What do you think?
Rate this book
New Roads #4
Mao Zedong's "On Contradiction" Study Companion
On Contradiction is Mao Zedong’s seminal text on dialectical materialism. Perhaps his most well-known work, it’s been read and studied by millions all over the world and is required reading for all those who seek to objectively analyze the world and struggle to solve the contradictions in it. The Redspark Collective prepared this study companion to assist readers by providing historical and modern day context and examples.
96 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2019
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 9, 2024
Everyone should read this. Commentary is v useful
December 10, 2024
Mao is the GOAT but the study accompaniment makes this *chef’s kiss*. Love when philosophical thought is contextualized/supported with historical examples.
October 1, 2024
i wrote a review of mao zedong's on contradiction where i can confidently say tHat i utterly decimated it, and my review piledrives the heCk out of marxism by using hegelian dialectical logic to illustrate how marxism, and its satellite ideologies of leninism, maoism, etc., completely eliminate themselves under their own form of logic.
1st, before i continue, i would like to address something here. the cOncept of socialism is never defined, not only in this study companion but in just about anything yOu can read on the subject despite claiming tHat it can provide for people while fixing the economic and environmental crises caused by capitalism's use of resources. it is never explained how this can be the case if resources are necessary for goods and technological developments. i will give it to redspark collective however, in which he does understand the gibberish to his secular religion.
the nature of contradiction itself in relation to oppositions within an eternal struggle is a good analysis of contradictions and the lack of balance in existence, but it is nO defense for helping a case for communism, as contradiction ultimately harms communism's variant of material dialectics as being materialistic and is by the very concept of an eternal and unchanging truth to be in itself a metaphysical process of development. the process of conflict (which is interchangeable w/ contradiction) is the nietzschean/heraclitan conception tHat life itself is struggle and ultimately defined by the will to pOwer. existence is war, and this book actually unintentionally makes a point about tHat through a marxian analysis in which social contradictions, unlike contradictions of struggle, can be a bit more fluid, in which the primary contradiction can be the non-primary contradiction and vice versa. the proletariat can overthrow the bourgeoisie and then become the bourgeoisie itself (and it really just sounds like struggle still to me, honestly). this is more or less the same idea of permanent revolution in maoism, where it essentially acts as a sociopolitical blackhole where mao zedong is the solipsistic singularity. (i explain this concept in more detail concerning my review of mao's stupid essay.)
due to communism's conception among communists as being the establishment for a civilization of eternal peace in which all political parties can be eliminated, it clearly reveals itself as politicalized idealism, and therefore, it follows tHat it is a politicalized religious interpretation of the metaphysical "spot", which i will certainly elaborate on in a moment, but in order to do so, we need to set definitions for capitalism and socialism, examine dialectical logic, and then look at its relationship to capitalism and socialism.
capitalism is the emergence of a sophisticated form of natural selection processes as the development of an intelligent organizational system which is a counter response to the acceleration of cosmic entropy.
socialism is programs issued by the state, such as social security benefits and welfare, the development of laws, and establishing public ownership for things like parks. (i am aware tHat books may say things about socialism being the collective ownership for the means of production, but i have yet come into contact w/ any idea tHat would not be handled w/o taxation, as they have so far failed to give any coherent explanation. they condescendingly give the dictionary definition and send you on your way.)
socialism and capitalism are in dialectical opposition to 1 another, as any functional economy is going to be a mixture of both. or said another way, an economy is an approximated balance of the oppositional dialectics between capitalism and socialism. the removal of 1 destroys the sustainability of the country's economy. capitalism allows for the machinery in which socialism can exist, and socialism can metaphorically be seen like a person tending to their garden in order to maintain manageability and not let the weeds overtake the garden.
now, to understand the relationship these systems have w/ dialectical materialism, we need to explore the concept of wHat the philosopher and computer scientist, d.j. huntington moore theorizes in his book the first science and the generic code tHat he calls the epistemological brain, and we can then understand through his use of semiotics tHat dialectical logic is a right-side brain hemisphere logic tHat encompasses a hOlism of the left and right sides of the brain, whereas left-side brain hemisphere logic (which is the logic of the mOdern sciences) is only aware of the left-side itself. however, the holism of right-side dialectical lOgic allows us to illustrate methodz on how to probe axioms in mathematics as they require an analysis to ask why the self-evidential properties of axioms are self-evidential, in which it, colloquially speaking, leads a way to study the metaphysical spOt, which, according to immanuel kant, tHat we go round and round in but never get any closer to the development of a science of this strange, immaterial landscape:
"it seems almost ridiculous, while every other science is continually advancing, tHat in this, pretends to be wisdom incarnate, for whose oracle every1 inquires, we should constantly move around the sAme spot, without gaining a single step."
this drove kant to this question:
"wHat can we hope to achieve w/ reason when all the material and assistance of experience, is taken away?"
this leads us to the cOncept of an antithetical and non-numerical mathematical structure known as anti-mathematical systems: gender calculus, AUG codon geometry, heraclitus diagrams, monads and co-monads, elementary generic forms, generic geometric algebra, and RGB triads (consisting of a triadic geometry utilizing dyads, and the triadic can be added up to be a 64 ordered system in ways in which ontological gender can be arranged, which is compared w/ the 64 ordered binary system in the i ching, along w/ 0s and 1s in computer binary code, which appears to correspond w/ 64-bit computer cOde architecture -- a curious connection here). anti-mathematics has its developmental roots in the ancient text of the i ching. its fundamental mode of operation is binary, utilizing only 2 semiotic signifiers (the base to gender calculus) for organizing philosophical 1st principles to develop dialectically epistemological certainty of wHat are allegedly unknowable properties of incorporeality, (and certain mathematical systems such as bra-ket notation from quantum mechanics and leibniz notation are applied in order to transcribe into a system of anti-mathematics) and it nOt only has no use for axiomatic foundations due to its theorems and models originating from kantian pure reason, it is also the universal algebraic system in which the mathematician leibniz wrote about when he frequently hypothesized the characteristica universalis in his writings, in which he explored the possibility for a framework of a language tHat was usable as a universal calculus ratiocinator, or, in other words, the same algebraic language used to describe a flower is alsO used for calculating the biological structure of the flower itself. anti-mathematics is the system fOr developing the advancement of making metaphysics scientific through the process of a dialectical ontology in which marxism can also be made scientific (but not in the way a communist might hope for and may experience existential terror from reading d.j. huntington moore's a metaphysics of the computer: the reality machine and a new science for the holistic age ).
therefore, dialectical materialism in and of itself is not necessarily wrong, as it is simply a hegelian synthesis of metaphysical unity and ontological diversity to develop a dialectical proof of the external world. when reading heidegger's being and time, it can clearly be seen as a return from hegel's metaphysical union of absolute consciousness and ontology and looking at the world in a dialectical materialistic framework made up of a world of Beings who are cognizant of their solipsistic individuation of multiplicities each w/ an extension of physical and temporal finitudes, or articulated another way tHat is not in the form of unrelatable abstraction, not an objectively approximated and concise way of using hegelian derived jargon, but as a way of thought to express our sense of alienation from ourselves and to reevaluate tHat it provides several new modes of understanding and connection w/ ourselves as Beings ("dasein" in heidegger's terminology), rediscovering our more grounded roots in the wOrld along w/ our intimate relation w/ dasein's birth and the ever-changing phases throughout dasein's passing through time, its movement towards dEath uncovers the reality tHat Being is Time, and along w/ nietzsche whose dismantling of moral values and even the conception of truth itself, through reasoning tHat appeared to illustrate the recognition of left-side brain logic's ethereally abstract foundations, showed philosophy to be taking a critically different and strange turn in the 20th century.
marxism and its other ideological variants however, never ostensibly left tHat immaterial realm and turned a logic used for metaphysics and its relation to the world into a logic used for developing a political religion tHat attempts to slap the platonic form of christian metaphysics onto the state. in other words, hegelian dialectics was extracted from the metaphysical realm of timeless eternality, which was then folded inside out into an atheistic christian sect of sociopolitical solipsism, making the state essentially god, and thus, resulting in a closed system of socioeconomic entropy. so wHat we have are several arrays for possible errors tHat can occur when dialectical logic is abused, and some errors are, as you might have already guessed, marxism, maoism, leninism, and stalinism. these errors can be referred to as contradictive dialectics of materialism, and this concept can be defined as an assumed materialistic dialectical contradiction which is revealed to contradict the nature of the hegelian dialectical contradiction, thus rendering the assumed materialistic dialectical contradiction inapplicable.
since capitalism is sophisticated natural selection processes in operation, it is then the manifestation of those processes in the form of a social value system (which currency is an approximation of these values). b/c of this, i can't really understand why some1 would follow either communism (socialism w/o capitalism) or anarcho-capitalism (capitalism w/o socialism). communism, when politically applied, is essentially capitalism for the state, which means tHat capitalism is the applicable system and should be cOnsidered the left-side brain logic, in the dialectical sense, whereas the right-side logic is the economic ontology during the dialectical process in which the hegelian contradiction is the state of economic and political silence for an ontological anarchism as the result of an entropic collapse in which the formation of capitalism immediately sublates the state of ontological anarchism. once this hAppens, the political and economic conflict (contradiction) concerning the infinitely tiered struggle for the will to power begins to take form as the dialectical movement of the oppositions: the political ontology formalizes into sOcialism, and the anarchism ontologizes into capitalism, w/ each dialectically oppositional movement keeping the other in check for a stable economy in order for capitalism's mechanisms of self-improving/self-correcting processes not unlike those of backpropagatiOn in artificial intelligence.
if we take it to the level of biology, in darwin's terms, the land would already be capitalized upon by the economy of nature itself. this simple observation from a classical biological perspective illustrates a key fundamental misunderstanding within marxian analysis concerning dialectical contradictions b/c it attributes society and nature as oppositions in contradiction w/ 1 another, but society, socialism, and capitalism are holistically nature and the marxian view is a semantic trap. marxism states tHat labor and means of production are also in contradiction, but this is again, another misunderstanding b/c labor is human capital. marxism desperately attempts to remove man from nature, and the fact tHat people can even be vulnerable to the bullsHit in communism is a testament to how far man is already psychologically removed b/c in man's futile attempt to dominate and remove himself from nature, he sacrifices the aristotelian anima in favor of suburbanizing it in his artificial domain of technological civilization, and marxism is a prime example of man's loss of himself.
in fact, communism has more moral practices in common w/ christianity than capitalism does (only differing on the truth value of god's existence) due to christianity originally being socialistic, as the catholic church explicitly bAnned usury during the middle ages, but money lending itself in general was fOrbidden to christians. banking wasn't able tO become a thing making christianity responsible for setting capitalism (aka the economy of nature) back severely. the pope said tHat merchants would go to hell. and then when he saw capitalism flOurishing throughout europe, he changed his tune and made a claim tHat a merchant named homobonus was a saint. therefore, communism is materialist christianity, and christianity is metaphysical communism. it was jesus who did say after all, "no 1 can serve 2 masters. either yOu will hate the 1 and love the other, or yOu will be devoted to the 1 and despise the other. you cannot serve both gOd and money." christianity's suppression of capitalism by disallowing trade and technological advancements, illustrates tHat the christians of the middle ages were luddites who had not only a severe disconnection w/ nature but also a severe disregard towardz it, meaning the same holds for communists of the modern wOrld.
zedong's gibberish concept of a materialist dialectic as being the internal contradictions of a thing allegedly moving it (which the study companion advances the idea into a coherent 1 of mOvement from life to death, and the inner life and death contradiction between them concerning the process of cells moving from life to death, while new living cells replace the dead 1s) is ultimately metaphysical in nature due to it being an eternal, unchanging law of existence, and he has absolutely no understanding of wHat a metaphysician fundamentally even is, which the study companion seems to even display since it misconstrues a metaphysician as nothing more than a theologian, or more accurately, a religious mystic, but an antithetical negation such as christian atheism is, in and of itself, a form of this kind of philosophical inquiry. mao's clear lack of having read the greek classics to grasp the philosophical origins of metaphysical conceptions in western society is quite apparent and only accidentally echoes the pre-socratic philosopher, heraclitus, through his cursory understanding of hegel's idea of contradictions.
ultimately, hegel's dialectic is to develop a synthesis tHat moves consciousness and its understanding forward, but materialist dialectics, in the marxian sense, is intended to be a contradiction of static movement (as mao discusses as well), and b/c of this, it is unable to successfully form a dialectical synthesis, oscillating eternally between thesis and antithesis, until eventually, as time goes by, the oscillations practically start hitting the planck length and push dudes like zizek into finally reaching a strange kind of synthesis forcing them to become post-marxists, whether they like it or nOt, and if they are unable to make tHat step like mark fisher and guy debord, they end up committing suicide. it is only in oblivion tHat the universality of marxian contradiction is permissible to occur, but in life, it's only eternal aspect of shortened rapid oscillations, reveals itself to be an ideology in conflict w/ itself, exposing how incredibly damn infantile it is. this is wHat happens when you lobotomize hegel and heraclitus.
mao's concept of a thing's internal contradictions as the movement of internal processes ultimately leads to an infinite regress when applied materialistically and implies tHat an inward process of movement for consciousness in its being and becoming is, fundamentally, a dialectical "ghost in the machine" due to the nature of hegelian dialectics as, fundamentally being, a logic of the metaphysical spot, and strangely, out of all the stupidity of marxism and its satellite ideologies, those short and quick oscillations which construct a circuit board-like reasoning within post-marxist materialistic dialectics lays out a bridge for a mental vibration to examine the marxian ontology in which the spot can be examined anywhere at any time, probing it w/ the tools d.j. huntington moore's anti-mathematics provides us. marxism is a theory so wrong, tHat in the post-marxian framework, the spot begins to make its appearance. this may give an actual form of scientific understanding and clarity when robert m. pirsig says in zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, "it is not good to talk about zen, b/c zen is nOthingness... if you talk about it, yOu are always lying, and if you don't talk about it, nO 1 knows it is there."
--BRΛINΦΠΦTΣMPLΣ
1st, before i continue, i would like to address something here. the cOncept of socialism is never defined, not only in this study companion but in just about anything yOu can read on the subject despite claiming tHat it can provide for people while fixing the economic and environmental crises caused by capitalism's use of resources. it is never explained how this can be the case if resources are necessary for goods and technological developments. i will give it to redspark collective however, in which he does understand the gibberish to his secular religion.
the nature of contradiction itself in relation to oppositions within an eternal struggle is a good analysis of contradictions and the lack of balance in existence, but it is nO defense for helping a case for communism, as contradiction ultimately harms communism's variant of material dialectics as being materialistic and is by the very concept of an eternal and unchanging truth to be in itself a metaphysical process of development. the process of conflict (which is interchangeable w/ contradiction) is the nietzschean/heraclitan conception tHat life itself is struggle and ultimately defined by the will to pOwer. existence is war, and this book actually unintentionally makes a point about tHat through a marxian analysis in which social contradictions, unlike contradictions of struggle, can be a bit more fluid, in which the primary contradiction can be the non-primary contradiction and vice versa. the proletariat can overthrow the bourgeoisie and then become the bourgeoisie itself (and it really just sounds like struggle still to me, honestly). this is more or less the same idea of permanent revolution in maoism, where it essentially acts as a sociopolitical blackhole where mao zedong is the solipsistic singularity. (i explain this concept in more detail concerning my review of mao's stupid essay.)
due to communism's conception among communists as being the establishment for a civilization of eternal peace in which all political parties can be eliminated, it clearly reveals itself as politicalized idealism, and therefore, it follows tHat it is a politicalized religious interpretation of the metaphysical "spot", which i will certainly elaborate on in a moment, but in order to do so, we need to set definitions for capitalism and socialism, examine dialectical logic, and then look at its relationship to capitalism and socialism.
capitalism is the emergence of a sophisticated form of natural selection processes as the development of an intelligent organizational system which is a counter response to the acceleration of cosmic entropy.
socialism is programs issued by the state, such as social security benefits and welfare, the development of laws, and establishing public ownership for things like parks. (i am aware tHat books may say things about socialism being the collective ownership for the means of production, but i have yet come into contact w/ any idea tHat would not be handled w/o taxation, as they have so far failed to give any coherent explanation. they condescendingly give the dictionary definition and send you on your way.)
socialism and capitalism are in dialectical opposition to 1 another, as any functional economy is going to be a mixture of both. or said another way, an economy is an approximated balance of the oppositional dialectics between capitalism and socialism. the removal of 1 destroys the sustainability of the country's economy. capitalism allows for the machinery in which socialism can exist, and socialism can metaphorically be seen like a person tending to their garden in order to maintain manageability and not let the weeds overtake the garden.
now, to understand the relationship these systems have w/ dialectical materialism, we need to explore the concept of wHat the philosopher and computer scientist, d.j. huntington moore theorizes in his book the first science and the generic code tHat he calls the epistemological brain, and we can then understand through his use of semiotics tHat dialectical logic is a right-side brain hemisphere logic tHat encompasses a hOlism of the left and right sides of the brain, whereas left-side brain hemisphere logic (which is the logic of the mOdern sciences) is only aware of the left-side itself. however, the holism of right-side dialectical lOgic allows us to illustrate methodz on how to probe axioms in mathematics as they require an analysis to ask why the self-evidential properties of axioms are self-evidential, in which it, colloquially speaking, leads a way to study the metaphysical spOt, which, according to immanuel kant, tHat we go round and round in but never get any closer to the development of a science of this strange, immaterial landscape:
"it seems almost ridiculous, while every other science is continually advancing, tHat in this, pretends to be wisdom incarnate, for whose oracle every1 inquires, we should constantly move around the sAme spot, without gaining a single step."
this drove kant to this question:
"wHat can we hope to achieve w/ reason when all the material and assistance of experience, is taken away?"
this leads us to the cOncept of an antithetical and non-numerical mathematical structure known as anti-mathematical systems: gender calculus, AUG codon geometry, heraclitus diagrams, monads and co-monads, elementary generic forms, generic geometric algebra, and RGB triads (consisting of a triadic geometry utilizing dyads, and the triadic can be added up to be a 64 ordered system in ways in which ontological gender can be arranged, which is compared w/ the 64 ordered binary system in the i ching, along w/ 0s and 1s in computer binary code, which appears to correspond w/ 64-bit computer cOde architecture -- a curious connection here). anti-mathematics has its developmental roots in the ancient text of the i ching. its fundamental mode of operation is binary, utilizing only 2 semiotic signifiers (the base to gender calculus) for organizing philosophical 1st principles to develop dialectically epistemological certainty of wHat are allegedly unknowable properties of incorporeality, (and certain mathematical systems such as bra-ket notation from quantum mechanics and leibniz notation are applied in order to transcribe into a system of anti-mathematics) and it nOt only has no use for axiomatic foundations due to its theorems and models originating from kantian pure reason, it is also the universal algebraic system in which the mathematician leibniz wrote about when he frequently hypothesized the characteristica universalis in his writings, in which he explored the possibility for a framework of a language tHat was usable as a universal calculus ratiocinator, or, in other words, the same algebraic language used to describe a flower is alsO used for calculating the biological structure of the flower itself. anti-mathematics is the system fOr developing the advancement of making metaphysics scientific through the process of a dialectical ontology in which marxism can also be made scientific (but not in the way a communist might hope for and may experience existential terror from reading d.j. huntington moore's a metaphysics of the computer: the reality machine and a new science for the holistic age ).
therefore, dialectical materialism in and of itself is not necessarily wrong, as it is simply a hegelian synthesis of metaphysical unity and ontological diversity to develop a dialectical proof of the external world. when reading heidegger's being and time, it can clearly be seen as a return from hegel's metaphysical union of absolute consciousness and ontology and looking at the world in a dialectical materialistic framework made up of a world of Beings who are cognizant of their solipsistic individuation of multiplicities each w/ an extension of physical and temporal finitudes, or articulated another way tHat is not in the form of unrelatable abstraction, not an objectively approximated and concise way of using hegelian derived jargon, but as a way of thought to express our sense of alienation from ourselves and to reevaluate tHat it provides several new modes of understanding and connection w/ ourselves as Beings ("dasein" in heidegger's terminology), rediscovering our more grounded roots in the wOrld along w/ our intimate relation w/ dasein's birth and the ever-changing phases throughout dasein's passing through time, its movement towards dEath uncovers the reality tHat Being is Time, and along w/ nietzsche whose dismantling of moral values and even the conception of truth itself, through reasoning tHat appeared to illustrate the recognition of left-side brain logic's ethereally abstract foundations, showed philosophy to be taking a critically different and strange turn in the 20th century.
marxism and its other ideological variants however, never ostensibly left tHat immaterial realm and turned a logic used for metaphysics and its relation to the world into a logic used for developing a political religion tHat attempts to slap the platonic form of christian metaphysics onto the state. in other words, hegelian dialectics was extracted from the metaphysical realm of timeless eternality, which was then folded inside out into an atheistic christian sect of sociopolitical solipsism, making the state essentially god, and thus, resulting in a closed system of socioeconomic entropy. so wHat we have are several arrays for possible errors tHat can occur when dialectical logic is abused, and some errors are, as you might have already guessed, marxism, maoism, leninism, and stalinism. these errors can be referred to as contradictive dialectics of materialism, and this concept can be defined as an assumed materialistic dialectical contradiction which is revealed to contradict the nature of the hegelian dialectical contradiction, thus rendering the assumed materialistic dialectical contradiction inapplicable.
since capitalism is sophisticated natural selection processes in operation, it is then the manifestation of those processes in the form of a social value system (which currency is an approximation of these values). b/c of this, i can't really understand why some1 would follow either communism (socialism w/o capitalism) or anarcho-capitalism (capitalism w/o socialism). communism, when politically applied, is essentially capitalism for the state, which means tHat capitalism is the applicable system and should be cOnsidered the left-side brain logic, in the dialectical sense, whereas the right-side logic is the economic ontology during the dialectical process in which the hegelian contradiction is the state of economic and political silence for an ontological anarchism as the result of an entropic collapse in which the formation of capitalism immediately sublates the state of ontological anarchism. once this hAppens, the political and economic conflict (contradiction) concerning the infinitely tiered struggle for the will to power begins to take form as the dialectical movement of the oppositions: the political ontology formalizes into sOcialism, and the anarchism ontologizes into capitalism, w/ each dialectically oppositional movement keeping the other in check for a stable economy in order for capitalism's mechanisms of self-improving/self-correcting processes not unlike those of backpropagatiOn in artificial intelligence.
if we take it to the level of biology, in darwin's terms, the land would already be capitalized upon by the economy of nature itself. this simple observation from a classical biological perspective illustrates a key fundamental misunderstanding within marxian analysis concerning dialectical contradictions b/c it attributes society and nature as oppositions in contradiction w/ 1 another, but society, socialism, and capitalism are holistically nature and the marxian view is a semantic trap. marxism states tHat labor and means of production are also in contradiction, but this is again, another misunderstanding b/c labor is human capital. marxism desperately attempts to remove man from nature, and the fact tHat people can even be vulnerable to the bullsHit in communism is a testament to how far man is already psychologically removed b/c in man's futile attempt to dominate and remove himself from nature, he sacrifices the aristotelian anima in favor of suburbanizing it in his artificial domain of technological civilization, and marxism is a prime example of man's loss of himself.
in fact, communism has more moral practices in common w/ christianity than capitalism does (only differing on the truth value of god's existence) due to christianity originally being socialistic, as the catholic church explicitly bAnned usury during the middle ages, but money lending itself in general was fOrbidden to christians. banking wasn't able tO become a thing making christianity responsible for setting capitalism (aka the economy of nature) back severely. the pope said tHat merchants would go to hell. and then when he saw capitalism flOurishing throughout europe, he changed his tune and made a claim tHat a merchant named homobonus was a saint. therefore, communism is materialist christianity, and christianity is metaphysical communism. it was jesus who did say after all, "no 1 can serve 2 masters. either yOu will hate the 1 and love the other, or yOu will be devoted to the 1 and despise the other. you cannot serve both gOd and money." christianity's suppression of capitalism by disallowing trade and technological advancements, illustrates tHat the christians of the middle ages were luddites who had not only a severe disconnection w/ nature but also a severe disregard towardz it, meaning the same holds for communists of the modern wOrld.
zedong's gibberish concept of a materialist dialectic as being the internal contradictions of a thing allegedly moving it (which the study companion advances the idea into a coherent 1 of mOvement from life to death, and the inner life and death contradiction between them concerning the process of cells moving from life to death, while new living cells replace the dead 1s) is ultimately metaphysical in nature due to it being an eternal, unchanging law of existence, and he has absolutely no understanding of wHat a metaphysician fundamentally even is, which the study companion seems to even display since it misconstrues a metaphysician as nothing more than a theologian, or more accurately, a religious mystic, but an antithetical negation such as christian atheism is, in and of itself, a form of this kind of philosophical inquiry. mao's clear lack of having read the greek classics to grasp the philosophical origins of metaphysical conceptions in western society is quite apparent and only accidentally echoes the pre-socratic philosopher, heraclitus, through his cursory understanding of hegel's idea of contradictions.
ultimately, hegel's dialectic is to develop a synthesis tHat moves consciousness and its understanding forward, but materialist dialectics, in the marxian sense, is intended to be a contradiction of static movement (as mao discusses as well), and b/c of this, it is unable to successfully form a dialectical synthesis, oscillating eternally between thesis and antithesis, until eventually, as time goes by, the oscillations practically start hitting the planck length and push dudes like zizek into finally reaching a strange kind of synthesis forcing them to become post-marxists, whether they like it or nOt, and if they are unable to make tHat step like mark fisher and guy debord, they end up committing suicide. it is only in oblivion tHat the universality of marxian contradiction is permissible to occur, but in life, it's only eternal aspect of shortened rapid oscillations, reveals itself to be an ideology in conflict w/ itself, exposing how incredibly damn infantile it is. this is wHat happens when you lobotomize hegel and heraclitus.
mao's concept of a thing's internal contradictions as the movement of internal processes ultimately leads to an infinite regress when applied materialistically and implies tHat an inward process of movement for consciousness in its being and becoming is, fundamentally, a dialectical "ghost in the machine" due to the nature of hegelian dialectics as, fundamentally being, a logic of the metaphysical spot, and strangely, out of all the stupidity of marxism and its satellite ideologies, those short and quick oscillations which construct a circuit board-like reasoning within post-marxist materialistic dialectics lays out a bridge for a mental vibration to examine the marxian ontology in which the spot can be examined anywhere at any time, probing it w/ the tools d.j. huntington moore's anti-mathematics provides us. marxism is a theory so wrong, tHat in the post-marxian framework, the spot begins to make its appearance. this may give an actual form of scientific understanding and clarity when robert m. pirsig says in zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, "it is not good to talk about zen, b/c zen is nOthingness... if you talk about it, yOu are always lying, and if you don't talk about it, nO 1 knows it is there."
--BRΛINΦΠΦTΣMPLΣ
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews