[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00436: Le Zero et l'Infini (Paulo)

From: Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)wanadoo.fr>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 20:05:36 +0100
Subject: Le Zero et l'Infini (Paulo)

=================================================
APOLOGY
Paulo's questions were addressed to me within
the Workshop list and don't concern other lists.
However, Antonio butted in, muddled the issue as
usually and had the strange idea to post it to
non concerned lists. I have no choice, but to
send this post with my apologies to those lists
hoping that the rest of my discussion with Paulo
will stay in Workshop, where it belongs.
Unless, if some members of other lists would like
to join, they will be most welcome.
=================================================
Paulo:
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.
=================================================
G:
You are right that "It is not possible to obtain
synthesis from opposite propositions" for the simple
reason that propositions not being chemicals don't
mix, react nor "synthetise", whether opposite or
not. What you may get is Conclusion, supposing that
your propositions are premises of some logical structure.

Now absolute Logic relates "opposite propositions"
with the 2 valued operator ORR (either / or) which
gives automatically the value "false" to the operator
AND:

"Light is continuous (field wave)" is true
ORR
"Light is discrete (photons beam)" is true
THUS
"Light is continuous AND Light is discrete" is false

Your "resistance" points to intuition of Polarity, which,
as we often said, is synonym of Dialectic in the physical
context. Your 2 "Situations" correspond to 2 "Observations",
"Observation" being a synonym of "Situation" in physical
context. Now, unlike the absolute Logic, Dialectic admits
AND for apparently opposite Poles (Terms) of a Polar Dipole
(Dialectic Dichotomy) and the above example becomes:

Observation 1: "Light is continuous (field wave)" is highly certain
AND
Observation 2: "Light is discrete (photons beam)" is highly certain
THUS
"Light is a Dipole (Dichotomy) having two complementary Poles
(Terms) or Aspects: continuous AND discrete" is highly certain.
=================================================
Here some examples of Hegelian structure of inquisitions:

Inquisitor suspects a woman of being a witch and exposes
her to God's Judgement by throwing her into the river.
Thesis:
If she swims, then the Devil helped her and she will
be burned.
Antithesis:
If she drowns, than she is innocent and will go to
heaven.
Synthesis:
Whomever the Inquisitor suspects shall die.

Inquisitor compels a rabbi to discuss the dogma of
Christ being Messiah, which Jews negate.
Rabbi asserts that the Bible promises peace, love
and happiness after Messiah's arrival, which is
contradicted by current situation of the world.
If the Inquisitor finds Rabbi's arguments convincing,
then it's Devil talking through Rabbi's mouth.
Else, the Rabbi negates in false and blasphemous way
the obvious dogma.
In both cases a Jew selected by the Inquisitor shall
be burned.

Chief Inquisitor wants a show process and accuses
a Minor Inquisitor of being a lackey of American
Imperialism. Everybody knows that the Minor Inquisitor
is a devoted communist who dedicated his whole
life to the Cause, suffered for it hard sacrifices
and risked for it his life. So factually and logically
the accusation does not hold. However, the Hegelian
Dialectic justifies it perfectly:
The Proletariat is in war against Imperialism.
The show processes, as the Minor Inquisitor knows from
his own Dialectic practice, are a necessary weapon
in the hands of the Proletariat's Dictatorship.
So, refusing to confess to being a lackey of Imperialism,
is tantamount to desert the Case, and thus to be a
lackey of Imperialism.
Finally, in order not to serve Imperialism, the devoted
Minor Inquisitor confesses to serve Imperialism and dies
in Lubianka cellar, in the supreme endeavor to serve the
Case as its traitor.
=================================================
Now, to keep the record straight and to clean a bit our
Workshop:

I never made Hegel responsible for Gulag and Holocaust.
What I said is that in his unlimited conceit he used
his incontestable genius (because it took a genius) to
create such a monumental, unequaled pile of bullshit.

Other guys saw in his idiotic, but impressing and highbrow
Dialectic a perfect tool to manipulate bandwagons. And
while it's true that bandwagons were composed of "idiotic
absolute thinkers", the drivers were nothing of the kind.
Just to mention Heydrich with his "wer Jude ist entscheide
ich", SS General Theodor Eicke with his "Arbeit macht Frei",
Rosa Luxemburg who conceived the Gulag version thereof and,
of course, the top leaders, Hitlers, Lenins, Dzierzynskis,
Stalins, Himmlers, Berias, Maos, etc. They were all cunning
hard headed managers of socio-political business using
Hegel's bullshit as efficient oppression tool without
believing a word of it.

These few lines having hopefully cleaned up the trash
I suggest to stop losing time discussing bullshit and
return to the rational mainstream of our Workshop.

Georges.
=================================================



[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]