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

00437: Re: Le Zero et l'Infini (Georges)

From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 09:07:31 +0100
Subject: Re: Le Zero et l'Infini (Georges)

At 20:05 +0100 1-11-2005, Georges Metanomski wrote:
>=================================================
>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.

All list are concerned with knowledge.  Do not judge
what can concern others, and what cannot. Let please
the members pick up what they find it concerning to
them and trash what it is not.


> 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.


(snip)

>
> 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.
>

Rather that introducing the paradox of Russell's "Liar",
better you analyze the paradox of yourself.

At 19:34 +0200 25-10-2005, Georges Metanomski wrote
to epistemology, workshop_fg,
wddm, cicdd(at)yahoogroups.com M-lists, with Subject:
Le Zero et l'Infini:

QUOTE
************************************
> 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.
>
(snip)

>
> 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.
*************************************
ENDQUOTE

Paradoxical thinking indeed, Georges?   q. e. d.

(Georges continues:)
> 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.

Well, I wonder why a member of your "workshop",
namely Tonguessy, did not post his comment to your
"Le Zero et l'Infini" reference to the lists which both
of you belong to.  Let me recover:


At 11:48 +0200 27-10-2005, Giorgio Menon wrote, to:
wddm@world-wide-democracy.net with Subject: Re:
Le Zero et l'Infini

QUOTE
************************************
>Georges Metanomski wrote:
>
>>========================================
>>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."
>>
>
> Well, it might be useful reminding all the interested people
> the Artur Koestler studied levitation and telepathy and left
> a large sum of money for research into parapsychology: this
> funded, amongst other things, the Koestler Parapsychology
> Unit at Edinburgh University. See:
> http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/
> here, after clicking  "Research" and  "The Challenge"  we
> get Professor Morris stating that:
>
> "Parapsychology threatens the precision and tidiness of
> traditional scientific methodology. Parapsychology involves
> the study of complex, open systems. It has difficulty in
> generating and testing theory-based hypotheses. For these
> and other reasons, parapsychology has often been
> labelled a pseudoscience by philosophers and sociologists
> of science. At the Koestler Parapsychology Unit, we
> attempt to address these issues by setting our research
> within the wider context of society as a whole, by
> developing models for understanding how we can be
> deceived by ourselves and others..."

(...)

> Now would anyone care to explain why he who states
> that "The higher might not just transcend and include, it
> might transcend and repress, exclude, alienate, dissociate"
> finds that "whatever we assert about the Absolute, our
> assertion will not be adequate and will call for negation"
> and similar amenities are
>
> "... 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."?

(...)

> Let's proceed. Says Georges:
>
>> Koestler considers it (Hegel's Thesis "Absolute is Being"
>> leads to antithesis "Absolute is Nothingness" and to
>> synthesis that Absolute is some synthesis of the two) 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.
>>
>
> Wrote Koestler:
> "In the social equation, the value of a single life is nil;
> in the cosmic equation, it is infinite"
> Thus the single's value varies from zero to infinity.
> Again, i see no real difference between Hegel and
> Koestler. Surely Absolute makes no sense while a single
> do make sense to me, but this is the only difference i see.
> For me infinity is a non-human value, something no man
> can ever see, fell, touch, eat nor, more generally, perceive.
> It's a metaphysical thing, like the allmighty, God's infinite
> wisdom etc....useful only to deceit the gullible. Or the
> mathematicians. Infinity is the reason why i decided that
> i could only be an agnostic when i was a teeneger: both
> atheists and believers discuss about things and use words
> that make no sense at all (to me, of course).
> Beside the value of a single life cannot be nil. Never, no
> matter what context we put it in. This is simply outrageous.
>
>
> It may be useful reminding that it all begun  when
> Georges stated that "via Engels, Lenin and Mao
> Hegel presided the extermination of 100 million
> people".  ***
>
> This is one of the worst examples of bipolar thinking i've
> ever read. It implies that communism exterminated 100 million
> people and the guilt lays upon Hegel's shoulder.
> I'd only like to remind Tito's ex-Yugoslavia as a viable way to
> offer pacific coexistence to different ethnic groups under the
> communist flag. We all know what happened after Tito's death.
> Assuming that Tito's communism was a reasonable thing, why
> is Hegel responsible of carnages only?
>
> The real problem is the market IMHO. Let's not forget that
> nazi concentration camps, soviet Gulags and chinese Laogai
> were built to offer free manpower to "improve" the whole
> "community" (no matter how absurd this sounds), to offer
> the nation the capability to compete with foreign powers.
> Essentially prisoners were asked to work for free in order
> to build infrastructure (roads, railways, buildings) or any
> other manufacts essential to the nation's economy.
> Only thanks to concentration camps the nazi Germany was
> capable to produce the sinthetic oil necessary for the war.
> Also (or maybe only)  thanks to the Gulags the USSR
> menaged to compete with the USA. And also thanks to the
> Laogai China is now a superpower. There are accusations
> that Chinese labor camp produce products are often sold in
> foreign countries with the profits going to the PRC government.
> Accusing Hegel of being responsible for the current model
> of development seems utterly silly and unfair to me. Bringing
> Koestler as main witness for such accusations is absolutely
> senseless.
>
> Best regards
>
> Tonguessy
********************************************
ENDQUOTE  (*** emphasis in bold added)

Differently from Tonguessy (above, in bold) I would
remind that all of this begun when Georges started to
install his axioms and calculi -- all of which he calls
"Relativistic Dialectics" -- into common people's minds,
to replace all what we common people thought before,
and making them his thinking clones.

I agree with Einstein's motto, "A New Manner of Thinking
is necessary, if Humankind is to survive". Yet let's suppose,
the needed NMT could be as well the getting rid of the
fundamentalist brainwashing-indoctrination which Georges
seems the paragon of, even though from solid scientific
bases.

I agree with the term "Dialectics" -- which Georges too
adopts in his words (only) -- as a NMT that began with
Heraclitus and came through Socrates and Hegel up to
us common thinkers, as made with Thesis + Antithesis
(our domain) and Synthesis (the domain of our final users,
our children).

Yet let's play inside OUR domain, by positing our theses
and counter-positing our antitheses: but stop here, Georges!
Stop calling bullshit anything which sounds antithetical to
your theses! Stop wanting to impose your RD thesis onto
the public -- our children -- as if it were the only, and the
holy, Synthesis-Truth!  In doing so, your RD would be no
NMT, but the old manner of thinking of the Hitlers, the
Mussolinis and the other dictators we blame.

Let me conclude (my own "antithesis" not the Synthesis!):
what Georges is missing, it is not the scientific knowledge
of Relativity and Quantum Physics etc, that we can read in
his index page -- even though I suspect Occam would find
a great deal of work to do there.  What Georges is lacking
of, is a well-sounded Dialectics-based scientific method and,
most of all, a little bit of humility-made democratic wisdom.


Best regards,
antonio

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