SHORT COMMENTS ON ALIENATION

 

 The concept of alienation is always in danger of stagnating into the vanity of dry theory. In most cases this is all the concept amounts to; an abstract complaint leading to more abstract complaints. Because alienation is a living tragedy to which man is subjected, the concept should do more than stoke the halls of academic theory. Alienation should first lead to class awareness, and then a motivation to strive toward resolution. Alienation should provide incentive for intellectual struggle toward concrete emancipation. But tragically, this has not been the effect of the concept, instead, it has led to academic jangling and abstraction. There is a real world of suffering behind the concept and it's this world which man must strive to change. This is easy to say, but what is the concrete work of refuting alienation? The simple answer is education. Man cannot advocate for his well-being if he doesn't comprehend what well-being means. And here it's not the concept of alienation which must be integrated into the culture, but as is the answer to so many things, the ability of comprehension itself, which is the very essence of what it means to be educated. If man truly desires to fight alienation such resistance requires qualitative democratic action, which presupposes qualitative education.

"Freedom in this field can consist only of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; that they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it." Karl Marx, Oekonomisch-Philosophische Manushripte p. 126. Translation in Karl Marx, Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy, edited by T. B. Bottomore and Maximilien Rubel. Marx, Capital, Vol. III. pp. 954-955. 

 

-

-

-

Dialectic as Multi-Dimensional-Thought

When a foolish man stumbles on reason, in contrast to superstition, he thinks himself to have arrived at the finality and axiom of thought. He takes the Either Or form as a methodological totality, whereby he can discern all the objects of being in transparent completeness. But in truth, such a thinker is deceived by his psychological desire to obtain conceptual mastery over the world. In itself there is nothing wrong with this desire, the problem occurs when the desire traps the thinker in a shallow methodology, when desire's aim lacks world-comprehension. When such a desire results as a yearning for existential quality (social stability through democratic communication) its ethos is absent of violence, but when this desire is akin to a desire for domination, a desire to take revenge and control, both on man and nature, then it has its root in pathology. Such a seeker will always attempt to use knowledge in a malignant way, to suffocate freedom in order to quench his desire for power. Existential maturity and awareness does not seek knowledge for the purpose of power but for reasons of liberation, in order to realize a greater quality for life's experience; its orbit circles a species-consciousness in totality. (Liberation as motive is the opposite of power).

That form of reason which presupposes the error of immediacy's completeness, at the same time it assumes the eternality of the categories which stand before it, is a deceiver far worse, and more dangerous, than any religion. At least one can work within the subjectivity of religion to shift it in the direction of social sanity, but the rigid and fallacious rational form, which presupposes its own absolutism, though this assumption is shattered by the linear and material progression of reality, creates a superficial narrative which eventually leads to the justification of tyranny. (Here violence is posited as the solution to contradiction). [This should in no way be interpreted as an admission of subjectivity, but a criticism against that form of objectivity which is merely a caricature of reality, relying as it does, on the isolation of phenomena and concepts from their material base.]  

Thinkers don't want to think, which is a way of saying, those who fancy themselves thinkers refuse to challenge their thought. Those who advocate critical thinking as a science, often fail to realize the danger and error of their own presuppositions. If the assumptions on which this process stand are lacking the capacity of historical consciousnesses, dialectical analysis, then they will end by creating and validating a superstructure that remains ignorant of the foundation on which it sits. That is to say, categories will be eternalized, what is immediate will be analyzed as though it popped into existence out of nothing, without trace, without past. The material premisses that make such a superstructure possible in the first place, are superior to the superstructure itself, but it's a characteristic of idealism that it's not conscious of its foundational betrayal or ignorance, instead, it continues to multiply abstract delusions, even though they remain materially impossible from the foundation of idealism's material commitments.       

Detecting this fallacy is nearly impossible, in the first instance, because the shallow thinker is satisfied with the results of his superficial thought. The Either Or narrative gives him authority over those who still operate by crude superstition, it divides the world in terms of simple categories that are not actually representative of the world itself. Essentially, it gives him power and a feeling of superiority, safety and comprehension. As a thinker I find this both disgusting and contemptible, and yet it seems to be the common psychological symptom of even the most sophisticated.

Superficial thinkers resent dialectics, precisely because dialectics threaten their power. Dialectics are not a form of malignant thought, precisely because they presuppose the humility of social necessity in order to account for the existence of quality (this includes their own existence). This fact shatters the ego of the individual. It also guarantees that dialectical thinking cannot regress into social violence without negating itself. In order to be a dialectical thinker one must essentially already possess a transcendent psychology. Dialectics, while vastly superior as a form of thought, will not play into the hands of the individual seeking to use them as a weapon... that is to say, the conclusions of dialectical thought explode the unconscious use of thought itself, thereby locating thought and life within a social matrix. This means a dialectical thinker will comprehend the destructive and confused nature of using thought as a means of control. Essentially, dialectical consciousness exposes this as self-negating, but what is more, it manifests the ignorance and pathological automation of that psychology which is driven to seek a form of destructive domination. Dialectics make man aware of the fact that he must work with nature, to work against nature eventually leads to the negation of the species, hence the negation of the self, absolute downfall of the individual. Dialectic thought is not duped by immediacy, but strives to see existence in terms of totality. The thinker who is merely seeking power will never obtain comprehension, he might obtain a superficial power, but this power will never rise to the level of dialectical intelligence. Beyond this scheme of power (which is sustained by violently suppressing contradictions; by actively encouraging naivety) lies a world-historical-comprehension which contextualizes man's existence in such a way as to allow for the demarcation and execution of authentic intelligence. That is to say, dialectical consciousness, sweeping-ontological-awareness, increases man's power of probability toward solution and intelligence within the concrete domain of his existence. Thought is the mechanism by which one obtains multi-dimensional-awareness; dialectics is the procedure through which this awareness is realized.     

The path by which this comprehension is achieved is hyper critical. Axiomatically it always goes after the positive, it probes beyond appearance, it suffers toward understanding by resisting its impulse to comfort, which is to say, it negates the desires of its psychology -- instead of running from contradiction for fear of wounding, it allows itself to be destroyed for the sake of understanding truth.

A good thinker always seeks out contradiction, he is not motivated by a desire to avoid the pain of negation, but runs toward it, knowing that it leads to greater comprehension.

The greatest defect of the nominal thinker (those incapable and unwilling to ponder the premisses of their thought) is his feeling of competence, the feeling of having arrived at, both a climax and finality... over all, this manifests as a feeling of totality. This is why he cannot press into the deep, this is why he cannot transcend his shallow idealism, because his intuition, his psychology, keeps him content in the domain of mediocrity and superficiality. 

Let those who understand comprehend that this has been a rebuke of one-dimensional-thought, of that which calls itself "rational" because it makes use of the word reason; of that which believes itself to be totality because it swings the sword of reason. There is a dimension of comprehension that lies beyond the plain of identity, and that is the domain of difference. Contradiction is the event of understanding. 

-
-
-

SOCRATIC QUESTIONS FOR CRITICAL THINKERS

How did we arrive at the place where it's necessary to apply critical thinking to critical thinkers?

A few questions are in order.

Should we dismiss questions based on our perception of them, or should we apply standards to determine their value? And shouldn't we apply effort to questions that have value?

How do we know when we are being engaged or confronted by a qualitative thinker? And what should we do when we determine that a thinker is qualitative?

If we are being confronted by qualitative thought, shouldn't we pursue it, even if it causes discomfort, even if we dislike the person, even if it comes from a beggar?

Who is qualified to ask questions? What qualifies a person to partake of discourse? Does one have to be institutionally certified in order to ask questions of value? Does institutional certification guarantee dialectical quality?

Are Ad Hominems a legitimate way to evaluate questions?

I don't believe the critical thinkers, I think they are phony, I think they are after authority as opposed to truth.

Am I doing something wrong by asking these questions? Are these questions valid? Should an honest and intelligent thinker engage them? The real tragedy is that they have to be asked at all!

Mature thinkers should be able to engage in discourse on the basis of substance, it should not be a matter of meeting superficial criteria in order to qualify for conversation.  

What do so many fear? Is it not, having their authority contradicted, having to start over from scratch, losing their idealistic hold on the world? But how can an academic start from scratch when they are told what to believe, instead of being taught how to think? In truth, everyone fears the thinker because his questions shatter their delusions.

To some we are not allowed to ask questions, this is their authoritarian criteria, their academic snobbery, their tyrannical and dehumanizing anti-intellectualism. At whom should a thinker direct his questions? Surely at those who import to be thinkers and intellectuals? Don't intellectuals enter into a rational arena, of the which, they don't have the right to exit without some kind of justification?

What indeed, does it mean to dismiss questions? Can one be a good thinker and evade valid questions?

If I want to be a good thinker, am I not bound by the authority and validity of the question?

If one says my questions are foolish, can they substantiate this claim, or is it just a shallow and fallacious way of avoiding the question, a way to preserve one's delusional self-image as a thinker?

In truth, I am tired of the evasion of intellectuals. I don't understand why they flee from the prospect of refutation, when it remains vital to the expansion of knowledge? This tells me they are not after truth but some kind of social or psychological validation. But their psychology is very unlikely to discern this defect, precisely because their education has conditioned them to presuppose their sufficiency and expertise. Surely this is backward, shouldn't their ability to engage questions (to think qualitatively) be the determining factor of their intellectual sufficiency?

I would prefer not to have to ask these questions, I would prefer to move on with the discourse of intelligence, but man's stupidity and ego will not allow it. In our time it has become necessary to preempt the thinker against the resistance of his own psychology. That this is required, merely to begin the conversation, is a heartbreaking disappointment that gives testimony to the lack of maturity and intelligence of our species.

Where are the thinkers who care about the qualitative development of thought?


-
-
-

THE POLEMICS OF NEGATIVE DIALECTICS

Negative Dialectics teaches us that the consciousness of life is located within a subconscious matrix. This means reality seems false, while what is false, seems like reality. (Adorno called this "the abstract monotony of the administered world").*  When it comes to communication this means the Negative Dialectician sounds like a mad man, a conspiracy theorist, because his view of the world is made up of all that contradicts the artificial. He appears to conformists, and all that are socially programmed, as one who is "out of touch with reality." This is the impression his analysis of the world gives those who live in the world, who accept what is fabricated, as though it comprised totality.

To resist the false discourse of administered reality, to slice through it in search of what contradicts it, to find its inconsistencies and paradoxes, is to level a wound on those who rely on it for stability. Psychology tells us that this is experienced as a violent assault. To challenge an individual's cherished beliefs is to disrespect their person (this is the silent precept the world lives by). And yet resistance is necessary to get at the truth. The categories of administered reality will not simply fade or dissolve, and this is because they are innovated in response to reality itself, in most cases, they need to be exploded through polemical confrontation, to die the death of self-negation. This procedure doesn't have to be crude or adolescent, it should not be driven by the ego's desire to escape the pain of its fragility. The nature of the universal is such that it carries its own weight, it merely needs to be brought into collision with what is hallow, its weight will crush the lie, the fraction cannot stand in the presence of the whole. But here we are not speaking of the universal in terms of identity, as all forms of vulgar idealism make it out to be; here we are speaking of the universal as that of "difference," the attribute discovered by Hegel. This is an exceedingly hard reality to fathom, that the universal is the contradiction, that the universal is continuous transformation; truth is the endless repetition of critique. Those who seek to make it static fear reality, their agenda is not to understand it but to suppress it, to live off the false capital of their delusions. 

The opposite extreme is equally false, those who deduce from this fact, a universal subjectivity, are equally confused. Negative Dialectics walks between the extremes at the same time it rejects their liquidity, not because Negative Dialectics presumes to play a game, but because Negative Dialectics strives to be true to the universal form, that of "difference." Difference as concrete, is a verdict that demands the betrayal of itself in order to be true to itself. What many would here call mad, because they strive for the validation of an idealistic identity, an identity that brings them comfort against reality, which is to say, "contradiction," is itself a form of genius brought to consciousness as a tool of thought. The power of this thought, has of yet, never been implemented into the social consciousness of the species. Because of this man suffers under the error of his coherentism, saying he fears reality is the same as saying he fears contradiction.

Negative Dialectics, in polemical form, amounts to nuclear destruction of all that demands authority for itself as the positive. Those who experience the heat of its criticism are deeply offended by it. For not only does it shatter the myth of the presented world, but it destroys the premisses on which the Self is erected. In truth, Negative Dialectics is a forbidden form, it is forbidden by the shallowness of man's psychology. Man's psychological need is for comfort, he needs to see himself as the pinnacle of the universe. This is the essence of his ideological delusion. To progress against delusion, idealism, by means of Negative Dialectics, is to proceed against the human psyche as a heretic. Woe to those who shatter pragmatic narratives!

Those who contradict the status quo are labeled "delusional." It's easier to attack the messenger than it is to deal with his contradictions. This allows comfort to be maintained. The fearful listener is most tempted to declare that the dialectical critic is merely posturing in the realm of abstraction, that his words are but empty concepts having no bearing on reality, and yet, this charge of idealism, is actually the crime of the one making the claim! The Matrix in which the idealist lives is a construct of abstraction aspiring to the confusion of its concretion. The idealist's feelings of safety amount to blank concepts void of existence, theological images, they merely serve the purpose of comfort, validation through the edifice of mass delusion.

Dialectics entails an understanding of objections through the history of the object's concretion. And neither is the comprehension of the object's concretion isolated from the causality of the world into which it is born. As thought reflects on the object, the unfolding nature of the object reflects back to thought, thus transforming thought, shaping it in terms of Being's transformative nature, so it can organically revise itself, from the premise of concretion, to act more intelligently on the very object it contemplates. This is the symbiotic union of Dialectics, between thought and the object of its gaze. It is the secret of Dialectic's power when it comes to comprehending reality. As the object fluctuates, Dialectics allows itself to be altered by the object, it then reaches back toward the object with greater awareness and intelligence. The fact that Dialectics is informed, by the concretion of the object, is what gives it the power to both defy and crush the delusions of idealism. The mother of Dialectics is not the concept, but the nature of matter itself, which is to say, not the abstract microcosm, but the dimension at which man breathes and lives. This is the dimension which exercises authority over the quality of life. This is the domain that matters, the dimension which must be understood, whose contradictions must be resolved so long as man lacks the power to transcend this domain. Perhaps one day this will be possible, but until that day man must face the objective forces which threaten to crush him, which threaten to wither the social attributes of intelligence and quality.                     

In the first instance, it's nearly impossible to proceed in social terms through means of Negative Dialectics. In society, Dialectics occupy the place of the Demonic. Adorno asked if Negative Dialectics was even possible, this is an easy question, a more difficult question is whether its discourse will be tolerated? The discourse of Dialectics must run its course, in time, in order to have its effect, if thwarted, Negative Dialectics become ineffective. This is why all Dialectics presuppose the intelligence of the democratic form. Barbarism has never permitted the fruit of qualitative sophistication, most specifically against the insecurity of its own dogmas. Regressing to the level of animal violence, it fruitlessly seeks to resolve contradiction through means of violence. When violence is adopted as the intelligence of resolution, the species negates the only authentic hope it has ever possessed, that of thought. Once one has journeyed through the dark realm of negation, concrete hope (as opposed to so much groundless idealism) means everything! That it has an objective existence is itself the most profound truth of comfort. The probability of hope is one of the promises of Dialectics.  

The polemics of Dialectic work within the domain of contradiction, instead of slicing off the paradox of the material form, the contradiction of Being, Dialectics allow the object to be itself, to unfold in negation, it doesn't try to make the object conform to its ideal. This organic approach to the world has the high benefit of yielding concrete-resolutions-of-material-intelligence. This exceedingly rare power, that comes to us through Dialectic thought, cannot be emphasized enough. The resolution-component of Dialectics is only part of the value of Dialectics. The other power it offers man is that of comprehension, understanding a world unfolding in negation. Reality always presents itself as the self-justifying-positive, this is the ontology of the moment, negation is that which transcends time in order to comprehend being. Without negation man is deceived by appearance, by the instance of the image.            

In order to rescue ourselves from our own stupidity negation is necessary. Nothing is more important. A thinker who understands this must realize that this begins with a Dialectical comprehension of Self. As we have said before: Man cannot see himself by looking in the mirror. The polemic of Negative Dialectics begins with a polemic against the appearance of Self, against every positive form projected by the ego. Only those who can suffer the defeat of the image they love, the death of every conceptual idol of comfort, will be able to wield the tool of Dialectic.                     

      

                
*Negative Dialectics, Introduction, Section 3. Reality and Dialectics, translation by Christian Thorne  


-
-

SHORT COMMENTS ON HEGEL'S SHORTER LOGIC

"...that in point of time the mind makes general images of objects, long before it makes notions of them, and that it is only through these mental images, and by recourse to them, that the thinking mind rises to know and comprehend thinkingly." Hegel, Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, Introduction, Paragraph.1


Here Hegel has accurately explicated the linear order of thought's cognition. Images are the foundation of thought's ascent to understanding. Thought is the thing that develops our understanding of the image. To rise to the stage of knowing something, "thinkingly," is to exercise the criticism of thought against the simplicity of the image. This entails a kind of deconstruction and contextualization of the object. Almost nothing is as important as context. The more shallow this stream the more pollutants one will draw from the water, which is to say, thought will fail to comprehend the object which stands before it. This failure will result in the stultification of thought's power against the tyranny, and confused force, of the object. We say, 'confused force of the object,' as a reference to the object's motion, undirected by intelligence. Shallow context is the secret to idealism's abstract supremacy. Dialectical Context, which is historically broad, striving to function outside the boundaries of space and time, is by its nature comprehensive, not desiring to be deceived by the object's appearance and fictional isolation. Dialectical Context is the force which shatters the abstract tyranny of idealism.

"... with the rise of this thinking study of things, it soon becomes evident that thought will be satisfied with nothing short of showing the necessity of its facts, of demonstrating the existence of its objects, as well as their nature and qualities." Ibid.

This implies that polemics is the need of thought, without polemics thought is incomplete. Polemics is the consummation of thought's labor against the error of the image, the point at which it crystallizes itself against the lie of appearance. The satisfaction of thought is not merely to declare itself, as is the contentment of error, but to distinguish itself from that which is false, from that which tries to assert itself as the authority of being. Polemics seek to recover this authority, to align it with its proper object, to expose the emptiness of the claim where it lacks substance. In short, thought seeks to comprehend the objects that come before it. Polemics seek, not only to shatter the false image, but also to liberate understanding from delusive impressions induced by the image. The true force of Polemics is the concretion of Dialectical Context. Polemics wield this context against the force of the lie, through polemics, the tyranny of the moment and error of the image, are liberated from their confinement and stagnation. The result is not only greater comprehension, but a greater power of resolution.

-
-
-

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVASION OF CONTRADICTION

In most cases intellectual evasion is an admission that one knows their beliefs are indefensible, it's a manifestation that the ego is working to prevent the refutation of cherished delusions. Rare is the seeker who wants to know the truth, most are merely seeking comfort.

I have never quite understood the authenticity of the thinker who establishes a world of theories and then refuses to discuss them with other competent thinkers. In the sphere of academia competence in dialogue is lacking, there it has morphed into a conversation about specialized abstractions that pertain to the emphasis of the academy. The academic ego is always trying to outdo the past and present, to surpass one's colleagues so as to prove one's value. This competition is pathological, and largely played out in terms of the subconscious, nevertheless it detracts from the quality of dialogue. No academic will admit to this defect. In the first instance, an institutional scholar loves the feeling of being able to go over the common man's head; specialized abstraction makes him feel superior, more important, because of this, "his life matters." How could he possibly allow the concepts which provide him with existential security, and a feeling of superiority, to come into collision with hostile polemics? (Never mind the fact that refutation rids us of error and often increases our existential power). But the academic cannot see through the fog of his own psychological neediness. He is altogether lacking integrity and courage as a thinker. This is why he merely stays within the boundaries of those structures that have been culturally fused with value.

On many occasion I have tried to engage academics, and in almost every instance, they have hid behind their credentials, behind superficial summaries. Seldom, if ever, have I met a man or woman of the institution that was actually capable of thought. They are capable of giving summaries, this is the extent of their power, but ask them to engage in thoughtful dialogue and they fall apart, they quickly seek to evade. (In the most disappointing cases they contrive an ad hominem against the challenger, telling themselves that he or she has nothing relevant to say because he or she is not established by, and in, the institution). Of course, they are never conscious that this maneuver is a fallacy, they are not conscious that it functions to shield them from truths that might shatter their delusions. Like all primitive psychology, it's a defense mechanism employed to avoid the pain of reality.

When a man or woman makes a valid point, there is no way a thinker concerned with quality, will be able to suppress it. An honest thinker is always looking for greater clarification, for a deeper understanding of reality. A thinker concerned with quality is not merely after social validation, he's after existential quality. This distinction matters. Existential progress is important because the conditions of life are inherently oppressive, they are literally hostile to the quality of life itself.

The act of evading the probability of a refutation is a form of psychological defense. If one desires to be a thinker of quality, evasion itself must be overcome and refuted. How can we not be suspicious of the man or woman who desires to suppress the opposition, insisting that their one-sided-picture tells the whole story? The fact that we fear the legitimate contrary is merely proof that we are insecure about our own position, but more than this, it means we adopt it and assert it for reasons of power, the psychological need to feel important, a craving for authority. ...and what lies behind this fragile psychology, which gives itself away through its insecurity toward dialogue? indeed, it must demonize dialogue precisely because it fears its fragility will be discovered in the contradiction. All in all the thinker fears the death of his beloved thought, but if he desires truth above power, then he must let it die. 

However, there is also a context in which evasion, so far from being anti-intellectual, is in fact, an affirmation of intelligence. We do not have the time to heed every objection, and we must face reality, some objections are ignorant and foolish. Those objections which are not competent enough to understand themselves are very likely to amount to a waste of time for the honest thinker. They are striving to validate some craving in their psychology, as opposed to a more comprehensive understanding of reality. In the case where the thinker is rejecting stupidity, here he cannot rightly be charged with evasion. Questions that cannot legitimate their existential value, pedantic exercises in formality, do not warrant serious consideration. To engage some objections is to manifest that one is lacking intelligence. This is precisely because value is not equal. There are indeed degrees of value. This is the unspoken existential commitment of every human that has ever lived. To deny it is merely to be ignorant.

As a thinker I reserve the right to ignore and reject the presumption of value where value is lacking. And to those who want to play a game of semantics, let them try to forgo the charge of stupidity, for this is something none can do. He that denies the existence of stupidity has forfeited his right to protest or complain, he has forfeited the discernment whereby he might demarcate value. If nothing is stupid then all things must be equal. However, this is an impossible premise by which to live, and those who claim it for themselves are nothing more than ignorant hypocrites. Some things are stupid! Some things are foolish! Try to deny it and the thinker merely destroys himself. 

-
-
-

Thought as the Negative: A Commentary on Adorno's Negative Dialectics

"To think, is, already in itself, and above all particular content, negation, resistance against what is imposed on it... If ideology encourages thought more than ever to wax in positivity, then it slyly registers the fact that precisely this would be contrary to thinking and that it requires the friendly word of advice from social authority, in order to accustom it to positivity. The effort which is implied in the concept of thinking itself, as the counterpart to the passive intuition, is already negative, the rejection of the overweening demand of bowing to everything immediate." Adorno, Negative Dialectics, Introduction, Portrayal [Darstellung] pg. 29-31, Translation Dennis Redmond 2001

Adorno is here dealing with the presuppositions which make up the substance of thought. The effort which comes before thought has already committed itself to a particular disposition regarding its investigation of conceptual and material content. That is to say, it launches out in an attempt at understanding (not merely validating what appears). Thought, as a form of resistance, has already assumed to itself the value of negativity against the facade of the positive. We say facade because the positive imposes itself on the subject, it demands validation for its appearance-summary-of-reality, and always on its own terms.

Controlling the conditions that control the quality of thought is the secret to rendering thought powerless. Ideology knows this intuitively. What thought knows intuitively is the tyranny and danger of the positive.     
 
The fact that ideology "encourages thought to positivity" (it would be difficult to evidence examples of ideology encouraging its own self-negation through an exercise of the negative) is itself proof of the nature of thought (i.e. negativity). And here we can almost think of it as the antithesis to ideology, which amounts to a form of control through the proliferation of mindlessness; ideology is a culture of mindlessness.

That ideology cannot establish its own commands to positivity, because it lacks the tool of thinking, because it's contrary to the procedure of thought, is the reason why ideology must make use of authority. How then is positivity, which is intellectually stultifying, injected into culture, into the individual: by means of authority, both blunt and sly. This means thwarting the qualitative nature of education. Through this process of intellectual weakening and oppression the masses are deprived of the ability to think, zero development and zero realization, only the automated, mindless self, is allowed to exist. Obedience, passed off as intelligence and moral accomplishment, becomes the atmosphere that results from educational deprivation. Dialectical consciousness, taught liberally among the masses, is the only guarantee for a qualitative democracy. It alone should be the emphasis of revolution.

The desire which motivates the effort for thought is precisely a desire for freedom. "Passive intuition" is the enemy of freedom insofar as it lacks dialectical reflection on all it feels itself to comprehend. What appears, though crude and incomplete, echos in our psyche as totality. Passive intuition lacks the resources to emancipate itself from the tyranny and error of the immediate. It's only when thought inserts itself between the blades of consciousness that the self is liberated from the error of its own impressions and automations.

To move in the direction of thought is to call on the value of the negative to save one from the tyranny of the positive. But this is precisely the tyranny we cannot detect; the positive does not present itself as the enemy, it reflects no peril, it's only when we probe beyond the surface that we discover its oppression as a form of subconscious stupidity, as a form of bondage, fallaciously interpreted as freedom.

The fact that we resist the negative so vehemently is partly motivated from a psychological need and craving for power, for social validation. The positive offers a swift but shallow reward, and yet, it cannot stand on its own feet. In material reality it takes the form of authoritarian assertion, rootless slogans, precisely because more thoughtful articulation, intellectual resistance, would shatter its image. If the subject wants to retain the power he inherits from this facade, he must not allow it to be cross examined. Thought is the enemy of the self without substance, a demon to those who fear the face of reality, a light to those whose power comes from darkness.

Passage through the turmoil of thought, against the fabrication of administered reality, while it destroys the comfort generated by the social matrix of artificial being, it offers hope in the probability of solutions, most specifically, human suffering caused by social ignorance, precisely because it deals with reality as opposed to suppressing it behind a wall of wishful projections (the legacy of idealism). The monological world of the positive cannot pass through contradiction, it cannot extend itself beyond its own assertions (which amount to fairy-tale-yearning-delusions seeking relief at any cost), any hope it finds is a lie it manufactures for itself in the name of comfort. To stand against comfort is both the discipline and integrity of the thinker. At first sight this seems counterproductive, self obliterating, but eventually one learns to create light in the darkness, one learns to see where confusion has sabotaged quality, one gains the ability to self correct (one learns where not to place one's emphasis); one learns how to use thought against the horrors and blunders of stupidity, but above all, if there is hope to be found, one learns not only to see it, to locate it within the context of material existence, but also to produce it. Thought is not in and of itself totality, it is not magic, but it is the closest thing we have to magic, and further, it's the only tool we possess which can truly offer a probability of quality, the only tool which carries the promise of transcendence.

Let this serve as the summary for Negative Dialectics: man cannot see himself by looking in the mirror.

Appearance, more often than not, serves to mask reality, to insulate us from its horror, to protect us from the thing our psyche fears. We are fragile creatures floating on a hostile sphere in the middle of space. And yet we face no greater danger than the danger we pose to ourselves. "Fear not the beast of the field, fear the beast in man!" If our problems will be corrected they must be corrected at the same point they're generated, man's stupidity, is psychological.

-
-
-

THE BURDEN OF NEGATIVE DIALECTICS

"Everything different will appear divergent, dissonant, negative, as long as consciousness is compelled, by its very formation, to press towards identity, as long, that is, as consciousness measures against its claim to totality anything not identical to it. Dialectics holds this up to consciousness as a contradiction." Adorno, Negative Dialectics, Introduction, Section 2, "Dialectics Not as Standpoint," Translation by Christian Thorne and Matthias Menda*

Psychologically speaking, this is the situation in which we all find ourselves. Divergence from the familiar has to be learned, it will not occur naturally, precisely because of the ego. The conclusion that primitive, monological identity draws, is that what is different is "immoral," "unintelligent" or "lacking" in value, not being able to discern the authentic dialectical quality that lies beneath appearance. There is a danger of missing the future (of missing a more advanced quality), we must not fool ourselves, thinking we are immune from this simplicity... quite the opposite. When higher quality presents itself to us, it will likely transcend the categories of the familiar, which will make it suspect, by default our psychology will work to condemn it. Advanced quality has an advanced set of presuppositions, it proceeds from the foundation of a higher consciousness, that of totality. That something assaults my common sense is not proof (as our intuition would have us believe) that it is therefore, automatically lacking in value. To be carried higher, we must be capable of seeing the stupidity we mistake for intelligence. We must be able to condemn it by standards that transcend the presuppositions that led us to validate its quality in the first place. But woe to those who dare to think in terms of dialectics:

"Anyone who submits to dialectical discipline will, no doubt, pay a bitter sacrifice in the qualitative variety of experience. The dialectical impoverishment of experience, however, so scandalous to hale and hearty opinion, is ultimately in keeping with the abstract monotony of the administered world. The agony of dialectics is agony over that world, raised to a concept." Adorno, Negative Dialectics, Introduction, Section 3, "Reality and Dialectics" 

Those who are mindlessly convinced by the administered world, taking on the discipline of dialectical thought, they are inevitably bound to lose the delusion of its comforts. Beyond this psychological sacrifice, there is also a social sacrifice; those who expose delusions are persecuted by those who love them. To take upon oneself the discipline of dialectical thought, is in some sense, masochistic. Is it not better to divide the world in terms of black and white logic, thereby reducing everything to simplicity? What is the motivation, why should a thinker take this burden upon themselves, why shatter one's sense of well being? The answer is because only dialectics offers the probability of greater comprehension, thereby leading to more powerful solutions. The answer is because of the kind of power dialectics offers man, as a tool by which to shape, the quality of his existence in terms of transcendent intelligence.
   



*https://sites.williams.edu/cthorne/theodor-adorno-negative-dialectics/

-
-
-

ADORNO ON IDEOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY

"The magnetic power which ideologies exert over human beings, while they have become entirely threadbare, is to be explained beyond psychology, in the objectively determined decay of logical evidence as such." Adorno, Minima Moralia para.71

If Adorno is here correct, it means psychology is conditioned by logical considerations (as that logic interprets the objects presented to it). To "decay" the authority of "logical evidence" means to poison the well against it so that it no longer has any bearing on psychological conclusions. Even if evidence is presented to the psyche that evidence is rendered irrelevant a priori, which is to say, ideology eradicates resistance by preconditioning the psyche against relevant opposition, against that which has the power to obliterate it. In this way ideology establishes itself without ever having to justify itself.  

Pre-psychological conditioning has to do with environment, but there is another sense in which it has to do with biology. It seems Adorno here speaks of it, as to what psychology will permit in terms of influence. The power ideology exerts over human beings in this sense, is explained by its control over the categories that condition judgment: ideology vitiates to condition the categories which condition everything else.

If the decay of "logical evidence" is what accounts for the "magnetic power" of ideology over humans (and not psychology) then this facet is a foundation which preconditions psychology. It is not "the decay of logic," but the preconditioing of the human psyche (poisoning of the well) against the objective consideration of logical evidence... in other words, thought is rendered irrelevant, incapable, deceptive, untrustworthy, suspect, before it even has the chance to exercise itself as thought, as critique, as cross examination of appearance, before it even begins to ponder the evidence, be it conceptual or concrete. 

..."logical evidence" is a reference to polemical thought which refutes the authoritarian premisses of ideology. If this process of thinking is not permitted, because ideology has preconditioned psychology, then no matter how shallow or easily refuted, ideology will remain without the possibility of falsification, because the preconditioning will not permit the process of thought.

"The castration of perception, however, by a controlling authority, which refuses it any desiring anticipation, thereby compels it into the schema of the powerless repetition of what is already familiar. That nothing more is actually allowed to be seen, amounts to the sacrifice of the intellect." Minima Moralia, para.79       

-
-
-

DEMOCRACY AND EDUCATION

"...stupidity is... [not a]... natural quality, but something socially produced and socially amplified." Adorno, Minima Moralia, paragraph 69.

In a democratic system what does it mean when the masses cannot comprehend multi-layer thought? This would imply that one could neither comprehend themselves or society, it would imply that one was defenseless against emotional premisses that give the appearance of totality. It would imply the threat of barbarism in the form of tyranny against culture, against a sophistication which remains necessary for the realization of quality (sophistication which is necessary in order to transcend the oppressive attributes of one's psychology, the ego's primitive defenses of self deception).   

A society without abstract capacity is one that can only advance by hard experience. This is the slowest path to progress, the slowest way to learn. It means that society cannot fathom the danger of totalitarian or fascist polices, but must directly experience the violent outcome of these ideologies. Only after many atrocities have occurred, only after death, suffering, and systematic violence have become common place, only then do the masses learn to resist, only then do they possess the intelligence to realize the danger. All in all this is a manifestation of social stupidity, a sure sign that the masses have been repressed and deprived of education. The entire hope for qualitative democracy is a matter of qualitative education.  

-
-
-  

A SHORT NOTE ON TYRANNY

There is a sense in which tyranny has become abstract... in this case, how does one fight a phantom? The first task is to demarcate the questions that matter... to a species totally captivated by ego this is itself a revolutionary task, but we never think of it this way. Man is always asking the wrong questions, specifically those that cater to the vanity of his ego. This psychology is so subtle that nearly all miss it... the result is that the ability to ask the right questions (questions that pertain to the objectivity of value) is deformed throughout the species. What man has is confusion mistaken for value, a destructive subjectivity which validates itself through mere assertion. Abstract tyranny hides itself behind the abstraction, this makes it exceedingly difficult to resist and overcome, precisely because it must first be identified within the intellectual domain. Fighting abstract tyranny, at the point of its concrete manifestation can be futile, because it has its origin in the ideology of false values.

-
-
-

INTELLECTUAL FORM IN LIGHT OF MORTALITY

There is a danger here: humans uncritically replicate the intellectual forms to which they have been exposed: (styles of writing, speaking, thinking).

What does this mean? No one stops to ask the question as to whether or not the form matters, whether the form is intelligent given the mortiferous context of our existence. Replication, by its very nature, is mindless, it is not a self-conscious act. It tries to mimic and copy what it sees, to reproduce what came before. This would be fine if thought preceded the act of replication, thereby discerning existential value in the form, thus justifying its mimicry. But this is not what takes place, instead value is presumed through social inheritance, it becomes a kind of psychological automation.

I have a difficult time with academics, precisely because they tend to assume the intelligence of the forms they replicate, tend to declare the absence of value for those forms which do not adhere to the cult of their tradition. I am not anti-intellectual, but this does not mean I validate all that calls itself intellectual, there is a limit to the use of words. Do not be deceived, stupidity can derive from a form that presents itself as intellectual, all that is required for this to occur is for man to expend the energy of his mind on the wrong emphasis; all that is required is the expression of vanity over that of existential substance.

(The way to reduce complexity while retaining a degree of intellectual quality is to make sure simplicity is the result of necessary sophistication, a valid deduction). 
      
What is always smashing up against form is existence, the objectivity of the mortal clock, this contextualizes everything!

To those who understand what I say, it is no small revelation to realize that many of the forms we imitate, are not in fact, intelligent, more often than not, they are vain redundancies, replicated for the sake of proving value to oneself and others, they do not seek to obtain mastery over the self and the world, they are an attempt to secure social validation or a psychological affirmation of self-value, what they lack is the awareness and motive of existential value. In this sense there is something unconsciously theatrical in our intellectual forms.

What should we do with this revelation? The answer is strive for the cultivation of intelligent forms, forms that consciously resist mindless replication. The answer is to strive for the cultivation of forms that exude existential quality. The mortal clock does not permit us to traverse infinity, therefore we must be wise!


-
-

THE MEANING OF LIFE IS CONCRETE NOT ABSTRACT

"The basic modality of . . . collective control must be power over nature and mastery over our productive capacities and economic life, a control exercised through science, technology, and politics. Collective productive activities... are the kernel of a meaningful life. Furthermore, in a properly constituted economic and political order, the very distinction between instrumental and non-instrumental action can be broken down. . . . In a society in which work and collective social life was sufficiently satisfying, one might think, the very question of the “meaning of life” would not arise. The very fact that this question does arise for a particular person in a particular society is a sign that that question for that person (in that society) has no answer. “The meaning of life” ought not to be reified. To know “the meaning of life” does not mean to know any possible discursive answer that can be given to questions about life. Questions ostensibly about “the meaning of life” are really about whether the social processes are satisfactory or whether certain individuals have a certain capacity or skill, whether they “know how” to lead a life of a certain kind, and they exhibit this knowledge in the only way such knowledge can be exhibited: by actually leading such a life." Raymond Geuss, "World without Why," 101–2.  Princeton University Press 2016

 
It is true that "collective control," over the attributes which account for life's quality, is absolutely necessary to the quality of life itself. However, control over these attributes is not a guarantee of quality.... the conscious quality of the collective must precede that of control, and the surest guarantee of this quality is quality in education. It is education and not revolution which offers the greatest assurance of hope for the realization of a good society, a society which contains the essential, material prerequisites, for the qualitative cultivation and sustainability of life itself. 

Education is the guarantor of knowledge, and knowledge is the basis (the power) by which the energy of life can be directed intelligently toward that of quality. Without a knowledge of how to materialize quality no quality can be had. Further, differentiating quality from rusticity requires a sober, critical capacity within the material context of life.                 

The meaning of life doesn't hinge on the justification of a formal syllogism impervious to all contradiction, but on the social conditions of life itself. "By actually leading such a life," which is contrasted with reification (abstraction misrepresented as the concrete), grasping at idealism. In short, the meaning of life is a matter of the quality of material conditions and these conditions hinge on the intelligence of material processes, first and foremost the process of education, followed by democratic production and democratic control.

-
-
-