|
|
EMANCIPATORY, TRANSHISTORIC FLASHES: AN APERCU HERE, A FATA MORGANA THERE, A DEJA VU EVERYWHERE
by Franz J. T. Lee
CONTENTS:
1. ACTING, THINKING, THOUGHT
Elucidating their Educative, Educational Environment.
2. CONCEPTIONS OF HISTORY
A Great God, A Great Idea, A Great Man, Make History
3. LABOUR - ALIENATION PER SE
What is Labour? How does Emancipation Excel?
PART ONE
4. LABOUR - ALIENATION PER SE
What is Labour? How does Emancipation Excel?
PART TWO
5. THINKING AND FORMAL LOGICS
How Universal Ideology Destroys Thought
INTERNATIONAL YAHOO CHAT NOTES
----------oOo----------
ACTING, THINKING, THOUGHT
Elucidating their Educative, Educational Environment.
by Franz J. T. Lee.
5th June, 2002.
"Creative fantasy, autonomous thought
- The weapons against desperation -
Whatever they say, can never be brought
To blossom within education."
Jutta Schmitt
Folks, I sent you some introductory philosophic notes, in various parts already; fhey encompass a simple, general approximation of our Science and Philosophy. They are precisely that what they are, id est, they introduce, they approximate -- they don't want to convince anybody, don't want to recruit or conscientize any "masses"; any genre of manipulation and indoctrination is totally alien to them. They are too fresh, new, authentic and original for such Maquiavellian, Hobbesian and Orwellian social ulterior machinations.
We are not going to discuss the notes-in-and-for-themselves, rather we'll spotlight their general application in everyday life. In other words, in the debate that will follow, we'll compare how across the socialization process, the educational institutions and social communication, we have been taught to think, that is, how we generally think, argue and analyse, and we will explain how our new science a n d philosophy suggests that thinking and thought should be re-born ( = re-naissance), re-thought, re-vised and re-oriented.
Although in a number of fields (space travel and colonization, quantum and ether physics, Tesla-technology, nano-technology, genetic engineering, multi-logic) formal logic is obsolete and basically can only be applied within a very limited range of scientific a n d philosophic endeavours, -- where it certainly had and still has some validity -- yet our current, global, social superstructure -- religion, philosophy, law, ideology, thinking, thought, ethics, culture and tradition -- still operates fully, in all walks of life, with archaic formal logical thinking. In fact, it can be said that 6 billions today still think in an "A=A" obsolete, ideological style, just like the ancient "aristocratic" and "democratic" slave-owning Athenians, just like Plato and Aristotle.
What they don't know, what has deliberately not been taught to them, is that scientifically and philosophically the very Plato (Socratic Dialogues) and Aristotle (doctrine of morphé and hyle) were mutatis mutandis excellent dialecticians, negating their very own formal-logical, superstructural, ideological status quo.
Across the length, breadth, width and depth of the globe, in the air, on land, under the sea, in the heavens, in general discussions, jokes, gossips, fairy tales, lies, scientific essays, philosophic treatises, friendly chats, in internet forums, in university classes, in "home truths", what do we witness? A formal-logical 666th Symphony of: ... "I'm right", "You are wrong", "I agree", "I disagree", and nothing more -- never ever "I agree a n d I disagree", never ever "I neither agree nor disagree", "I'm neither right nor wrong". We are Marcusian, unimensional, agreeing, agreeable, right, rightist creatures.
We think, analyse, investigate strictly according to the laws of Formal Logic. We operate with our "absolute truths", with our "A's", with our being "right" summa cum laude. This is the reason why we disagree, when we are faced with a negation, with a "negative attitude", this is why we think that "Non-A" is "wrong", is "false". Check our previous hundreds of chats, and investigate this; we can verify this with our very own scientific and philosophic deliberations. I say this in a Socratic dialectical way, to assist us in our agonizing labour pain, in our heavy emancipatory naissance, in our re-naissance.
Also, check out, how many times I said "I agree" or "D'accord", and when, if ever, I said: "I disagree" or "You are wrong". Behind this "madness" of ours there is a stringent, strict, logical method, which I tried to explain in the philosophic "Chat Notes" that I sent to all of you. I have called it the "Omnia Mea Mecum Porto Principle", all that I know, whether I agree with it or not, I carry with me, I chat and debate with its totality.
There is nothing I would discard or discriminate, because all asseverations are ontic, ontological products and real mental reflections of earthly, historic reality. No matter how absurd they may seem, de facto, they express perfectly well an absurd, bizarre, macabre, horrible, terrible, global fascism. That's how a global, racist fascist "thinks" -- just listen to our "great leaders".
Just to learn, to understand, to rectify what I have explained, certainly would take ages -- because it means to emancipate our ways, means, methods and ends of thinking and thought; to negate and superate the lion's share of all our previous, brilliant acts, actions, ideas and thoughts. I only noted this at the age of 50, and it took me a decade to act, think and excel, of, by and for myself -- and, surely, in all probability, until now, I just achieved less than 1% of what is to be done (Cosmos, and), and how thought -- in real life - does exist (Cosmos a n d Einai).
The atrocious, mental damage done to billions of innocent "coolies", of learn-hungry "niggers", of mentally-starved "latino" paupers and of awe-stricken "white" lumpen-proletarians is immense, is incalculable; from Athens to Rome, to London, to Moscow, to Peking, to Washington D.C., this is the greatest historical, "democratic", "revolutionary", cardinal, capital crime of "civilized" homo homini lupus against humanity in toto. About this racist, nazi, fascist Holocaust of the Mind nobody complains; about this Education for Barbarism not a word in the Information Age, in the hail and halo of American Democracy.
Many innocent educators, pedagogues and teachers try and have tried their utmost best to conscientize these godforlorn "masses" in their ghettoes, barrios and favelas, but, alas, their very human, humane, humanist minds are and were already infected by the mortal, fatal, lethal, virulent virus of Big Brother Newspeak.
We could not know, not say all this, not see all this, if we would not have begun to learn to do things, to think, and to excel -- really and truly democratically -- all, of, by and for ourselves. For these very reasons, our "Chats Notes" are written in the way they are, in the style that they exist, and in the manner how they excel themselves.
Across the millennia, wealthy, ruling class mind and thought control, mainly via monotheistic religions, agricultural and industrial productive ideology and fascist authoritarianism and totalitarianism, have played havoc with the ontic, cognitive, logical faculties of the "condemned of the earth", of Victor Hugo's "Les miserables", converting a great part of them into useless labour debris, wrecked flotsam and jetsam; and, of course, have converted the biggest part of the intelligentsia -- including huge sectors of the upper classes -- into specialized CEO robots or technocratic zombies.
That's all for now; until our next International Yahoo Chat!
 |
|
INTERNATIONAL YAHOO CHAT NOTES
CONCEPTIONS OF HISTORY
A Great God, A Great Idea, A Great Man Make History
by Franz J. T. Lee.
19th May, 2002.
a) The Concept of History
Surely, the formulation, the formalization of the Concept of History, for everybody to understand, to agree with it, presents serious analytical problems. It is an arduous endeavour to delineate the exact meaning of history, of historical knowledge.
In Europe, after the 1830 and 1848 Revolutions, that mounted Capitalism firmly into its saddle of eternal accumulation and infinite profits, superstructural philosophers began to philosophize about History, about the future of capitalist History. Previously, History still seemed to be just a simple, meaningless chaos.
However, Wilhelm Dilthey and Benedetto Croce insisted that history was an intelligible entity, a system of a teleological or quasi-scientific nature. Of course, then already, philosophically, it became necessary to define the future, total, totalitarian, authoritarian character of universal Reason, of global Capital. They believed that History was intelligible, was rational, because the bourgeois class, as rational, revolutionary subjects, made it so, made History.
Later, influenced by Crocean ideas, Robin George Collingwood, professor at Oxford University, in his "Idea of History" (1946) and "Autobiography", inter alia, was of the opinion that "the chief business of twentieth-century philosophy is to reckon with twentieth-century history", and, "that it is the philosopher's task to articulate and justify historical methodology." This British philosopher paved the road for eschewing the magnificent ambition of providing a synoptic vision of the entire patrian, historical process. Of course, neither Collingwood nor his followers, until Hegel, Marx and Engels, saw history as the process of human labour, of social production.
Definitely, mentally, here we will not torture you further, we will not waste our "time", illustrating the "analytical problems" of "meaning and understanding" of History, within the Positivist and Non-Positivist approaches, about "intuitable connections", "irreducible particularities" or "deductive-nomological" or "covering law" theories of explanation (see: Vico, Herder, David Hume, Carl Hempel, Ludwig Wittgenstein, W. H. Dray, Peter Winch, later, Arnold Toynbee, Oswald Spengler, etc.).
History, like so may of our concepts, comes from Ancient Greek, from historia, knowledge -- a histor is a cosmic, praxical actor, is somebody who knows, who is knowledgeable. The conditio sine qua non for a "civilized" conception of history is to have an arché, a hyle, a primordial principle, a single substance or postulate, an "A": hydor, aer, apeiron, pyr, sphairos, hen kai pan, atomos, idea, morphé, logos, spirit, deus, etc.; in other words, a type of archaic, ideal, fascist "Big Brother", a kind of philosophic Central Intelligence Agency; in reality, a universal deus vobiscum or eternal deus vult, a Deuxieme Bureau, an omniscient French Department of Military Intelligence.
b) The Great God, Creator and Maker of History
Logically, the Great Idea of a Great God, of a theological, teleological Saviour, of an eschatological Messiah, of a divine alpha kai omega, presupposes a beginning and an end, a somewhere; hence, necessitates spatial-temporal categories, in which flow a "beginning" towards an "end", towards a "Happy End", towards Human Salvation, towards Eternal Freedom. Beyond any doubt, to succour its subhuman "speaking-tools", an evolving, exploiting, dominating, discriminating, militarizing, alienating, universal system urgently needs such an upper domain of labour, a majestic, absolute, eternal, divine superstructure.
"In the Beginning was the Word!" Note: "In", inside the Beginning, inside "A". No wonder that we are all "in", "within"; our history, our thoughts, our knowledge are all inside words, inside language, inside the system. This is simply "great"; Allah is Great! Item: A Great God, a patriarchal, monotheistic Jahwe, Allah, Vitzliputzli, Tixo, etc., all of them in wrath and jealousy, create History, direct civilized, fundamentalist, Christian, Arab, -- inside a nut-shell, in nuce, -- Universal History.
c) The Great Idea of a Great God
After the philosophic split of Aristotelianism into an idealist-theological European Right Wing (Plotin, St. Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, etc.) and a materialist-philosophical African-Arab Left Wing (Avicenna, Averroes, Avicebron, etc.), during the Eclipse of Philosophy in the Old World, that was heading towards the Dominican Inquisition, in his Proslogion (1077-78), St. Anselm (later amplified by René Descartes) formulated the famous Conception of History, the "Great God" Idea, of God as that than which nothing greater can be imagined, can be thought. According to him, it would be complete nonsense, would be meaningless, if this Intellectual God would not be real, would not also exist in reality. This Great God, this unsurpassably perfect being, lacks nothing, not even real existence, not Creation, not Salvation, not Creation of Salvation History, id est, He is the Greatest of the Greatest.
Now, if He would not, or could not, save all "souls", then, obviously, He also could not be the most perfect, just and good. Hence, the historic idea of salvation of all souls came into existence. The Divine Idea of Salvation History not only captured the imagination of the Cradle of Civilization, of Christianity, of the West, it even became an organized movement in America in the mid-18th century.
Especially the Afro-Americans, this portion of subhumanity, the descendants of slaves, who, according to Montesquieu, have no souls, echoed in their "spirituals" the conviction that a loving God would also bestow salvation on them, and would doom their slave-masters to eternal punishment in hell fire -- the same the "blacks" under white, apartheid, fascist rule believed. However, parts of this movement, among them members of the Universalist and Unitarian churches in the U.S.A., rejected Christian miracles and downgraded Jesus to a good, earthly, human teacher.
d) The Great God, The Great Idea Orders Or Designs History
Across the millennia, horrified by the ideas of a certain senseless death, terrorized by a Kafkaesque existence, alienated by nihilistic, pauperized misery, many earth-dwellers, including some theologians and philosophers, discern in the flux of History some "great", divine pattern or godly purpose.
The prodigal step-children of homo sapiens sapiens, the impoverished street scavengers, just cannot accept the idea that their Fatherland, that their History, that the Patria is just an anarchic, chaotic succession of capitalist production, of perennial cycles of recession and depression, a macabre agglomeration of random vice, corruption, selfishness, profit-greed and megalomania, of brutal episodes of fascist savagery, of nazi butchery, of terrorist bombings and "new wars".
Of course, this system demands "law and order", a "new world order", and pessimism, scepticism, negative attitudes and hopelessness have no place whatsoever in a free, just, democratic, peace-loving, global status quo. This Cassandra "Menetekel", this pessimistic Pandora Box, is a "terrorist" affront to liberal, neo-liberal human values, dignity and nature, to the free global flow of information, modern weapons, wars, capital and profits.
Immanuel Kant has warned about a possible, global "repugnance" that logically would be felt, if the intellectually produced human "past" is seen just as abhorrence, as terror, is seen as if the whole interweb of human history was just woven out of mishaps, folly, myopic vanity and bellicose frenzy, so that eventually nobody would have the foggiest notion anymore about any human values, pride, dignity, prerogatives or glory. Well, this international barbarism -- that also Marx "prophesied" -- we experience at present; at least, this Marxian fundamental prediction is not obsolete as yet.
Also other thinkers, like Arnold Toynbee, repudiated the idea that history is "a chaotic, disorderly, fortuitous flux, in which there is no pattern or rhythm of any kind to be discerned." What they could not comprehend is that History and the Fatherland, the Patria, in which they lived, and which they portrayed, are completely two different realities, somehow linked and yet not necessarily inter-linked, inter-related. Patrian, ideological wishful thinking and true, historic reality are two different shoes that do not fit alike; they just do not work together.
In the last analysis, the Idea of The Great God, of The Great Idea, that orders or designs History has theological, idealist origins. In ancient societies, still even in European agro-feudalism, in Greco-Roman thought, human progress or destiny was seen in the cyclical, temporal, seasonal movements. Ever since the 15th century, in early bourgeois-capitalist thinking, History was being reflected, conforming to a linear temporal development in which providential sapience could be discerned.
However, still in St. Augustine's subtle, idealist theology - in his Civitas Dei, and also in other writings, distinguishing crucially between sacred and secular, patrian history-, social events, political disorders were interpreted as isolated happenings, as one time occurrences, being compared to "the great melody of some ineffable composer," its parts being "the dispensations suitable to each different period."
1250 years later, at the eve of the global, capitalist world market, just before the discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton, we find an example par excellence of the theological, metaphysical roots of the Divine Designer shaping history, in the works of Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, especially in his "Discours sur l'histoire universelle (1681; "Discourse on Universal History")". In naïveté, he proclaimed that the entire flow of history owes its pervasive character to the contrivance of a divine being, of "higher wisdom." As funny as this may seem to the modern mind, yet today still millions and millions of school children are being taught, by thousands and thousands of teachers, that to grasp the rise and fall of empires, to assess international "terrorism", is simply "to comprehend in one's mind all that is great in human affairs and have the key to the history of the universe."
Well, by then, although still lingering on in the insufficient memory of academics, teachers, students and of the mass media, the "Great Ideas of A Great God" were already being surpassed by the coming "Great Men of A Great Race, Living in a Great Country, Making History in A Great Society, by Means of Great Wars".
|
|
INTERNATIONAL YAHOO CHAT NOTES
LABOUR - ALIENATION PER SE
What is Labour?
How does Emancipation Excel?
by Franz J. T. Lee
24th April, 2002
PART I
Folks, although I suggested that we continue with the aftermath and international complications of the Venezuelan aborted coup, and the implications of obvious plotting, backed by the USA, my introduction concerns the international division of labour, the global market, the contradiction of physical and intellectual labour, and its corresponding property relations, and intellectual property rights.
I quote Scott's letter that indicates the necessity to understand our conception of labour, and whi it plays such a vital role in our scientific and philosophic analyses.
"Hi Friends, Given your paradigm about the Labor Process and its centrality to Human History, Social Development, etc. how would you characterize work with [abstract] tools of the Mind as opposed to Tools of the Hand? For example, those who "labor" in the realm of Mathematical Symbols, manipulation of Computer Programs, Images, Icons, Words etc. - dimensions which require very little Human movement or extension in Physical Space and therefore much less Energy?
What are some of your own original, detailed Thoughts about the nature of this kind of Work and those who Perform it? Please provide here or refer me to your existing detailed Publications. Thanks in advance, Scott."
Now, folks, as simple as possible, let's begin with the ABC of Labour. For the "time" being, for the sake of clarity and brevity, I will leave out our methodological, epistemological, philosophic details and finesse of this issue.
Very simplified, for Marx and Engels, the historic materialist dialecticians, Labour concerns the relation Nature - Society, where, of course, Society (Man) is given superiority, because his Labour is directed unilaterally towards the domination, towards the domestication, towards the exploitation of Nature for the survival of Man.
In a certain sense, essentially the Marxist concept of Labour does not differ from the meanings given to Work by thinkers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith, David Ricardo or Thomas Malthus, or even Jean-Jacques Rousseau.
In the latter case, Man is "good by nature", but Nature itself and Society are "bad", because they threaten Man, the "noble savage"; of course, the reverse is not true, that Man threatens Nature. Only the modern ecologists, in the name of the survival of the very same Man, now claim that Man threatens Nature. In reality, it is the very same old patrian claim, that Nature threatens Man. Only a few "locos" , bio-dynamic food crack-pots, natural artists or religious animists really still "love" Nature.
The Patria in its totality originated and reproduces itself due to a perverted, fiendish, aggressive non-relation to Nature; this is expressed in language, in formal logics, as dualism, non-contradiction, in short, in its "labour", in its production process, which it calls "History".
Marx and Engels mutatis mutandis accepted this official interpretation of History as the labour or production process, as Man, as the Human Being, juxtaposed to Nature; but they brought dialectical life into the Patria, as its own Negation, and like the good old Adam Smith, they wanted to realize a "good capitalism", a "good" socialism or communism, edified on the ruins of the previous mode of production. This "emancipatory" process proceeds all along the Hegelian dialectical spiral chain of the Patria, along the "circle of circles", which eventually in spacial parameters and temporal paradigms approaches "Nearer my God to Thee", approximates Freedom, which approbates the slogan : "Patria o Muerte !" (Fatherland or Death !)
Marx and Engels did not question Labour as such; for them, Man and his Labour are noble; Rousseau would say that Man is simply a labouring "noble savage". According to the fathers of Marxism, it is the exploitative economic production, especially the accumulation of Capital, which had made Labour ignoble, which had alienated Man. By means of Class Struggle and the Socialist Revolution, they wanted to disalienate Labour, hence bringing about Human Emancipation. They did not realize that "Labour" or "Work" as it appears in the Patria is per se Alienation, is Human Estrangement überhaupt.
All this does not diminish the revolutionary grandeur of devoted Marxists; they are accomplishing their historic role within the Patria, and they sacrifice themselves for the "Damned of the Earth"(Fanon), for the grex vanalium (the herd of hirelings) of Global Capital. We love Marx, we love Samuelson, but we love the truth even more.
According to the general socialist outlook, the human labour tragedy occured in the following historic manner.
Within the framework of the original harmonious collective primitive exploitation and domination of Nature, which is Human Labour, and which is also called "primitive communism", a contradiction came into being, which should not be there, which contradicts harmony, i.e., the exploitation, domination and discrimination of Man by Man, of Society by Society. This causes Human Alienation, alienated human labour. This should be eradicated; the status quo of the Patria should be re-established, the Establishment should be that Man exploits and dominates Nature, and not that Man dominates Man. Labour and Man are the Untouchables, the Holy Cows.
Hence, the economic struggle, Labour against Capital, and the political class struggle, the Proletariat against the Bourgeoisie, should anniquilate this contradiction within "History", within the Patria, and re-establish an intensive world peace and harmony, Socialism and Communism.
It is not that this kind or that type of "Labour" that is alienated, and that it should be disalienated; the truth of the matter is that Labour itself is the umbilical cord, the lifewire of the Patria itself; Labour ipse facto is Alienation, it destroys the Bezug: Nature a n d Society, i.e., it threatens History itself. In future expositions of our Philosophy, we will trace the essence a n d existence of Labour in the Patria; the dethronement of Intellect, and the "Eclipse of Reason" (Max Horkheimer).
(PART II FOLLOWS)
|
|
INTERNATIONAL YAHOO CHAT NOTES
LABOUR - ALIENATION PER SE
What is Labour?
How does Emancipation Excel?
by Franz J. T. Lee
24th April, 2002
PART II
Let us, however, return to our Labour discussion. In the last exposition we had explained the importance of a Weltanschauung and a Method (Logics), which enable us to reach scientific-philosophic precision in our analysis.
Also we had warned against the danger to criticize the world outlook and method of any thinker, and then surrepticiously use his concepts as our own, and on top of this, still criticize him, using his concepts which we consider erratic. This type of "scientific" method is simply dishonest and smells like back-biting. Very often, innocently, we commit this analytic error.
Certain bourgeois economists do it deliberately; they "pinch" concepts from Marx, and pretend that these terms are their own. In Germany, a modern tax is even called "Mehrwert" (Surplus Value), a central term developed by Marx in Capital.
As we have pointed out before, Adam Smith, Hegel and Marx, all use similar concepts of "Labour" vis-a-vis Nature, but their Weltanschauungen differ. Surely, the Webster Dictionary and the "man on the street" also do not use the same connotation. A woman in labour pain has no time to think about "labour", and a prisoner who serves in a labour camp, and who has been condemned to 20 years hard labour, surely does not know scientifically what "labour" is all about, but he could explain with precision what "toil" means for a poor outcast.
No thinker uses the exact concept of Labour of another thinker; to be able to achieve this, Thinker A has to be identical with Thinker B, and then, in this case, they do not exist as two different thinkers. The "miracle" of two identical concepts which operate in two different brains is performed by theology and ideology; in science and philosophy such a nonsense does not exist. This "miracle" the Patrian educational system wants to perform; if it is successful, then all students would get "A" grades, and their examination answers will all be identical.
We can fill our concepts with the contents of various different scientific and philosophic reflections and reproductions; but what we select, and how we select these "facts", have to do with our scientific-philosophic method. So, we have to apply the following "guide-line" : "Do It Yourself! Think It Yourself!!
We can identify the "life-wire", the "umbilical cord" of the Patria as its Labour Process; also we can see how it operates within the context of our "and-Relation", of our Bezug in general. We can also note with exactitude why this historic process is maltreated and perverted. We can explain why in Patrian Nature and Society all relations, whether economic, political, social or human, are reduced to non-relations, to thing-relations, to money-relations; we can indicate why all relations are ossified, have become the exact opposite of "progress" and "development", and why they tend towards repose, to a standstill, to Death. The Patrian Slogan should be: PATRIA and Death!!
The Labour Process cannot transcend, it can never be NEITHER Exploitation NOR Domination NOR Discrimination NOR Alienation; if it could or would become these, then it will already be EMANCIPATION! What Labour exploits, can only exploit, is non-related Nature and Society. It cannot dominate related History, although it claims everyday that it is making History. In other words, Labour can only alienate, exploit itself.
A capitalist cannot just do any thing, for him not everything is possible. For example, he cannot stop exploitation, cannot stop capital accumulation, cannot stop to own, buy or sell. For these reasons, he is per definitionem a capitalist and not a "bum". Also, he cannot give everything to the poor, and follow Jesus!
A capitalist cannot own, sell or buy something which. in the short, long or absolute term, would not bring profits, accumulation of power, wealth. Now, emancipation surely don't supply these goodies, these pecuniary benefits. What can a capitalist do with transcendental Beauty, Truth and Love, which do not exist in his Labour World, in his Labour Hen Kai Pan! To whom would he sell them, how would he realize Capital, Labour?
How do you labour for Beauty, Truth and Love? For that, capitalists are too corrupt, absolute liars, brutal, pragmatic, empiricist, positivist, structuralist, concrete. As little as they could commercialize my "brains" in "six decades" on three "continents", so little are the chances that Labour and Capital could commercialize the "alien" emancipatory nail in its own moribund coffin!
Thinking" and what everybody call "thinking" are not necessarily identical. Thinking and Thought, in our understanding, need two different postulates, principles. This is the kind of thinking which transcends the other unilateral parrot rumination, (which cannot surpass the limits of labour); newspeak cannot speak anything else than the CNN news to which every day you and billions others listen! The only way for Labour to transcend is to go to Hell, which it created itself. And, as Jutta said last time, Hell is Labour Hell, on Earth!
The greatest revolutionary is Labour itself; Capital made the French Revolution, the Zenith of all Revolutions! Labour and Capital invented "revolution", "rivoluzione", "rivoltura". Anything that Labour has produced -- for example, The Internet -- it can commercialize; what had produced labour itself, this cannot be commercialized! Is Labour the ONLY thing? Does ONLY LABOUR exist? Is there something "outside" of Labour, of which it is an intrinsic part?
Labour is ONLY "inside" History; as a Sphere, History exists "inside a n d outside" of Labour (that is, "whereto" we are transcending, emancipating ourselves); History transcends itself, as NEITHER inside NOR outside of Labour, as NEITHER inside NOR outside of Itself, toward myriad OTHER Spheres.
Hence, LABOUR, as a unilateral, non-relational, self-producing entity, as a Hegelian "World Spirit", is "produced" or "alienated" as an only part of the "INSIDE" of History, by History, by Emancipation.
Labour is not "bad" or "good"; it is not that we like it or do not like it, it is not an ethical or normative issue; it is an "object" of scientific-philosophic enterprise. We are not classic "Marxists" or "Christians" who want to get rid of evil!
We have a Science a n d Philosophy, a Method, and we are applying them for the sake of knowledge and emancipation. We do not hate labour, we do not curse labour, we do not bedevil Labour, we are scientists, philosophers and emancipators. As such, we study Labour to understand it; we are not killers, assassins, we do not want to kill anything, not even Labour. We neither kill nor not-kill! Well, that's it for today folks.
|
|
INTERNATIONAL YAHOO CHAT NOTES
THINKING AND FORMAL LOGICS
How Universal Ideology
Destroyed Thought
by Franz J. T. Lee.
7th March, 2002
PART I
Folks, let's begin with what I have denoted as: CONFIGURATION OF THINKING: Think It Yourself! Of course, this will necessarily be theoretical, complex. But such nerve and brain tonics we urgently need.
I need some "time" to develop my supersonic train of thought, to clap my ontic wings, hence be patient, let me develop the totality of my exposition. Of course, short, to the point remarks and questions are welcome. When I have concluded, Scott could present his introductory views concerning words and language, Newsweek and Newspeak.
Until now, in previous chats, what we tried to expound was the fact that we should first configure our own brain disk, that is, gain clarity about our own way of thinking and reasoning, of our method.
Furthermore, also we have to identify our world outlook, in this case, our philosophy; then we should differentiate our method and Weltanschauung, our world theory, from those of others which contradict, eliminate or superate us. Only then we can surpass ourselves, and therewith the ideology, disinformation and infowarfare of our "slave masters", "feudal lords" and "global warlords".
Whatever anybody THINKS (cosmovision) and how (s)he
THINKS (method) depend on his/her philosophy, and when
(s)he does NOT think at all, which is the case of billions on this planet, then it depends on his/her "13th Floor" superstition, bi-cameral religion or uni-mensional ideology.
Concerning Thinking and Formal Logics, when we use the metaphysical or formal logical systemic method, then we must know its limitations, recognize its systemic truth, and only apply it there where it has patrian labour validity; if someone ONLY knows and applies this formal-logical "A = A" method chaotically in all spheres, then we must note it, identify his unilaterality, uniformality and universality, and not commit the same fallacy. FOR EXAMPLE: CHANGE CAN COME ONLY FROM WITHIN THE SYSTEM (from within "A").
When we utilize the dialectical systemic method (A and Non-A), then we know that it is the method which Hegel and Marx had applied, and that it utilizes certain intellectual tools, certain concepts. These concepts can only be used within the boundaries of this specific systemic method, and the method itself has its own "A and Non-A" labour limitations.
It is a specific logical and epistemological system. Also, in this case, there is no problem in using it where it is valid, in systemic analyses, where it is "true", where the internal machinery of the system is analysed, but we cannot use it in intensive-extensive, extensive-intensive or even extensive projects, because the latter explode the very atomicness, the Hen kai Pan, the One and All, of the Patria, of the labour process, of production and reproduction, which Hegel, Marx and others call "History".
Now, as part of Thinking, Thought, Theory, Philosophy, let us relate, let us look at the differentiation (a synonym for thinking) of the Concept "History". Our History and the "History" of Clinton and Bush, Fukuyama, Chomsky, Rand or Derrida, or Marx and Hegel, are not the same, are not identical, ours includes all these, that express certain, limited truths, but, it denotes much more, therefore, it is philosophically different.
And this has nothing to do with whether they are right, or whether they have a true analysis, and that consequently ours is wrong or untrue. Not even applying the same to us, and thus declaring them to be "loco" is valid. In the "History of Philosophy", this is precisely what nearly all formal-logical "materialists" did to all systemic "idealists", and vice versa.
In our thinking and thought, we are not looking for "absolute truths" and for things which do not change or which do not superate themselves; what was "true" yesterday, is not necessarily true today, and it can be neither true nor false tomorrow; that is, if we accept these formal-logical limited concepts as a base of argumentation.
After all, space and time, rest and motion non-relations are definitely valid in the patria, in the labour process, but they are not necessarily absolutely true all over, all across the planetary diverse, triverse reality. There are more things around us than only those that are dreamt of in our myopic, ideological fantasy.
All these patrian philosophies, ideologies and theologies, and their respective methods, we negate, that is, we THINK them, we incorporate them in our own cosmo-ontic philosophy, we study them, we know them, we reason them, and, as such, we move to other levels, degrees and mensions of knowledge and wisdom.
Concerning the two basic methods of "Thinking" on Earth, Formal Logical and Dialectical Thinking, we wish to spotlight the following:
The formal logical method, including its dualism, including its non-contradictory essence, is generally used by all ideologues who defend the status quo, who do not want that the superstructure and the basis of the Patria changes.
They only allow reformist apparent changes or some essential window-dressing. The overwhelming majority of Mankind, especially the "lower classes", use this world approach in everyday words, in language and action. This Method is the Affirmation Nonplus Ultra in the Patria.
The dialectical method, including its idealism and materialism, including its contradictory essence and existence, is generally used by the superstructural idealist patriarchal opponents of the old order, and the protagonists of a new order, for example, the Prussian State philosopher, Hegel, and by their own respective opponents, for example, the philosopher of World Revolution, Marx, who wants to establish a new socialist order, born in the womb of the old one, and built on the ruins of the old one, hence, creating a new, a free Patria. This is the Negation Plus Quam Perfect in the Patria.
The Hegelian-Marxian method itself begins with the internal Affirmation of Capitalism, Capital, THESIS; then it proceeds to the internal Negation of Capitalism, Labour, ANTITHESIS; and then comes the Double Negation, the Negation of the Negation, the Class Struggle, Capital versus Labour; then comes the internal Social Revolution, the qualitative change within the Patria, and then, we reach the SYNTHESIS, Socialism, as new Affirmation of a "nice and good" Patria.
This egg - chicken - hen - egg evolution demonstrates at best what we are trying to illustrate, the famous dialectical Hegelian spiral, the "circle of circles". Marx himself stressed that he did not change the Hegelian dialectical method; he applied it, as it was developed by Hegel; even Lenin advised all Marxists first to study Hegel’s LOGIC, before reading Marx’s CAPITAL.
Summa summarum, the point of departure of all patrian
ideologues and thinkers, of patriarchal "Society", is LABOUR. Engels and the bourgeois anthropologist, Dr. L. S. B. Leakey, like everyone else, depart from the premise that "Labour" created "historic" Man, and Man created labour "out of the necessity to survive" and Man had no alternative but to indulge in this process on his own accord. (Marx).
The above "truth" is not derived from an actual historic process, it originates from certain philosophical reflections, based in a specific world outlook, governed by a specific method. Of course, our transhistoric "point of departure", our thinking does not derive its ontic knowledge from Labour, au contraire, it transpostulates historic, emancipatory RELATIONS.
Concerning Labour and "Labour Pain", the patrian connotation of "Labour", which is generally accepted by nearly everybody, is as old as the "Biblical Truth": Adam and Eve committed Original Sin, and they were thrown out of Paradise by their Master, God, and "by the sweat of their brow" they had to labour in order to survive, and they had no other choice whatsoever.
Even worse, poor Eve was cursed to bear severe pains when she gives birth to a child. From this fairy tale comes the other connotation of labour, labour pain, in reality, alienation.
QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS: Summing up: Are Working and Doing identical? What is a Natural Act, and what is Physical Labour? Are they the same? What Is the Essence of Labour? Is it the Substratum for Natural Exploitation of Human Action?
Is it alienating, annihilating Human Essence, Natural Action? Is it scientifically necessary to study Praxis, the Material Basis of Human Emancipation?
What is different? Difference? How does Difference Exist? Is it allowed? By whom, not? Thought is different, but not indifferent to Action. It is very social, sociable. Actions Are, Thoughts Exist, i.e., they exist as Actions and Thoughts, as Praxis and Theory.
Similarly, Nature and Society exist, exist as Human Being and Existence. Scientifically and philosophically, we'll have to study, act and think, our very Human Essence and Existence.
Everything seems to Change, except our Poverty and Misery, our wages and our life quality. Why is this so? Why does "Change" reap trillions of "In God We Trust", and we "Rest in Peace" with an eternal pittance?
Well, it's about time, that we say to Natural Economic Exploitation, to Statist Political Domination, to Universal Militarization and to Social Ideological Discrimination: "Please Keep The Change!".
PART TWO FOLLWS)
|
|
|
|
|
 |
