Trystan, the schema you are using, even non-seriously, is not even Hegel's -- it's Kant's and Fichte's.

On that see here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...95&postcount=7

But, what a waste of Mr Daniels!

Then what is the following if not a concession that what is metaphorical can indeed be true?
I don't try to prove the unprovable, that would be something you logicians attempt.

Trivas:

Well, we do not know what follows from your idiosyncratic understanding of 'metaphorical' (which cannot distinguish between the literal use of language and the metaphorical), but it is reasonably clear what follows from the usual meaning of the use of this word.

And, what follows is that not all language can be metaphorical.

Ok, so how do you know that all language is metaphorical?

No, I never mentioned the use of language; I said language itself is metaphorical.

Why don't you pay attention?

To thoose who aren't as daft as Rosa, what this means is the the relations of production turn into socialist relations. The productive forces are socialised yet the relations of production are private. Through revolution the relations of production become socialised. It is not just opposites turning into one another, here only relations of production can turn socialised. Productive forces can not become privatised, as this would mean turning back to early capitalism where small time labourers owned and used the means of production, and this can not exist on a large scale, it would be idealist to say it could.

So we see why Rosa is confused, because to her dialectics is anything it wants to be. No dialectical materialist (or idealist) ever thought that literally the productive forces change into relations of production. Where the primary aspect of the contradiction (see On Contadiction by Mao ) turns into it's opposite, proleteriat become class dictators, relations of production become socialised etc, this is a social change and so the description is of a social change. To think that anyone meant this litarally as one pyhsicaly thing turning into another is really..wierd.

But this is how Rosa works. Where she wants dialectics to appear confusing and mystical she approaches with a ridiculously literally interpretation or mystical depending on how she wants to confuse people.

Trivas:

Ok, how do you know that 'language itself is metaphorical'?

I am sorry; I seem to have learnt that from you.

Hiero:

Unfortunately for Hiero, as he has had it explained to him before, Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao all spoke of the opposite of an object or process as that with which it struggled, that with which it was in 'dialectical contradiction', and that which it will change into sooner or later.

Now, unless Hiero thinks that the relations of production which are private actually struggle in the here and now with what they become (that is, they struggle with the relations of production which are socialised) then the former is not the 'dialectical opposite' of the latter, and so it cannot turn into it! [We will return to this later.]

However, if there is a 'contradiction' between the forces and relations of production in the here and now, then, according to the Dialectical Holy Men, they must turn into one another.

This means that despite Hiero's desperate and futile attempt to save his precious 'theory' from descending into absurdity, the Dialectical Gospels tell us that the forces of production should change into the relations of production, since there is a 'contradiction' between them in the here and now.

The fact that they do not, and will not, shows this 'theory' is useless.

But, let us assume Hiero is correct. Let us assume that he is right when he says:

Even then there are still several serious difficulties with this desperate attempt to bale this 'theory' out.

1) According to the Dialectical Magi, quoted earlier in this thread, everything (not just most things), everything turns into its 'opposite'. This must mean then that the socialised forces of production must become private. Even though Hiero says this cannot happen, the Dialectical Prophets tell us that this will indeed take place.

2) Even worse, however is the following:

If things change because of the struggle between their 'internal opposites', and because of their 'internal contradictions', then it must mean that in the here and now the relations of production which are private must struggle with their opposite, the relations of production which are socialised.

This has the further consequence that the relations of production which are socialised must already exist in the here and now for that to happen!

If so, then Hiero and his Maoist friends do not need to fight to win the revolution since, according to his 'new theory', the relations of production which are socialised already exist in the here and now!

If, on the other hand, the relations of production which are socialised do not exist in the here and now to struggle with the relations of production which are private, then the relations of production which are private cannot change -- if, that is, we are to believe the Holy Dialectical Word, conveyed to us by the Dialectical Worthies I quoted earlier in this thread.

So, whichever way this 'theory' is interpreted, it descends into absurdity.

Once more, according to the Dialectical Gospels, that must mean that the proletariat as they now are must struggle with what they change into, that is, that the proletariat as they are now must struggle with the proletariat as class dictators.

In that case, the proletariat as class dictators must already exist!

So the proletariat as they are now can forget about struggling with anything, since their future selves are now in existence, having popped into being because the Dialectical Apostles are never wrong.

On the other hand, if the proletariat as class dictators does not exist in the here and now, then the proletariat as they now are cannot change, for there is no opposite for them to struggle against.

Should anyone argue that there is something for the proletariat as they now are to struggle against namely the capitalist class, then these problems do not go away. This is because the Dialectical Gurus tell us that things turn into that with which they struggle, their 'dialectical opposites'. Unfortunately, that must mean that the proletariat as they now are must one day turn into the capitalist class!

Once more, however this 'theory' is interpreted, it turns into irredeemable confusion.

And, it is no use arguing that no dialectician thinks this, since dialecticians are famous for not thinking through the implications of their 'theory', which I have made plain.

If now we try to salvage something from the wreckage by saying the we must not read the Dialectical Gospels too literally, then two other serious problem arise:

1) Who is to decide which parts of the Holy Books are literally true and which are merely 'poetic'? And on what basis? This cannot be that the way I interpret the Holy Books is wrong since my way descends into contradiction, for contradictions are welcome on this theory!

2) If things do not struggle in the here an now with what they become (that is, if the relations of production that are private do not struggle with the relations of production which are socialised, and the proletariat as they are now does not struggle with the proletariat as class dictators, and so on), then the dialectical faithful have no theory of change with which they can interpret the class war. Now, the Dialectical Holy Men I quoted at least had a theory -- one that had been worked out in detail by Hegel; they simply rotated it to reveal its alleged 'rational kernel'.

Now, if their words are to be interpreted non-literally, as Hiero seems to be arguing, then those who join him in this will have no theory of change (and will be accused of being, shock, horror, Revisionists!).

In that case, such comrades cannot tell us why what happens has to happen --, it just does. But in that case, if we do not know why things have to happen the way they do, then anything at all could happen. The class war might not lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat!

Hegel in fact developed his 'theory' so that he could explain exactly why things happened the way they do, and could not possibly happen any other way. And that is why the Dialectical Apostles liked his 'theory', accepted it as a 'law of cognition' (to quote Lenin), and an 'absolute' (to quote Lenin and Mao), and repeated it many times.

So, they at least had a 'theory'; too bad it descends into absurdity, but they at least tried to explain why the class war led inevitably to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

However, Hiero's attempt to salvage something from the wreckage leaves him with no theory at all.

On the other hand, all this could mean that this 'theory' is wrong from beginning to end.

I rather think I'll go with the latter option.

In other words, Hiero is telling us not to believe what we read in the Dialectical Holy Books, and that he has no theory of change to offer oppressed humanity.

I can live with that too.

Are you stoned? Because everything you said is really...out there.

It is not even worth going through, because it contains no real substance to critique. Again Rosa shows that dialectics is what every she wants it to be.

Hiero:

Yes, I am totally crazy actually taking the Dialectical Holy Men at their word, and working out their absurd consequences.

Even better, my arguments are so powerful that not even the Apostle Hiero can answer them!

brendancooney has a nice set of intros to the dialectical method on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo8X7...eature=related

Don't bother; it's just the same old blah, blah, blaadee blah we've heard a thousand times already.

And it's no better in quality, no matter how much the quantity of the repeats is increased.

And, Trivas, we are still waiting to hear how you know that all language is metaphorical.

What you said had no relation to the topic.

Hiero:

Yes, you would say that, wouldn't you?

Indeed, Rosa's thinking re the subject is clouded by Wittgenstein's analytic philosophy.

Trivas:

Just as yours is crippled by Hegelian mysticism.

Even so, none of you can show where my arguments go wrong.

And we are still waiting to hear how you know that all language is metaphorical.

I am always serious when Mr. Daniels is involved.

But you've yet to construct an argument, AFAIK.

Ask a neurologist how people know what they know. What possible difference does it make?

Trivas:

Given the fact that too much 'dialectical logic' has nuked your brain, you would not know an argument if it bit you in the head.

In other words, you just made it up.

Why does that not surprise me?

Trystan:

Is that before, or after a couple of shots?

Yes, sarcasm is all your argument amounts to.