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

[microsound] dial D for dialetics



This idea of dialectics has been pretty thoroughly disputed.
yeah but it seems that both dialectics and structuralism (as philosophical constructs) are making a comeback...I see this as a welcome change to the one-joke pony of PoMo...

 For
Hegelian and Marxist dialectics, this is true, insofar as dialectical
progress through history is inevitable.  For later philosophers,
however, this is not necessarily so.
the statement was directed at the Fuller paraphrase:
critique pales next to creating
superior
alternatives.
I was trying to point out that 'critique without creating an alternative' (forget the qualifier of 'superior') is intellectually interesting yet toothless...and that often times when a alternative comes about one can view it thru a thesis+antithesis=synthesis frame...in other words a critique can be seen as the negation of some state and an alternative can be seen as the synthesis...


As I understand it, Horkheimer and Adorno's "Dialectic of
Enlightenment" was precisely the idea that rational progress can
dialectically turn into its opposite, irrationality.
yes...but then you have to examine the underlying structure/meaning/engine of 'rational progress' - i.e., capitalism - because the roots of 'irrationality' are always there...irrationality, turbulence, disruption, or noise are always present to some degree in any system and 'rational progress' does not imply (to me) that they are not present...

Or, using evolutionary biology as a model, one could argue that there
is no such thing as "progress," within evolutionary changes, since
increasing fitness is only relative to the conditions being adapted to
'increasing fitness to hostile conditions' could very well be a definition of 'progress'...could it not?


and does not have any ultimate value;
it has value to the species or thing that is adapting: self-preservation...it also has value to the parasitic organisms that benefit from the species continued existence...

Finally, models from the study of nonlinear and chaotic systems might
look at change in an entirely different way, based on phase diagrams and
attractors.
it isn't 'change' that is viewed differently in chaotic systems (since we can mathematically describe this) so much as 'long term predictable change' or 'recognizable patterns', some/most change is perceived by humans as pattern-based; 'any difference that makes a difference' (Bateson)...change that is not perceivable to humans is seen as random, but not chaotic...

 I would imagine that the memes in circulation, including
both critique and superior alternatives, *would structure*
wouldn't it be possible to replace the concept 'would structure' (i.e., potential creation) with 'synthesize'?

the
possibilities available to a society at any given time in order to go a
significant mutation in form.
yes, if you want a glaring example look at the shift from a Clinton to Bush US...Bush could be seen as the antithesis to Clinton and the neo-con cabal we now have is a structure that came about thru a 'significant mutation' (synthesis?) -- but not thru the will of our society necessarily but that is a separate argument w/r/t power structures in a society organized by corporate capitalism...

I miss this sort of interesting dialog - thanks for your post! :)


--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx website: http://www.microsound.org