simmo wrote:Oh god, please don't tell me people here are trying to make Hegel's ideas relevant/even make any sense at all.

I'm not sure what they have to do with Paul, but if kids want to start talking about Hegelian dialectic as a tool of New World Order tyrants then they better have read that shit because they're just making themselves look ignorant AND pretentious, which is a bad combination.

"Hegelian dialectic" does not mean "Problem>Reaction>Solution" as Bob Rick attempts to claim. That is not a dialectic. There is no dialectic relationship in that description. What he is attempting to describe is the workings of manufactured consent via crisis, which is an entirely different form. Hegel was attempting to present a framework that explained (hah) historical development, and was certainly not something that could be employed by anyone seeking a result; the antithesis emerges from the contradictions inherent in the thesis. This is why Marx's communism was described in terms of historical inevitability.

It's all crap, really.

So why would Bob Rick attempt to cite something that is irrelevant, that he doesn't understand, and that is by and large useless (especially to his argument) even when properly understood?

Simple! Hegel has had an upsurge of popularity in the writings of conspiracy-minded folks who have no idea what they're talking about. Throw "Hegelian dialectic" into google and the first hit is a page talking about how Hegelian dialectic is a tool of the forces attempting to create a single tyrannical world government - Bob Rick's NWO. This, of course, is an idiotic interpretation that has all the logical relevance of suggesting that Malthus was a shill for pro-abortion activists.

It does demonstrate, however, that conspiracy theorists like Bob Rick will repeat anything that agrees with them regardless of its accuracy or relevance, and that the only reason any of you tolerate a crackpot like Bob is because his politics occasionally agree with yours despite the fact that the logical worldview they are based in has all the validity of Jack Chick's tirades against the world-dominating satanic Catholic church.

Antero wrote:the antithesis emerges from the contradictions inherent in the thesis. This is why Marx's communism was described in terms of historical inevitability.

Out of interest (and sheer numbskullery on my part to bring it up at all in this thread), how do you interpret Marxist claims to 'invert' Hegel? Lukacz's reading that this was an 'inside out' inversion with the material history acting on ideology, instead of the classic Communist view, is the only thing would make this idea work at all.

Jack Chick's tirades against the world-dominating satanic Catholic church.

They have several common origins. Particularly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxil_hoax , which is used as Chick's primary source on Masonry and the Catholic Church, and also Rick's primary source for idea of the NWO as a Ba'alist/Baphometist cult.

big_dave wrote:But the article you quoted claimed exactly that. How can you quote one paragraph and expect people to ignore the paragraph that immediately proceeds it. It is disingenuous to expect people to read sources as right only when you say they are right, on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis.

The article you quoted, when you raised Hegel for the first time, clearly stated that he invented dialectics for illuminati purposes as a distracting idea. The article cited by the article that you cited claims that dialectics has its origins "in the garden of eden".

It is one thing to avoid ad hominem and guilt-by-association, it is another thing to be asked to ignore this sort of thing from a source we are supposed to take as primary evidence.

I didn't provide any "sources", and wasn't presenting "evidence". I quoted the statement because is matched what I wanted to say. When I'm presenting facts and evidence where the source is relevant I provide links, like this:
http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... ht=#582085

Rather than address the idea which was presented on its own, you went and found a website that contained the quote and used what I didn't support or quote to dismiss what I did. If I post an image found on google images, it doesn't mean I endorse everything else on that page.

The Next time I'll paraphrase. It'll save me time

"False paradigm"?

This is a good explanation. But it came from a "family values" type website so feel free to dismiss it out of hand.

False Paradigms

A “paradigm” is a viewpoint or inner framework for what we think is reality. This is what all the media and appearances lead us to, isn't it — a false paradigm, a collection of unrealistic and incorrect views of reality, assumed connections, wrong world-views. And the problem is that the false paradigm itself becomes the biggest deceiver of all. Because once our view or perspective of something is accepted, even subconsciously, it becomes a filter through which we observe and see everything.

False paradigms don't become true when we accept them, but they become highly influential of our lives, our behavior, our priorities, and our thoughts. Once I accept the paradigm that "I would be happier if I owned more stuff, and better stuff," my actions and my whole thought process begins to be governed by the pursuit of more and better stuff. Once I accept the paradigm that "cool people are independent and in control," I start hating myself for needing and being dependent on others or for not being able to control my life well enough to get everything checked off of my list every day.

If you think the world is flat, you are going to make some bad navigation decisions and become increasingly frustrated. If you think happiness depends on control, ownership, and independence, you are going to make some bad prioritizing decisions and become increasingly frustrated. Once you correct your paradigm to "round" you will get back on course to your nautical destination.

So rather than address the ideas, you put on a distracting light show? I'm able to judge ideas and concepts on their own merit. I can agree with many things David Icke says, and disagree on other things, I can agree with Christian fundamentalists on some things, disagree on others. Can't you?

Not with David Icke, no. The man is either insane or a charleton.

Are you from the UK? I think a lot of what he's said is dead on, some is dead wrong, and much is taken out of context. I thought his newest book ("Infinite Love Is the Only Truth...") was quite good.

One thing I think he is dead on about is "Problem-Reaction-Solution".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au1CLDMP90I

Here's some historical examples, stuffed right in between the mark of the beast and chemtrails
http://www.indexoftheweb.com/911Why.htm

As for Hubbard, I think he was more of an outright fraud, but instead of dismiss everything he's said, I take things on an individual basis. I'm certainly not going to throw out my biofeedback machine or niacin because Hubbard was wrong on the subject.

Important 'truth' can often be found with piles of bullshit, because thats the best place to hide it...

Argyreia Nervosa wrote:I didn't provide any "sources", and wasn't presenting "evidence". I quoted the statement because is matched what I wanted to say. When I'm presenting facts and evidence where the source is relevant I provide links, like this.

If it is neither of these things, what good is it to anyone? Just pretty sounding prose?

Rather than address the idea which was presented on its own, you went and found a website that contained the quote and used what I didn't support or quote to dismiss what I did. If I post an image found on google images, it doesn't mean I endorse everything else on that page.

The Next time I'll paraphrase. It

Not true, I wanted the 'whole ideal' and I found it. Unsourced text isn't so useful to anyone.

Again, I asked you why you thought Hegel was relevant because I wanted to hear your reply, not the reply of an imaginary internet authority.

The idea within the quote is hardly unrelated to the idea in the paragraph below it and above it, that you chose to edit out, and now ask me to disregard.

False Paradigms

A “paradigm” is a viewpoint or inner framework for what we think is reality. This is what all the media and appearances lead us to, isn't it — a false paradigm, a collection of unrealistic and incorrect views of reality, assumed connections, wrong world-views. And the problem is that the false paradigm itself becomes the biggest deceiver of all. Because once our view or perspective of something is accepted, even subconsciously, it becomes a filter through which we observe and see everything.

False paradigms don't become true when we accept them, but they become highly influential of our lives, our behavior, our priorities, and our thoughts. Once I accept the paradigm that "I would be happier if I owned more stuff, and better stuff," my actions and my whole thought process begins to be governed by the pursuit of more and better stuff. Once I accept the paradigm that "cool people are independent and in control," I start hating myself for needing and being dependent on others or for not being able to control my life well enough to get everything checked off of my list every day.

If you think the world is flat, you are going to make some bad navigation decisions and become increasingly frustrated. If you think happiness depends on control, ownership, and independence, you are going to make some bad prioritizing decisions and become increasingly frustrated. Once you correct your paradigm to "round" you will get back on course to your nautical destination.

Another gob of text you are presenting with evidence or source, just because you want me to symbolicly reject the idea. TL,DR.

Are you from the UK? I think a lot of what he's said is dead on, some is dead wrong, and much is taken out of context. I thought his newest book ("Infinite Love Is the Only Truth...") was quite good.

I am. I think he is either crazy or a cheat. If you say he is good at compiling sources, I want his sources and not his crazy/liar/cheat interpretations of him. I say 1) he is not a primary source of information, and I say 2) he sometimes lies. Between 1) and 2) we have a verdict: do not want.

As for Hubbard, I think he was more of an outright fraud, but instead of dismiss everything he's said, I take things on an individual basis. I'm certainly not going to throw out my biofeedback machine or niacin because Hubbard was wrong on the subject.

How about I take reliability as an individual idea, and hold everything to that?

Important 'truth' can often be found with piles of bullshit, because thats the best place to hide it...

If you're trying to smuggle math books into an insane asylum.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_Ron ... _0123.html

Rick Reuben wrote:

simmo wrote:Oh god, please don't tell me people here are trying to make Hegel's ideas relevant/even make any sense at all.

A few people here and there. Only people who believe in ludicrous conspiracy theories like 'manufactured consent' and 'propaganda models'. [...]

But seriously, if you're Dave or Antero or Simmo, you don't need to get any of this. You've got no business anywhere near the subjects of Hegel, dialectics,propaganda or 'the truth'.

Contrary to what you may believe, I am interested in how propaganda is used by modern governments; I am interested by Chomsky's ideas of manufactured consent; and I'm very, very much interested by what is actually going on in the world. I don't have the naive trust in governments that you seem to think I do. I just don't buy in to Hegel's philosophy in any way - he was, in my opinion, a very poor philosopher. The whole Hegelian concept of dialectics takes something that is trivially true - that there are forces, desires, organisations, ideas, etc that are opposed to each other - and then makes about fifty leaps of metaphor-ridden anti-logic to come up with some fantastically exciting sounding but ultimately incoherent model for how the mind and the world work. His philosophy is completely the wrong way round. It's anti-reductionist idealism that enshrouds itself in mystery and jargon - the very worst kind of philosophy. Philosophy should look at the complex world and attempt to decipher from it essential truths - Hegel begins with a conceptual model and then tries to mold or warp the world and its events to fit in with his schema. Which reminds me a little of the analytical processes of the archetypal conspiracy theorist - no surprise that he's so popular amongst the ranks of NWO enthusiasts.

Arthur Schopenhauer wrote: [Hegel's ideas are] a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage [...]

The height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had been only previously known in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced, general mystification that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, as a monument to German stupidity.

So anyhows, my opinion is as follows: fine, I'm happy to enter in to a discussion about the ways in which governments and political systems self-perpetuate, maintain the status quo, control information, manipulate media, etc. I am deeply concerned about all these things. But don't bring Hegel and his bloody dialectics in to it, because it is shit philosophy.

Oh but I forgot, I'm a coward... sorry, I shouldn't have said any of the above, I'm stepping out of my role here.

Man, I really feel like defending dialectics, but obviously this thread is neither the time nor the place.

Maybe later Simmo. Maybe you'll be in a cafe and you'll hear a shaggy Welshman say "what was that about Hegel?" . Then I may have my day.

I agree that manufactured consent is the big issue here, but the way it was thrown has devalued it before the discussion has even started.

Rick Reuben wrote:
Issue 1: Economy

Issue 2: War













Begin counting from 3 on down here.

3. Environment?

I'm pretty sure the only dialectics anybody cares about these days is the negative kind.

Fuck you Theodor Adorno! You confuse me!

houseboat wrote:Fuck you Theodor Adorno!

Easy on Theo, pal.