoogroups.com;
> workshop_fg(at)yahoogroups.com; wddm@world-wide-democracy.net;
> cicdd(at)yahoogroups.com
> Assunto: [workshop_fg] Le Zero et l'Infini
>
> ==========================================================
> In his "Le Zero et l'Infini" (Zero and Infinity) Arthur
> Koestler gives one of the best if not the best literary
> description of Hegelian Dialectic commanding Gulag and
> more generally any inquisition based regime.
>
> Let's recall Hegelian "reasoning" at its roots:
>
> "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."
>
> Koestler considers it as
>
> "... a fallacy as naïve as a mathematical teaser, and yet
> its consequences lead straight to Goya's Disasters, to the
> reign of the guillotine, the torture chambers of the
> Inquisition, or the cellars of the Lubianka."
>
> Symbolizing with Koestler the Absolute Pure Being with
> Infinity (I) and the Absolute Nothingness with Zero
> (0),
> we may
> epress "some synthesis" as S = I * 0.
>
> As many naïve mathematical teasers Hegel's Inquisition
> algorithm rests upon illegal dividing by I and 0. They
> are usually more or less cunningly camouflaged, but Hegel
> would not care. Whatever he deigned to assert was
> sacrosanct and calling it in question was a blasphemy
> banning you from the Temple of Philosophy.
>
> So, the (illegal) expressions
>
> S / 0 = I;  S / I = 0; S = I * 0;
>
> are seemingly true for any S and substituting for S the
> assertion "Inquisitor is always right", we have founded
> and proved the Hegelian Inquisition Principle", as it has
> been used explicitly, implicitly or by anticipation, by
> all inquisitorial regimes.
>
> NOTE: The whole discussion of Hegel's Dialectics has
> strictly nothing to do with the Relativistic Dialectic.
> My messages concerning it were meant as warning of
> Antonio's surprising promotion of this most asinine
> and criminal "ideology".
>
> Georges.
> ==========================================================