And Now, Some “Mind Bending” (or, as I like to Call It, History)

Just return your tray tables and seat backs to their full uprights and locked position, fasten your seat belts and hit play:

Now, if that didn’t ring some bells and starts some gears to turning, you need to leave the RNL and go back to the Oprah and Jerry Springer shows.

About these ads

16 thoughts on “And Now, Some “Mind Bending” (or, as I like to Call It, History)

    • Like a Snake eating its own tail (Benzene Ring)….Social Relativism is a part of and feeds Hegelian Principle and vice versa….Yes.

      Yin/Yang is more of an insight as to natural phenomemna……Positive/negative charges…..action/reaction….that sort of thing. The observation became part of a philosophy of opposites in balance. But that is different from creating a new “state” ( Synthesis).

  1. Harmony through conflict? Obviously, this fella didn’t know music. What a jackass. The jerk probably never had to harmonize a day in his life. Yeah, I’m in a swell mood. Harmony is in fact mastered by the individual learning their flippin music so as to blend with the other individual (s), who, one would hope, have mastered their own line in the music.

    • Joe is correct….And it isn’t this fellow you are rebeling against it is Hegel and his dialectic…..and the application of that dialectic by the Elites……this fellow is just describing the Actiom-Reaction-Solution socail calculus of the Liberal Progressives.

      What YOU (Kelly) describe is the beauty of individuation….Harmonization from the individual efforts and talents of EACH individual participant…..coming to gether to “harmonize”. What youdescribe is antithetical to the entire Hegelian “proces”.

      And I salute you for it. I realize you are speaking of Musical participation…..but itis also a metaphor for how Social interactions can be based on Individuals…..Hegels dialectic applied to Social engineering abhors the Individual in favor of people as Numbers and “averages”.

      • So thank you, Don. Mr. Smarty Pants has already claimed to not be able to hold a tune in a bucket, so I’m sure he would be the one I was pulling the weight for in a song! Harmony does NOT (as B. would put it) come out of conflict!

        Look here, B., to harmonize, one must listen to the other voice and blend in order for a beautiful sound to be created. For the true beauty of that sound, the individual must be willing to make choices in order that it be beautiful. I can assure you that I could overpower you vocally. Is that beautiful? The composer of the piece expected his music to be heard a certain way. I don’t know if I’m making a lick of sense, but I think Don can translate for me.

        • Right….But Joe ( and the Scotsman in the video) are merely DESCRIBING an important philosophical movement….one that empowered Marx and Engles by the way.

          I don’t think Joe is ADVOCATING Hegelian principle at all….this is purely to show HOW the Marxian…Progressive movement was formed….the foundations of its’ ideology.. You mentioned “individuals being willing to make Choices”….that is exactly the POINT…..and thus is also the OPPOSITE point of the Hegelian Dialectic as applied to the Social Sphere It is the OPPOSITE for the Hegelians because to them the individuals ability to make ANY choice is irrelevent to them……what is relevent is action through conflict of the Whole populace…..the individual is anathema to them.

          I agree….and I think Joe would as well….that the beauty of the “sound” ( in Music) or in other social interactions is best when there are Individuals who come FREELY to the effort and as you say “Willingly make choices to “harmonize” and then do the work to do so.

          But then ….what the Hell do I know…. :- )).

          • Thanks, Don. Sometimes, I just can’t get through to Kells (actually, most times I can’t seem to manage to speak in a language she understands). Glad to see you manage it better than I.

  2. The Hegelian Dialectic depends on compromise (synthesis) to progress. The issue that I have with it is not so much that it exists – it is that through post modern thought, compromise means compromising or violating principle rather than compromising about how to sustain that principle – that is to say, we agree to a common principle, we synthesize the manner in which we get there. Hegel presupposes that a thesis of “I am free” and an antithesis of “I am not free” must reach a synthesis that is of some other construction – when there is no other construction – I either am free or I am not free.

    This dialectic has been used to erode the Constitution by trapping us in a never ending bout of navel gazing and never-ending arguments. It is actually a dishonest way to argue because there can never be a result, there can never be an end.

    This is what Bill Clinton called the “third way” of politics and is representative of “circular” logic, as @DonAmeche says it is a Benzene Ring.

    What are are the two greatest tools? Consensus building and dialog – basically management by committee by which every single decision is guaranteed to be sub-optimal…and therefore – wrong.

    Hegel was an imperialist con artist who established the principles of dialectical “no-reason”, something that is the very basis for my pet peeve, post-modernism. Hegel’s dialectic has allowed “progressives” to lead simple, capable, freeborn men and women back into the superstitious, racist (where on side of the dialectic charges the other side with racism while practicing it) and unreasonable age of governmental supremacy.

    The “battle” to eliminate racism is a perfect example. The federal government represents people who are free without restriction of race. The federal government also “protects” racial minorities by passing legislation to specifically “protect” the rights of these special groups even as those rights are already not restricted by government. If you use Hegel’s logical Marxism, the only way to protect people from race discrimination is to become racist – to create laws and regulations specifically based on race.

    So to prevent racism, we must become racist. This twisted logic is why cons are so successful, and Hegel twisted it in such a way as to be “impenetrable.”

    Like Hegel and Marx, the best street con knows his spiel has to use logic to bend and distort the story, and good cons weave their lies on logical mathematical progression. The fallacy is in the language, not in the math, something that we have explored here.

    • Right you are, Utah. As soon as elites started talking in terms of considering all belief systems to be equally meritorious and all people to be entitled to the same outcomes (not opportunities, outcomes), regardless of merit, talent, effort, or ethics, it was fairly easy to predict that we’d find ourselves in a big, Kum-Ba-Yah singing puggle of emotional goo, unable to articulate a principle or take a moral stand on the grounds that “it might hurt someone’s feelings.” Our leaders play to this illogical, emotive garbage and use it to convince people that they are simply incapable of surviving, much less thriving, without the intervention of a benevolent central government. Interesting discussion, all. Happy St. Nicholas’s day to you — Kelly

      • Kelly, Joe, Kells and Utah…..there is a new book by Judge Napolitano on the Progressivism of Earlier 20th Century America called ” Theoedore and Wilson”….about Teddy and the infamous Prez who brought us the FED and the Income Tax.

        You might “like” this as a reference.

  3. I appreciate the comments, all. Thanks for the book info Don.

    I’m pretty bummed about the direction of the country. We could have 1,000 monkeys pounding on typewriters and have a higher quality of legislative action than we have today…and that includes the Republicans, too. We have reached such a level of illogical discourse and pure, unmitigated stupidity in Washington that I’m not sure if we deserve to survive.

    I’ve lived in the UK for over 2 years now and while I love the people here, 70 years of socialism has not cured the same ills the these Marxist morons in the US claim it will. They have the NHS and have exactly the same health issues as we do – and based on the taxes I pay, it ain’t even close to free. They have corruption in government that they can’t get rid of. Hayek described this clearly in the Road to Serfdom. The UK government is just a bloated and inefficient as ours, indicating that bigger government cures nothing.

    It is just freaking insanity, the things that our idiotic society is doing.

    I feel like Diogenes, doomed to wander the earth in search of an honest man – except I’m looking for any signs that these idiot “progressives” are going to drop the pretense and just say that their aim is a communist society and get it over with.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s