[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hegel is definitely a believer in conflict. He dared to undertake a
consummation of Philosophy, Western and Eastern. He embraced the
resulting conflict despite finding it disturbing. Maybe his search for
the Absolute was a process of reconciliation, a bereavement over the
ideals lost by the contemptible philosophes. The acorn becomes the oak,
but the oak must die. And so Tennyson wrote, almost as a true Hegelian:
Since everyone hates me (my fault), let me be the one to try, once again, to
sink Hegel and be done with hegelian pomposities. Want conflict? here it is.
(??? I quite like Hegel, but it is not easy to understand him, and fatal not
to. You will, as Schopenhauer warned, lose your power to think if you muck
about Marxist upside down hegelianism)
By the way, this conflict starts with Kant, and his asocial sociability, as
brought to fore in his "Idea for a Universal History". You might be
interested in the firestorm of attack and counterattack at me at Kant-l over
this and Robert Wright's Non Zero in which our classical liberal Kantians
closed in silence around the issue. You might compare the two versions of
this in Non Zero and World History and the Eonic Effect (cf.
http://eonix.8m.com/introduc2.htm#Kant's Challenge). The dates of publication
are strange, if not suspicious.
I have to conclude that everyone likes conflict, seems to be good for
business, and a guilt-stopper for drones in Plato's Cave.
The eonic effect shows the resolution of Kant's Challenge, and the way
history bypasses conflict as the process of evolution. The point, if asocial
sociability or generally conflict is seen as the mechanism, then how derive
the opposite, etc... The concordance of Darwinism and economic thinking is of
course close. Here Marxism fails to be able to debrief the question, it would
seem.
There is no doubt that conflict is crucial in history. But a close look at
Kant's version shows his reluctance to close on this answer, and for good
reason.
My pattern of the eonic effect shows independent value macroevolution as the
dynamic, rendering asocial sociability secondary.
Fatal counterevidence. Take a close look at the timing of history.
Finally, natural selection in this form is being promoted as a socially
necessary process in the mystique of theories reapplied as action (The
Oedipus Effect). That was, and should be, what Marx meant by the critique of
political economy.
As to Hegel, his gesture is just that, but to claim the resolution of
philosophy east and west with the dialectic is a bit much. This started with
the refusal to accept the noumenal, phenomenal categories of Kant. The
'solution' is an idealism, now a Marxism materialism.
All I could say it's not surprising Schopenhauer spent his whole life upset
at Hegel.
Conflict anyone? Good for the economy. The winners will have more babies.
It's Non Zero sum.
puke.
Is the left with it?
John Landon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website on eonic effect
http://eonix.8m.com
http://www.eonica.net
